Commercial and chancery barrister Aaron Mayers joined 3PB in 2021. He has already developed an impressive commercial and property litigation portfolio, whilst building a strong rapport with a number of clients in London and throughout the Western Circuit.
Aaron graduated with a First Class Law degree, before obtaining a BPTC qualification and being called to the Bar in 2018. Aaron is also an ADR-ODR qualified civil mediator.
Before commencing pupillage with 3PB in 2020, Aaron worked within the commercial litigation team at Signature Litigation in London and also with Baker & Partners in Jersey (Channel Islands). His work was particularly focused on developing litigation strategy and providing commercially viable advice in complex and high-value commercial and trusts disputes. As a result, Aaron gained experience in advising and representing businesses in different jurisdictions in a wide range of trusts and contractual matters. Aaron has an acute awareness and understanding of the needs of solicitors and clients, and maintains a strong knowledge of offshore and multi-jurisdictional dispute handling and case law.
Aaron also has experience working in the charities sector and holds a number of Trustee and Advisory Board positions. He is currently a Trustee and Executive Board member at Bridging the Bar, a charity dedicated to promoting equality of opportunity in the legal profession.
In his spare time, Aaron enjoys travelling, investing, reading and playing football.
Recent experience
Some of Aaron’s recent cases include:
Successfully appealing two orders on behalf of a UAE-based bank in a debt recovery dispute.
Successfully defending an international car manufacturer in relation to a claim for a defective vehicle under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Obtaining a strike out and summary judgment application on behalf of a UK-based international consumer technology manufacturer.
Obtaining judgment and costs on behalf of a residential freeholder in a construction dispute.
Obtaining judgment and P36 costs in a contractual dispute on behalf of a national media publishing company.
Property and estates
Aaron has a wide range of experience in both residential and commercial property disputes. His understanding of the issues which typically affect both landlords and tenants enables him to provide solutions-oriented and commercially viable advice whilst collaborating with his clients.
In recent months, Aaron’s property practice has been focused on the following areas:
- Nuisance
- Trespass
- Easements
- Breach of covenant
- Commercial and residential landlord and tenant disputes
- Possession hearings.
Current cases:
• Acting for a commercial leaseholder in a dispute pertaining to leasehold enfranchisement.
• Advising and drafting pleadings for a commercial leaseholder in relation to a claim for breach of
covenant and defective premises.
• Advising and drafting Particulars of Claim for a residential landlord in a claim for rent arrears and
property damage.
• Advising a residential freeholder in a claim for an injunction and non-pecuniary damages in relation to
nuisance and trespass.
• Numerous possessions hearings under sections 8 and 21 of the Housing Act 1998.
Recent cases:
• Successfully acting for the administrators of an estate in possession proceedings concerning estate
property.
• Advising residential freeholders in relation to a dispute involving excessive user and trespass.
• Advising and drafting a Defence and Counterclaim on behalf of a commercial leaseholder and
guarantor in a claim involving rent arrears and breach of covenant.
• Drafting pleadings for a residential freeholder in a dispute with a real estate development firm
involving trespass to land.
• Advising and drafting pleadings in relation to several residential freeholders and leaseholders in
disputes involving trespass, nuisance and harassment.
Commercial
Aaron has a wide range of experience in commercial disputes. His client focused approach enables him to
provide accurate and commercially viable advice whilst collaborating with his clients. He accepts instructions to
provide advice, draft pleadings and represent clients in litigation and mediation.
In recent months, Aaron’s commercial practice has been focused on the following areas:
- Contractual disputes
- Debt recovery
- Consumer goods disputes
- Supply of goods and services disputes
- Various interim applications
Aaron’s current casework includes:
• Acting for a construction sole trader in a contractual dispute concerning the Consumer Rights Act
2015.
• Advising and drafting pleadings for a homeowner in a contractual dispute with a construction company
pertaining to off-premises selling.
• Advising and drafting pleadings in relation to a claim under the Sale of Goods and Services Act 1982
pertaining to services provided by a vehicle garage.
• Advising and drafting pleadings in a claim under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 pertaining to the
purchase of multiple defective caravans.
• Advising and drafting pleadings for a shipping company in a dispute involving contractual liabilities as
well as personal injury.
Some of Aaron’s recent cases include:
• Successfully appealing two orders on behalf of a UAE-based bank in a debt recovery dispute.
• Successfully defending an international car manufacturer in relation to a claim for a defective vehicle
under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
• Obtaining a strike out and summary judgment application on behalf of a n international consumer
technology manufacturer.
• Obtaining judgment and costs on behalf of a residential freeholder in a construction dispute.
• Obtaining judgment and P36 costs in a contractual dispute on behalf of a national media publishing
company.
Chambers of David Berkley KC
3pb.co.uk 3pb.co.ukBarristers
Aaron is a commercial and insolvency barrister based in 3PB's Birmingham office but also working across all 3PB locations.
After being called to the bar in 2015, Aaron worked as a paralegal at law firm Shoosmiths LLP, before subsequently being offered a training contract with the firm. He gained experience in a number of practice areas including real estate, commercial litigation, corporate and restructuring and insolvency. During his commercial litigation seat, Aaron was involved on a range of commercial disputes including phone hacking, employment disputes, contract claims and an international arbitration.
Aaron qualified as a solicitor in 2020 into a busy, Tier 1 insolvency team (Legal 500). Aaron brings with him extensive contentious restructuring and insolvency experience, including administration appointments and extensions, disclaimers of leasehold estates, security and retention of title claims and directors’ duties. As a solicitor, Aaron also assisted with and prepared many Court applications.
After gaining his Higher Rights of Audience (Civil Proceedings), Aaron joined the Birmingham office of international law firm DWF LLP as a solicitor-advocate and later as an employed barrister. As an advocate, Aaron has already appeared in over 300 hearings including a wide range of applications and fast track trials. Aaron is regularly instructed to appear in the High Court and County Court at all stages of proceedings, from pre-action advice, interlocutory hearings and through to trial.
Aaron is a passionate and determined barrister who understands, first-hand, the challenges and demands faced by solicitors, and who uses his own personal experience to prioritise providing excellent client care.
Outside of work, Aaron enjoys cycling and following his beloved West Bromwich Albion football team across the country, albeit seldom with success! Aaron is also a school governor where he chairs the health and safety committee.
Commercial
Aaron Luxton is a busy member of the 3PB commercial team and advises both claimants and defendants on a range of finance litigation, contractual and commercial matters.
Recent examples include
Advising a consumer on prospects of a claim under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in relation to a defective vehicle. Aaron was also later instructed to settle pleadings for the same matter.
Acting for a landlord in recovering unpaid rent. Aaron secured a judgment for the client which included unpaid rent, interest and contractual costs on the small claims track.
Appearing for a vehicle manufacturer in securing a strike out of a matter which had been brought against the incorrect entity.
Advising on settlement in section 75 connected lender liability matter.
Advising on limitation at a pre-action stage in relation to a series of contractual breaches.
Appearing at trial on various motor finance ‘secret commission’ matters.
Acting for a trade wholesaler in recovering outstanding monies due under a personal guarantee. Aaron secured a judgment for the client which included the outstanding balance, interest and contractual costs on the small claims track.
Appearing for a bank in its application to set aside judgment obtained by default.
Successfully securing the dismissal of a claim whilst acting for an insurer at trial in relation to an allegedly mis-sold investment product.
Advising a University in relation to a claim brought by a former student for loss of opportunity and career set back.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Aaron Luxton brings with him extensive contentious restructuring and insolvency experience, including administration appointments and extensions, disclaimers of leasehold estates, security and retention of title claims and directors’ duties from his time as a solicitor.
Aaron regularly appears in the High Court in relation to winding up petitions, acting for both creditors and debtors. Aaron also represents creditors and debtors in relation to statutory demands, restraining the advertisement of petitions, setting aside statutory demands and bankruptcy proceedings.
Recent examples of work include:
Securing the set aside of statutory demands for individuals being pursued under a personal guarantee.
Advising in relation to the strike off and dissolution of a company.
Acting for a creditor in securing a final charging order after the debtor opposed the interim order.
Securing a bankruptcy order for a creditor in relation to unpaid rent arrears.
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.
Adeo Fraser is a busy junior family law barrister who advises and represents in court on the full range of financial remedies, TOLATA, public and private children law disputes, injunctions and domestic abuse cases.
He is known for his pragmatic, robust approach and keen attention to detail, whilst remaining sensitive to client care.
He is frequently trusted with and instructed in lengthy and complex hearings and has represented several clients on both UK and international abduction and relocation cases, particularly involving Somaliland, Poland and the Dominican Republic.
Prior to coming to the Bar, Adeo spent almost 18-months as a family law legal assistant in a medium-sized law firm in Birmingham. He worked alongside the Head of the Family department, assisting with the day-to-day management of complex care, adoption, contact and divorce proceedings.
Outside of a busy work diary, Adeo is passionate about social action and also a keen sportsman. Adeo is a member of the RuJohn Foundation, which seeks to provide the necessary educational tools for rural schools throughout Jamaica and select U.S. cities. Adeo has played National League Basketball and continues to play at a high level in the Midlands.
Publications:
“From the Kalashnikov to the Keyboard: International law’s failure to define a ‘cyber use of force’ is dangerous and may well lead to a military response to a ‘cyber use of force’” Hibernian Law Journal 15 (2016) 86-113
Fraser, A. and Omotosho, Y. “Driverless cars: the ethical and legal dilemmas” in From the Frontline, Lyons Davidson Solicitors LLP (March 2017) 2
Family
Adeo Fraser practices exclusively in Family Law and his practice encompasses Public Law, Private Law, Family Finance, Injunctions and Domestic Abuse cases.
Financial Remedies
Adeo has experience in a wide variety of financial remedies matters. He is able to run a case through from First Directions Appointments through to Final Hearings.
He also has significant experience of disputes between unmarried couples, in particular applications under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and Schedule 1 applications and undertakes written advisory work as well as advocacy.
Private Remote FDR Hearings
Adeo is available for private remote FDR hearings. For more information on private remote FDR hearings please click here.
Care and Adoption
Adeo has experience of representing all parties in care proceedings, representing parents, prospective special guardians, children and local authorities in complex care proceedings. He has experience of representing clients with mental health issues and learning difficulties.
Adeo is regularly instructed in multi-day final hearings and his cases routinely involve the cross examination of experts from multiple disciplines. His experience includes cases involving vulnerable clients, non-accidental injuries, domestic violence, applications for adoptive orders and cases proceeding in the FDAC courts.
Adeo also has experience in applications for the revocation of placement orders.
Recent case includes:
Re:S&J, successfully represented paternal grandparents in a 13-day care case, where he challenged the local authority’s adoption plan and obtained an adjournment for medical assessment and psychiatric assessment of the grandparents, where the child was then placed.
Private law children
Adeo regularly accepts instructions to appear on behalf of both applicant and respondent parents in private children matters. He has gained experience in a range of child arrangement disputes, including allegations of domestic abuse, international abduction and parental alienation cases.
He is frequently trusted with and instructed in lengthy and complex hearings and has represented several clients on both UK and international abduction and relocation cases, particularly involving Somaliland, Poland and the Dominican Republic.
Recent cases include:
Re:S, represented the first male victim of controlling and coercive behaviour, in English history, in private law proceedings. He managed to obtain a no contact order against the children’s mother.
Re:W, successfully represented a grandmother on her opposed application to relocate to Somaliland with her grandchildren.
Re:D, successfully represented a diplomat from the Dominican Republic on an international abduction case.
Adeo also has extensive experience in applications for prohibited steps and specific issue orders, ranging from matters concerning changes of names to removal from the jurisdiction to non-Hague convention countries.
Injunctions
Adeo has considerable experience in representing both applicants and defendants in applications for declarations of parentage, non-molestation orders and occupation orders.
Aimee was nominated for Barrister of the Year at the Birmingham Law Society Legal Awards. She is ranked as a leading lawyer by the Legal 500 in all of her areas of practice and takes instructions for cases across the UK. She is also ranked in Chambers & Partners.
Prior to completing pupillage and joining the Bar, Aimee was an associate at magic circle law firm, Clifford Chance LLP in Brussels.
Aimee specialises exclusively in Family Law and Education Law. She handles an established practice specialising in financial remedies and private law proceedings. She is often instructed for her expertise in education law (SEN) to assist on related Children Act and financial matters where children have additional needs.
Aimee’s financial remedy work has included a variety of high value disputes. Aimee has also been instructed on a schedule 1 application with significant international elements and an unusual case involving the enforcement of a German child maintenance order. She continues to be in constant demand for her expertise in complex and highly sensitive cases.
Aimee has extensive experience in tribunals relating to EHC Plans. She has also been successful in a number of judicial reviews and appeals to the Upper Tribunal. Aimee’s expertise is such that she is often invited to train other practitioners and was invited to speak on Education Law at the Annual Conference of Chartered Paediatric Physiotherapists at the Emirates Stadium.
Education
Aimee has a busy education law practice and regularly appears in the First-tier Tribunal. She acts for and advises all parties including, local authorities, schools, parents and young people. Aimee was recently invited to speak on education law at the National Conference of Chartered Paediatric Therapists.
Aimee has also been instructed on a number of judicial review matters. She was successful in defending a local authority in a claim for judicial review brought pursuant to section 19(1) Education Act 1996.
Other examples of matters Aimee has been involved with include:
Discrimination claims
Special educational needs
Prosecutions for non-attendance at school (including in the Crown Court and High Court)
Clerking Permanent Exclusion Review Panels
Appeals concerning permanent exclusion
School inspection
Appeals against decisions of the First-Tier Tribunal
Disputes concerning Local Offers
Advice and representation in judicial review
Notable Cases
DH and GH v Staffordshire County Council [2018] UKUT 49 (AAC)
This case concerned an appeal from the First Tier Tribunal. The Appellants argued that the Tribunal had misdirected itself on the law in respect of issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan and the ability of a mainstream school to make relevant provision. This case involved issues which Aimee’s opponent, David Wolfe QC, described to Upper Tribunal Judge Jacobs at the oral hearing as “complex and novel”. For more information click here.
DS, R (on the application of) v Wolverhampton City Council [2017] EWHC 1660 (Admin)
Aimee Fox successfully represented the local authority against an allegation that there had been a failure by it to provide suitable education for DS in breach of its duty under section 19(1) of the Education Act 1996. DS had not returned to school after a contested incident during which he had returned home in a state of undress. Mr Justice Garnham went on to consider whether, if a breach had been found, the local authority’s alternative provision would have been suitable. For more information click here, for the Bailii report click here and for the Local Government Lawyer article click here.
Family Finance
Before joining the bar, Aimee worked on mergers and acquisitions in a variety of sectors including pharmaceuticals and telecommunications. Her experience in M&A means she is more than comfortable navigating parties’ financial arrangements on divorce.
Aimee is often instructed to represent high-net-worth parties where there are arguments involving inherited wealth or pre- or post-relationship acquired assets. Aimee has been instructed on cases where there are disputes concerning companies, trusts, partnerships, third party interests, cryptocurrency, non-disclosure, inheritance and pre-acquired wealth.
Aimee has been involved with a number of more complex matters including cases involving the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and personal injury awards. She has also been able to call upon her expertise in the law of special educational needs (SEN) to assist in advising separating spouses whose children require bespoke accommodation or additional care.
Aimee is also happy to provide representation in private FDRs and Early Neutral Evaluations.
Cases:
Recent cases Aimee has been instructed on include:
C v C: Represented applicant at first instance and on appeal against leading financial remedy QC in respect of occupation of the FMH.
H v H: Represented applicant in proceedings involving enforcement of child maintenance order from another jurisdiction in the EU. At one stage of the proceedings, the case had been referred to European Court of Justice for guidance on domestic law.
R v S: Schedule 1 application in which the respondent was not domiciled in the UK and had business interests and income streams in Mexico, Belize and other jurisdictions.
H v B v S: Represented the applicant in proceedings involving a divorce obtained allegedly as a result of fraud and forgery of divorce documents. Queen’s Proctor invited to intervene.
T v T: Represented the respondent in an application to vary a ‘Christmas Order’ for child periodical payments.
W v W: A civil partnership dispute in which the assets were worth several million pounds and included a large property portfolio and a very high value share portfolio. Arguments also involved financial liabilities abroad.
B v S: Financial remedy proceedings with concurrent proceedings in the Crown Court with the matrimonial assets at risk because of a Proceeds of Crime Act application by the Crown Prosecution Service.
D v D: Financial remedy proceedings made complicated as a result of the application having been made some 15 years after the end of the marriage.
F v F: Final hearing of committal application for failure to comply with orders and provide disclosure in financial remedy proceedings.
K v K: Represented the Wife in a case where the court awarded her 100% of the identifiable assets as a result of the Husband’s poor litigation conduct.
Private Law Children, Injunction and Domestic Abuse
Aimee is well known for her expertise in private law matters.
Aimee is regularly instructed in complex proceedings involving children which include allegations of physical and emotional abuse, sexual abuse, domestic violence and parental alienation. Aimee is well equipped to handle applications where there has been social work involvement after spending a number of years representing parties in public law care proceedings.
Aimee’s expertise in education law allows her to excel in applications before the family court involving children with special educational needs (SEN), mental health diagnoses or disabilities including Autism. This also allows her to provide advice on applications involving schooling.
Aimee is experienced in representing parties involved in disputes where there is expert evidence. In her areas of practice, she has cross-examined psychologists including educational psychologists, psychiatrists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists, physiotherapists as well as teachers.
She has experience of internal and international relocation cases and has provided training to solicitors on pursuing and defending relocation applications. Aimee has an LLM in European Law which makes her particularly adept in this area. She also completed prestigious internships at the British Institute of International & Comparative Law and the International Bar Association.
Aimee has been commended for her personable manner and client focused approach. She always seeks to find pragmatic and cost-effective solutions for her clients.
Cases:
Recent cases Aimee has been instructed on include:
G v R: Represented a parent in protracted proceedings against a leading QC in which the subject child was recognised as academically gifted. The child’s stellar talent and achievements factored heavily in the arguments raise by the parties. Alienation was also alleged.
D v D: Represented the applicant in private law proceedings against a leading QC. Allegations of domestic abuse and punishment of the children featured in the case. The matter procedurally complex and involved the consolidation of concurrent proceedings in respect of other siblings.
R v J: Represented a high-profile public figure in private law proceedings.
A v D: 7 day fact-find to determine allegations of domestic violence. One party represented by a leading QC.
H v H: International relocation to Romania.
P v B v P: Private law proceedings in which the child had been subject to lengthy litigation and numerous appeals in Poland. Jurisdictional issues arose as well as consideration of the legal effect of orders made in Poland.
D v H v I: Lengthy private law proceedings with arguments on parental alienation and residence as well as special guardianship and the applicability of a section 91(14) barring order. There was involvement from NYAS.
A v C: Appeal in private law proceedings arising from the court’s decision to transfer residence.
D v D: Private law proceedings requiring the court’s determination in respect of the child’s medical treatment and schooling.
B v R: Private law proceedings involving multiple experts from various fields.
Y v F: Advising special guardians on international relocation.
B v B: International relocation in which respondent parent was living outside the jurisdiction.
T v T: Private law proceedings involving at 16.4 guardian and a child with Autism.
FDR Hearing service
Aimee is available for private remote FDR hearings. For more information on private remote FDR hearings please click here.
Public and Regulatory
Aimee Fox's public and administrative law practice is focused on her expertise in all aspects of education law and she regularly appears in the First-tier Tribunal. She acts for and advises all parties including local authorities, schools, parents and young people. Aimee was recently invited to speak on education law at the National Conference of Chartered Paediatric Therapist. She has given a number of seminars across the country on issues relating to Education, Health & Care Plans, exclusions and admissions.
Aimee has been instructed on a number of judicial review matters in the education sector. She was successful in defending a local authority in a claim for judicial review brought pursuant to section 19(1) Education Act 1996. More recently she has been instructed on judicial review matters relating to the impact of Covid-19 on educational provision.
Alex is a specialist family lawyer who accepts instructions in all areas of family law as well as in proceedings in the Court of Protection. Alex is committed to providing the best possible service to his clients and is sensitive to the difficult issues which arise in the family courts. Alex is committed to trying to achieve the best outcome for his clients, whether this is through negotiation in the early stages of proceedings or through contested hearings where matters are not agreed.
FAMILY
Children Act Applications
Alex’s main interest is in public and private law Children Act applications, where he has developed solid experience representing a diverse range of clients through all stages of proceedings.
Public Law
Alex is regularly instructed by Local Authorities, parents, children, extended family members and interveners in public law children matters at all stages of proceedings. In particular, he has experience of acting in the following circumstances:
Emergency contested applications where a Local Authority seeks the removal of a child.
Complex fact-finding hearings where sexual, physical or emotional abuse is alleged.
Cases where non-accidental injuries are suspected.
Cases concerning alleged neglect.
Contested Placement Order and Adoption Proceedings.
Special Guardianship and Wardship applications.
Cases with an international dimension.
Cases concerning parents or children with Special Educational Needs, cognitive impairment or capacity issues
Cases where drug and alcohol abuse or mental health concerns are a significant issue.
Secure Accommodation Orders.
Appeals.
Private Law
Alex is regularly instructed in Child Arrangement matters and endeavours to see cases from first appointment to final hearing. He is very sensitive to issues of domestic abuse and has been recommended by domestic abuse charities to represent vulnerable clients. He has solid experience in these matters including:
Intractable disputes between parents regarding where a child should live or how often they should see the parent they are not living with.
Fact finding hearings including where allegations of domestic violence and sexual or physical abuse are alleged.
Cases with significant social work involvement.
Case with an international dimension including relocation and abduction.
Appeals.
Finance
Alex accepts instructions in financial claims following the breakdown of marriage and has experience of acting for clients at every stage of proceedings including contested final hearings.
Private Remote FDR Hearings
Alex is available for private remote FDR hearings. For more information on private remote FDR hearings please click here.
Court of Protection
Alex accepts instructions in Court of Protection matters concerning the welfare of people who lack capacity. He has experience of acting for local authorities, including at final hearings.
Reported cases:
E (A Child) Step-parent Adoption) [2022] EWFC B3 - represented a 17 year old girl in adoption proceedings where she was being asked to be adopted by her step-mother against her birth mother’s wishes.
D (A Child : care proceedings - kinship placement no contact to father) [2020] EWFC B37 - represented a father in care proceedings which was complex because his child had a rare genetic disorder.
Notable recent cases:
Re V [2019]: Represented an intervenor in a 10 day fact finding hearing in care proceedings where his client was in a pool of perpetrators in relation to a skull fracture sustained by a 3 month old baby.
Re C [2018]: Represented a client in care proceedings in a complex fact-finding hearing where the historic sexual abuse and rape of a child was alleged. The case involved complex and sensitive medical evidence, police evidence where there were significant issues with the ABE process and psychological evidence. In addition, the child was required to give evidence and questions prepared for his cross-examination.
Re A [2018]: Represented a mother at a final hearing where the local authority were seeking to place a baby for adoption. Successfully argued that further assessment was necessary.
Re W and Re S [2018]: Represented two different mothers in private law proceedings where they had alleged significant domestic violence. Successfully pursued findings on their behalf and dealt with the welfare issues that arose from the findings.
Re W [2018]: Represented a father in a fact-finding hearing in private law proceedings where the mother made allegations domestic abuse and rape.
Alex Leonhardt joined 3PB in April 2021 following the successful completion of his pupillage with Chambers under Cheryl Jones and Charlotte Hadfield. He is based in the London office.
Alex accepts instruction in all areas of civil law, and has a particular interest in employment, commercial, property and housing, education and public law.
Prior to coming to the Bar, Alex worked in politics as a researcher to Members of Parliament and in public affairs for a body representing higher education providers. He also worked as a paralegal in a housing and public law department at a London law firm.
Employment and Discrimination
Alex Leonhardt is frequently instructed across the full range of Employment Tribunal and civil court employment matters. He has particular experience in acting for schools, universities and education professionals.
He also acts in Equality Act claims brought in the County Court for discrimination in the provision of services and has experience of claims on behalf of both employers and employees arising from restrictive covenants.
His recent cases include:
Acting for a national retailer in a claim of constructive redundancy of two senior employees
Obtaining a finding of unfair redundancy on the basis of superficial consultation with employees and the recognised trade union
Reducing damages to zero on the basis of 100% contributory conduct deduction and 100% Polkey deduction in a misconduct dismissal case
Successfully resisting a wide-ranging disability discrimination and whistleblowing claim
Acting pro bono to assist an ex-employee obtain a £15,000 settlement following a failure by an employer to offer contractual hours
Providing advice and drafting on jurisdiction issues arising from the State Immunity Act
Disability discrimination claims arising from “mask mandates” imposed by shops during the coronavirus pandemic
Commercial
Alex Leonhardt accepts instructions representing individuals and businesses in disputes on all contractual matters. He is particularly well placed to act in disputes arising from employment contracts and contracts for services, or those in the education sector.
His recent instructions include:
Acting for employers and employees/directors in civil claims arising from restrictive covenants, non-compete clauses and non-poaching clauses
Advising on a potential claim for estate agent’s fees under a multi-agency agreement, and potential counter-claims
Advising on the status of a purported settlement negotiated by the lay client
Alex accepts instructions representing individuals and businesses in contractual matters in the county court, including Consumer Rights Act matters, misrepresentation claims and disputes about quality of work. He is particularly well placed to act in disputes arising from employment contracts or contracts for education in schools and universities.
Property and Estates
Alex Leonhardt’s property practice has a particular focus on landlord and tenant disputes but also encompasses real property disputes including boundary disputes, easements and adverse possession claims.
He has experience in advising on lease renewals, service charge liabilities and the enforcement of covenants, as well as acting for both landlords and tenants in residential and commercial possession claims. He has also acted in claims for injunctions under the Protection from Harassment Act relating to the use and enjoyment of property.
Alex has a strong understanding of social housing allocations and homelessness law from his experience as a paralegal working in a housing and public law team at a solicitors’ firm specialising in these areas of work. He is keen to accept instructions in this area.
Education
Alex Leonhardt accepts instructions in discrimination and breach of contract claims arising in the context of schools, colleges and universities, as well as admission and exclusion cases. He also regularly acts as a clerk advising Independent Review Panels on school exclusions and has experience advising on Ofsted regulatory matters.
During pupillage, Alex was supervised by leading education barrister Charlotte Hadfield and in that time assisted in a number of judicial reviews on education matters and claims of breach of contract/disability discrimination by independent schools.
Alex’s experience of working in higher education policy means that he is particularly interested in cases in the higher education context, including discrimination and breach of contract claims and cases involving complaints to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education.
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.
Alice de Coverley is a specialist education, equality, and public law barrister.
Alice has a busy practice across these fields. She regularly acts on behalf of children and young people, vulnerable adults, parents and carers, schools, local authorities, charities and NGOs, government departments, students, and universities.
Alice has significant experience in working with children and young people with disabilities, mental health conditions, special educational needs and those who have experienced sexual violence. Alice appears almost daily before the First-Tier Tribunal in disability discrimination claims and appeals relating to the contents of Education, Health and Care Plans (Sections B, F and I and National Trial cases in England) and Statements (in the SENTW in Wales). Alice has had notable success in “waking day” and “education otherwise than at school” appeals.
Through her public inquiry work, Alice has developed specialist knowledge in the field of safeguarding, sexual bullying, and sexual violence. She works alongside schools, ISVAs, government bodies, charities, and women’s rights organisations to develop policies and practices that aim to better protect victims of sexual violence. Alice currently acts as Junior Counsel for Ofsted across multiple strands of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse (IICSA), led by Mathew Gullick QC and Sarah Hannett QC. IICSA looks at how various institutions have failed to protect children from sexual abuse – this includes schools, religious institutions, and care homes.
Alice also works on inquests involving vulnerable school children who have died. She is also currently instructed in a claim involving the sexual assault of a female prisoner and is on the legal referral panel for the Centre for Women’s Justice. Her prior personal injury practice continues to aid in her in being able to advise on private law matters of liability and quantum.
Alice is currently instructed in various high-profile judicial review challenges, including claims arising from the coronavirus pandemic affecting young people in education. This included one of the prominent A Level exam judicial reviews in 2020. Alice acts on behalf of both families and local authorities.
Alice is a leading light in the area of school exclusions. Alice has written a book on the law of school exclusions alongside her colleague, Charlotte Hadfield, available on Amazon. This extensive knowledge of school exclusions is used to train local authorities, schools, charities, government bodies, private practice solicitors’ firms and parents directly. Other colleagues in the high profile 3PB Education team often use her extensive knowledge in this area to assist with difficult and complex cases.
Alice is also a contributing author to “Patterson & Karim on Judicial Review” (Lexis, 2019), heading up the Education Law chapter.
Alongside school exclusions, Alice has further specialism in discrimination claims brought under the Equality Act 2010. This includes claims for disability, sex, race, religious, sexual orientation, and gender reassignment discrimination, as well as sexual harassment and victimisation.
For several years post-pupillage, Alice worked very closely with Ofsted providing specialist advisory and advocacy services in all areas that Ofsted regulates and inspects. Her work for Ofsted covered everything from mainstream to independent schools, child protection and safeguarding matters, local authority inspections, and the combating of off rolling and illegal and unregistered schools. Alice worked on a range of complex Equality Act 2010 matters, advising HMCI directly on high-profile matters, such as segregation and sex education. She has also been involved in drafting guidance for inspectors and the public, including the Education Inspection Framework, and assisted in the delivery of various public consultations.
She also acts in breach of contract and negligence claims, and freedom of speech cases, against education providers and local authorities, recently successfully defending a £1 million claim against a top University.
Alice de Coverley is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. Please contact Alice for a copy of her privacy policy which sets out the basis upon which any personal data she may collect about you, or that is provided to her, will be processed by her. She will provide a copy of this policy to you within 2 working days of its request.
Education
Alice has an exceptional education practice. She is passionate about Education Law and children’s rights. Prior to commencing pupillage, Alice was the Chief Director of The School Exclusion Project for four years. This is an award-winning pro-bono unit dedicated to representing parents of permanently excluded school children.
Alice also acts for Ofsted in the Care Standards Tribunal, and is currently acting for Ofsted as Junior Counsel on the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse (IICSA). For full details of the work that Alice is currently dealing with please see her Public Law profile.
She has specialisms within the Education arena and has dealt with a number of matters including claims brought under the Equality Act 2010 for disability, sex, race, pregnancy, sexual orientation and gender reassignment discrimination, harassment and victimization. Alice also regularly appears in appeals in the context of EHC Plans (Sections B F and I) and National Trial cases.
Alice acts for parents, children, young people, schools, Universities, Local Authorities, charities and governmental organisations. She is instructed to act and advise in relation to a broad range of education law matters, including:
Appeals to the SEND Tribunal on the content of EHC Plans
Discrimination (particularly disability discrimination) claims in the FTT and County Court
Compliance with the Equality Act 2010
School Exclusions
Judicial Review
Breach of contract and negligence claims involving education providers
School Admissions
Home Education
Internal academic appeals
Fitness to Practice appeals
Appeals to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator
Public consultations
Public inquiries
Data protection and subject access requests.
Recent education law matters which Alice has been involved in include:
Successfully representing a child with epilepsy in a disability discrimination claim against his school, with the decision being sent by the Tribunal to the EHRC, the DfE and to Ofsted as a result.
Successfully representing a child with complex and mental health difficulties in a disability discrimination claim against an Academy which had unlawfully place him in isolation for 3 months.
Successfully representing a child with ADHD ODD and sensory processing disorder in a claim against his school for failure to allow him to attend a skiing trip and punishing him for behaviors arising from hi disability.
Successfully representing a number of children in their Section I appeals, enabling their progress at the right school which meets their needs.
Successfully representing children in appeals against “refusal to assess” or “refusal to issue” EHC plans.
Successfully overturning a permanent exclusion decision regarding a 6 year old child that brought a cheese knife to school.
Drafting Ofsted policies and consultation responses on schools, social care settings, unregistered schools, and equality law matters.
Policy drafting in relation to counter-terrorism measures taken by schools.
Advising medical and nursing students in claims under the Equality Act 2010 where the University’s competency assessment standards conflicted with the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
Advising and representing in relation to negligence claims for failure to spot learning difficulties.
Advising and representing in relation to breach of contract claims involving Independent Schools.
Advising parents of school pupils with disabilities who have been unlawfully permanently excluded.
Drafting funding applications to the European Human Rights Commission, to support client’s cases concerning discrimination in education.
Drafting submissions to the Health and Conduct Committee/Fitness to Practise Committee.
Drafting submissions to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator.
Alice has also helped to create a number of BBC Radio 4 programmes about school exclusions. Whilst Alice was Chief Director of The School Exclusion Project, it featured in the press several times addressing unlawful exclusions – for instance this Guardian article.
She is also a volunteer for the charity Inspiring the Future, which connects young people in state schools and colleges with those from the world of work. She has recently been part of their Inspiring Women campaign, mentoring girls from various schools to raise their aspirations and break down gender stereotypes.
Whilst dealing with a busy practice, Alice also finds time to assist the Centre for Women’s Justice by providing pro bono legal advice to Women that approach the charity in need of assistance in a range of matters.
Alice is happy to provide training in relation to education law. Of late she provided training on school admissions appeals to Local Authorities, a talk on disability discrimination to a children’s charity and ran a seminar on school exclusions for solicitors. Please get in touch with her clerks should this be something you would wish to organise.
Commercial
Alice acts in a wide range of contractual matters. She has particular experience and interest in contractual matters arising in the education and social care sector. In particular, she specialises in breach of contract claims involving independent/ private schools, local authorities, and universities. She also acts in claims involving the supply of paid services for disabled people.
She regularly advises education providers, parents, and students on contracts regarding the sale of goods, supply of services, school fees, debt recovery action, enforcement action, agency relationships, misrepresentation, and duress.
She can also advise on the interplay between breach of contract claims and public law matters, such as the relevance of the Equality Act 2010 to independent school disputes. She regularly assists in the drafting of settlement agreements with appropriate confidentiality and indemnity clauses, if so required.
Recent examples of cases Alice has been involved in include:
Successfully representing parents in claim for breach of contract against their child’s independent school
Successfully obtaining damages for a young person who was mistreated by his independent school and return of school fees for his parents
Successfully defending universities in applications to strike out claims for disability discrimination and/or breach of contract
Successfully defending a top university in a £1m breach of contract and negligence claim
Advising care providers on the recovery of unpaid fees from public authorities.
Public and Regulatory
Alice currently acts as Junior Counsel for Ofsted across multiple strands of IICSA led by Mathew Gullick QC and Sarah Hannett QC. IICSA looks at how various institutions have failed to protect children from sexual abuse – this includes schools, religious institutions, and care homes.
Alice is actively involved with the Inquiry’s investigations into:
Residential Schools
The Roman Catholic Church
The Anglican Church
Nottinghamshire Councils
Child protection in religious organisations and settings
Effective leadership of child protection
Through her public inquiry work, Alice has developed specialist knowledge in the field of safeguarding, sexual bullying, and sexual violence. She works alongside schools, ISVAs, government bodies, charities, and women’s rights organisations to develop policies and practices that aim to better protect victims of sexual violence.
Alice is regularly instructed by local authorities and families in judicial reviews concerning disabled children.
Alice has worked very closely with Ofsted providing specialist advisory and advocacy services in all areas it inspects and regulates, from social care to independent schools to unregistered schools. Alice’s experience has been used at Ofsted to focus on Equality Act matters and drafting guidance for their inspectors. Alice worked on a range of complex Equality Act 2010 matters, advising HMCI directly on high-profile matters, such as segregation and sex education. She has also been involved in drafting guidance for inspectors and the public, including the Education Inspection Framework, and assisted in the delivery of various public consultations.
Alice also has experience in inquest work involving school children who have died, including cases involving drug-misuse.
Whilst working for the Government Legal Department, Alice assisted with many matters ranging from Immigration, employment and discrimination cases and the Kenyan Emergency Group Litigation.
Sports
Alice de Coverley has notable expertise in the safeguarding and child-protection dimension of Sports Law. She acts for sport regulators, clubs and teams, and private clients in a wide range of Sports Law matters.
Alice has considerable experience in child safeguarding in sports. This includes child protection in national and international sports and after-school clubs, arising from her instruction on behalf of Ofsted as Junior Counsel in the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. Alice is also involved in complex litigation arising from the sexual abuse of young people by sports coaches, PE teachers and after-school club leaders. Alice prosecutes cases before the Football Association and other regulators.
Alice is also a Season Ticket holder at Chelsea Ladies FC and former British Fencer.
Recent cases include:
For the Football Association, she successfully prosecuted a referee in a case concerning serious child protection issues. The referee was permanently banned from football.
For young athletes and school children, she has successfully acted in cases concerning sports coaches and PE teachers, who have failed to protect those in their care from physical and/or sexual abuse.
Amanda Fernandez is a barrister based in 3PB’s London office.
Amanda has won numerous academic and advocacy scholarships, including an award for her cross-examination skills. She accepts instructions in property, housing, commercial and personal injury litigation.
She has a busy court practice and regularly appears in the County Court in all manner of interlocutory applications and trials as well as housing matters. She also welcomes instructions on all written advisory and drafting work.
Prior to pupillage, Amanda represented clients in consumer credit, debt recovery and enforcement disputes as a County Court Advocate. She also worked as a banking and finance litigation paralegal in an international law firm, where she drafted legal letters and statements of case in claims in breach of contract and misrepresentation issued for and against a major international bank.
Amanda also worked pro-bono for a law clinic providing non-contentious corporate legal advice to business start-ups. She conduced conferences and provided written advice to multiple start-up companies on matters such as company structure, company registration and shareholdings.
Amanda is friendly and approachable and speaks fluent Spanish.
Outside work, Amanda enjoys backpacking, camping and outdoor swimming (in all weather)!
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.
Andrew Lorie is a well-established family law practitioner with over 20 years experience in this field. Consequently, he has wide experience and in depth knowledge in all areas of children law, family finance on divorce and separation, and domestic violence. He is based in London but appears in courts across England and Wales.
Public law children
Andrew is instructed by parents, grandparents, guardians and local authorities in the full range of public law cases from care to supervision orders, and from special guardianship to adoption.
The range of cases he is instructed on include allegations of:
murder;
baby poisoning;
shaken baby;
sexual abuse;
domestic violence;
fabricated or induced illness (FII);
GFM;
drug and alcohol addiction;
parental alienation;
neglect; and
other serious emotional and physical abuse.
He is regularly instructed in cases involving parents with severe learning disabilities and mental health difficulties, including emotionally unstable personality disorder and schizophrenia.
Private law children
Andrew is instructed by both applicants and respondents, mothers and fathers, as well as grandparents and other interested parties (such as Children’s Guardians and grandparents) in private law children proceedings.
The range of cases he is instructed on include allegations of:
domestic violence/abuse;
alcohol and drug addiction;
sexual abuse;
parental alienation; and
other serious emotional and physical abuse.
Andrew deals with the full range of private law children applications, from where a child should live and how much time they should spend with each parent, to child abduction and wardship, and from prohibited steps to specific issue orders. He also acts in Schedule I (financial) applications for children.
Financial remedies
Andrew acts in the wide range of financial applications arising out of the breakdown of relationships between married and unmarried couples including:
financial orders under s25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973;
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996;
interlocutors applications for maintenance pending suit and s37 injunctions to prevent the dissipation and to recover assets;
transfer of tenancy;
overseas assets;
third parties, usually in-laws, intervening in ancillary relief proceedings; and
applications for financial provision for children under the Children Act 1989 Sch 1.
Andrew is available for private remote FDR hearings. For more information on private remote FDR hearings please click here.
Domestic violence
Andrew is instructed by both applicants and respondents in applications for occupation and non-molestation orders under the Family Law Act 1996 and committal proceedings. He also deals with associated financial orders within Family Law Act proceedings.
Reported cases of note:
Re T (care and placement orders) [2023] EWFC 106: Domestic abuse and mental health issues prevented mother from caring for her baby.
Re S and T (Care Proceedings Following Private Law Dispute) [2021] EWFC B54: Protracted private law proceedings for contact, giving rise to public law proceedings due to concerns that parental alienation was causing significant emotional harm. The children were removed into the interim care of the local authority and ultimately placed with the other parent.
Local Authority v RR & Ors [2021] EWFC B14: Supervision order made against a 15-year old child’s wishes, and the use of directions under Schedule 3 of the Children Act 1989.
Re M and Z (Children) [2020] EWFC 59: Re-opening allegations in care proceedings.
D (rehabilitation to mother after failure to protect from inflicted injuries) [2020] EWFC B54: Contact with a father who had been found to have caused significant harm to the child.
Re R-T (No. 2) [2018] EWFC B22: Welfare disposal following baby poisoning fact finding hearing.
Re R-T [2017] EWFC B17: Baby poisoning finding of fact hearing.
GW v MW [2015] EWFC 56: The enforceability of a consent order for temporary removal of children from the jurisdiction.
Re D (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 315: The leading authority on removal of parental responsibility from a father.
DW (A Minor) & Anor. v SG [2013] EWHC 854 (Fam), also reported as simply CW v SG [2013] EWHC 854 (Fam): First instance High Court decision on removal of a father’s parental responsibility, later appealed (see Re D (A Child) [2014] see above).
Andrew is an employment law specialist of many years experience. He is recognised for his talents in both Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners.
Employment and Discrimination
Overview
Andrew is regularly instructed to appear at Employment Tribunal hearings. His experience at ET covers a wide range of employment law areas including whistle-blowing, discrimination (including sex, race, disability, pregnancy and age), failures to make reasonable adjustments, harassment, victimisation, equal pay, unfair dismissal, TUPE, unlawful deductions and breach of contract.
He is often instructed for complex multi-day discrimination and whistle-blowing hearings.
Andrew has also made many appearances at the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Issues dealt with on appeal include: NMW (“sleep-in” shifts), employee status and continuity of service, equal pay, effective date of termination, ACAS EC, limitation, duty to mitigate, et al.
As set out below Andrew has also achieved success at the Court of Appeal in BMC Software Limited v Ms A Shaikh [2019] EWCA Civ 267.
Appellate work (Court of Appeal and Employment Appeal Tribunal)
Appearances at the Court of Appeal and the EAT include:
Equal Pay – Court of Appeal
Andrew successfully appeared in the Court of Appeal on behalf of Ms Shaikh, a senior female sales person (BMC Software Limited v Ms A Shaikh [2019] EWCA Civ 267).
The Court of Appeal upheld Ms Shaikh’s cross-appeal against the judgment of the EAT, thereby reinstating the decision of the ET upholding her claim for equal claim (and the claims contingent on that, including unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal). The Court of Appeal agreed that the EAT had been wrong to reach the view that the ET had failed to give adequate reasons for the decision in favour of Ms Shaikh on her equal pay claim.
The decision on adequacy of reasons rendered academic BMC’s appeal as regards the previous manner of disposal adopted by the EAT. The Court of Appeal nevertheless took the opportunity to point out that an invitation to an ET to give further reasons is not an option available to the EAT at point of disposal; rather it is a tool which can be deployed only whilst the relevant appeal is ongoing.
The litigation is also notable in respect of the earlier decision of the EAT on the question of whether a breach of an equality clause can, in itself, give rise to a discriminatory constructive dismissal ([2017] IRLR 1074).
Andrew appeared on behalf of Ms Shaikh throughout the litigation, from the ET to the Court of Appeal.
National Minimum Wage (“sleep-in shifts”)
Litigation addressing whether “sleep-in” shifts are “work” for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage has been ongoing for a considerable period, with the matter currently due to be considered by the Supreme Court in 2020, the Court of Appeal’s most recent decision on the matter in favour of the employers concerned (including Mencap) having been appealed by Unison.
Earlier in this litigation Andrew appeared in the EAT in an appeal conjoined with the Mencap matter. Andrew represented Mr Roberts, resisting the appeal of Focus Care against a judgment of the ET in favour of Mr Roberts (UKEAT/0143/16/DM). The appeal was successfully resisted, albeit due to the principle claim in Mr Robert’s case being based on breach of contract rather than the National Minimum Wage.
Andrew appeared on another “sleep-in” NMW matter at the EAT on behalf of Ms Edwards, in the appeal of Abbeyfield Wessex Society against an ET judgment in Ms Edwards’ favour in respect of the NMW (UKEAT/0445/16/BA). The matter was remitted to the ET, but stayed pending the wider ongoing litigation in the Court of Appeal on “sleep-in” shifts (now due to be heard by the Supreme Court).
Effective date of termination
Andrew represented an employer at the EAT resisting an appeal by an employee against the decision of the ET that a letter purportedly giving notice of dismissal was effective. The result at the ET had been to render most of the employee’s claims out of time.
The employee argued, amongst other things, that the alleged “conditional” nature of the letter rendered the letter rendered it ineffective as a notice of dismissal. Andrew was successful at the ET and the EAT; the EAT upheld the decision of the ET that the letter was effective, despite the employee’s arguments as to its “conditional” nature, and dismissed the appeal.
Employee status and continuity of service
In April 2017 Andrew appeared in the EAT, resisting an appeal against the decision of the ET in favour of C. At ET C had argued that his period of engagement with R was covered by an umbrella employment contract; in the alternative he contended that each and every assignment (of which there were 100s) was a contract of employment, and that he could rely on the continuity of service provisions of the ERA to demonstrate qualifying period.
The ET had upheld the latter argument and as such concluded that C was an employee with qualifying service. At the EAT the ex-employer was represented by an eminent employment QC. The EAT upheld the appeal. The matter was remitted to the same ET.
ACAS Early Conciliation
Andrew has appeared at the EAT twice in respect of litigation concerning ACAS Early Conciliation:
Science Warehouse Ltd v Mills [2016] 1 ICR 252 was heard at the EAT in October 2015, with Andrew acting for Ms Mills. Andrew successfully resisted the appeal. The resulting EAT decision represents one of the first EAT authorities in this area.
Andrew also appeared at the EAT in De Mota v ADR Network & The Co-operative Group UKEAT/0305/16/DA in which the EAT concluded in essence that it is not necessary for a claimant, who wishes to pursue two different employers, to complete two different ACAS EC Forms.
Employment tribunal appearances:
Summaries of some of Andrew’s appearances at ET are set out below:
Acting for Respondents:
Dismissal due to immigration status: successful defence of claim for unfair dismissal
C was dismissed in circumstances where R believed that the company would be in breach of immigration law to continue to employ him (albeit that belief turned out to be incorrect). No appeal was offered. C claimed for unfair dismissal. Andrew represented R at ET. The ET dismissed the claim.
Local government: successful defence against claims for EqA victimisation and ERA whistle-blowing
Whilst employed C pursued a number of grievances about various matters, including alleged discrimination. In due course C resigned and subsequently pursued multiple claims for victimisation and whistle-blowing detriment, as well as unfair (constructive) dismissal. Andrew represented R at a multi-day hearing on liability. The ET dismissed the claims.
Tourism company: claims for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal
C was dismissed for redundancy and proceeded to pursue multiple claims for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. R was represented by Andrew at ET. The ET found disability unproven and in any event dismissed the claims for reasonable adjustments and disability discrimination. The unfair dismissal was upheld on procedural grounds, albeit the award was limited to two week’s pay under the “polkey” principle.
Town council: successful defence against lengthy claim for constructive dismissal
C worked for a local town council. C resigned relying on (as alleged breach of contract) numerous matters going back years. The ET hearing of the evidence ran over seven days, in two sittings. Andrew successfully defended the claim. It was dismissed in its entirety.
National organisation: EqA harassment and constructive unfair dismissal
C was a senior manager in a division of a large organisation. She resigned following what she alleged was unreasonable/discriminatory treatment going back some years. She alleged that there had been a campaign to force her out of the business. Andrew represented the Respondent in this matter. The ET upheld some claims for harassment. However Andrew successfully persuaded the ET to reject the claims for unfair constructive dismissal and failures to make reasonable adjustments; the ET also rejected C’s core contention of a campaign to force her out.
Acting for Claimants:
NHS: successful discrimination claim against NHS Trust
Whilst employed C pursued a number of grievances about various matters. R dismissed C purportedly on the basis of a breakdown of trust and confidence. In the circumstances, R chose not to comply with its usual disciplinary procedures. C brought claims for race discrimination and unfair dismissal. Andrew represented C at a multi-day hearing on liability. The ET upheld the claim for unfair dismissal, as well as the race discrimination claim relating to the manner of dismissal.
NHS: successful unfair dismissal claim against NHS Trust
C was dismissed by a NHS Trust: it was alleged that she had been working for another employer without adherence to the additional employment policy, allegedly whilst in receipt of sick pay; it was alleged that she had, initially, failed to declare those earnings to the HMRC at the correct time.
C was represented by Andrew at the ET. The ET upheld her claims for wrongful dismissal and unfair dismissal. In respect of the latter, a 25% contributory fault reduction was made; no “polkey” reduction was made.
Local government: successful unfair dismissal claim for social worker
C was dismissed in circumstances where she had, R alleged, been responsible for acts of seriously negligent mis-judgment. C claimed that her dismissal was unfair. She also alleged that her dismissal (and other alleged acts) had been because of whistle-blowing. Andrew represented C at ET. The ET upheld the claim for unfair dismissal.
Re-engagement order obtained: housing association
C was dismissed, purportedly for redundancy. C claimed unfair dismissal. Shortly before the ET hearing, R conceded unfair dismissal. Andrew represented C at the ET hearing. Andrew pursued, and obtained, a re-engagement order.
Employee status: founder solicitor
C was founder of a firm of solicitors; she was subsequently bought out by a LLP and continued in a senior position. Post termination she brought a number of claims. A preliminary issue for the ET was employee status, in respect of which Andrew represented C. The ET found in favour of C, i.e. that she was an employee.
Conferences and seminars
Andrew enjoys delivering training seminars. He is happy to explore potential options upon enquiry. Seminar topics delivered recently include:
Equal pay
National minimum wage
General caselaw updates
Other experience
Prior to joining 3PB Andrew gained invaluable experience working in the employment department of a major corporate firm. He has also undertaken a period of secondment in the legal department of a local authority.
Before retraining as a barrister Andrew spent nine years in the corporate world. This experience enables Andrew to appreciate employment disputes, and their context, on a very practical level.
Investigations
Andrew MacPhail is happy to assist with employment investigations. He recently undertook a workplace investigation into matters raised by a discrimination grievance; he interviewed a number of witnesses and collated relevant documents, in light of which he produced investigation report.
Andrew Neaves is a highly-experienced family barrister who has exclusively specialised in the law relating to children with a focus on more complex public law cases in the County Court, High Court and Court of Appeal. Andrew also undertakes judicial review work in which the issues are related to his family practice and to his work in the Court of Protection.
He is a co-author of “Family Law and the Human Rights Act 1998’ published by Jordans, has lectured extensively on issues of human rights and family law for Jordans and was appointed a trainer by the Judicial Studies Board in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998.
Andrew was the Head of the Health and Welfare Court of Protection practice group in his former chambers and regularly undertakes work in the Court of Protection and related cases under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.
FAMILY
Children
Andrew is experienced in complex public law cases involving children. He has a particular interest in those cases which involve complex medical evidence. These Care cases are frequently of the most challenging kind, including induced/factitious illness cases, cases involving the death of a child, serious brain injury and sexual abuse. He has a particular interest in cases involving disputed expert evidence and enjoys the cross examination of professional witnesses.
Andrew regularly represents all parties in such cases, having wide experience of conducting such cases for local authorities and the entire range of respondents, from parents to grandparents and children, both by their Children's Guardians and separately.
Andrew has also frequently represented clients with mental health difficulties and a wide range of disabilities, both directly and through the Official Solicitor.
Court of Protection
Andrew was the Head of the Health and Welfare Court of Protection practice group in his former chambers and regularly undertakes work in the Court of Protection and related cases under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. He has extensive experience of work in the health and welfare field in which he represents all parties.
He is a co-author of “Family Law and the Human Rights Act 1998’ published by Jordans, has lectured extensively on issues of human rights and family law for Jordans and was appointed a trainer by the Judicial Studies Board in relation to the Human Rights Act 1998.
Andrew specializes exclusively in the law relating to children with a focus on more complex public law cases in the County Court, High Court and Court of Appeal. Andrew also undertakes judicial review work in which the issues are related to his family practice and to his work in the Court of Protection.
Andrew Nicklin is a specialist property and chancery barrister who joined 3PB from chambers in East Anglia in 2023.
He has a busy practice across the South East (including London and all of East Anglia) with particular expertise in real property, landlord and tenant, trusts of land and other trusts/estate disputes.
He appears in the High Court (Business and Property Courts), the County Court and other tribunals providing a high level of client care and service to solicitors and direct access clients alike. Whilst Andrew is an experienced trial advocate and courtroom practitioner, a substantial part of his practice includes advice (in writing, in conference and at the site of any land or property dispute). His skills also adapt well into mediations and joint settlement meetings. Many of Andrew’s cases are effectively resolved through active and focused dispute resolution.
Solicitors and business/private clients usually instruct Andrew in the following primary areas of work:
Real property disputes
Landlord and tenant claims (including residential cases engaging the Equality Act 2010)
Trusts of land and other equitable rights acquired over land
Land and property disputes involving local authorities (including gypsy and traveller sites)
Probate and estate disputes (typically with a property dimension)
Other disputes concerning trusts and trustees
Professional negligence and related contractual claims concerning property and land transactions
Insolvency and partnership disputes (usually with a property dimension)
Andrew offers engaging training seminars/webinars on a range of topics within his specialism. Contact his clerks for an initial enquiry.
Andrew is able to draw on substantial past experience as a broad common law practitioner in East Anglia. His knowledge and skills have developed through a mix of civil, employment and public law work, including education, discrimination and inquests. His breadth of knowledge and experience is invaluable in dealing with a range of issues which may arise in property, land and chancery disputes.
Before being called to the Bar he taught history, politics and critical thinking at a large comprehensive school in North East London. He has also been a governor of a primary school in Norfolk.
Andrew is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy and data, which he processes and controls in accordance with the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018. Please contact Andrew or his clerk for a copy of his privacy policy which sets out the basis upon which any personal data he may collect about you, or that is provided to him in the course of working with you, will be processed. Andrew or his clerk will provide a copy of his policy to you promptly by email upon request.
Property and Estates
Andrew is a specialist property and chancery barrister with 3PB’s Property and Estates team. His practice is a mix of real property, landlord and tenant and traditional chancery, regularly advising and representing clients in the High Court (Business and Property Courts), County Courts and other specialist Tribunals. Andrew is recognised for providing a high level of client care and service to solicitors and lay clients alike.
Andrew has a particular specialism and substantial experience in real property matters, acting and advising in disputes such as:
Adverse possession
Boundary disputes
Rights of way and easements (including right to light cases)
Public rights and protected or designated sites (such as SSSIs)
Land Registration
Covenants
Trusts of Land (ToLATA) claims and orders for sale
Estoppel and other equitable remedies involving land and proprietary rights
Trespass and nuisance claims
Real property disputes involving public bodies and local authorities
Professional negligence claims involving property transactions and surveys
In leasehold and housing matters, Andrew regularly advises and represents clients in the following:
Leases and enfranchisement
Commercial landlord and tenant disputes (1954 Act)
Residential landlord and tenant (leases and licences)
Agricultural tenancies
Local authority housing policy advice
Housing disrepair claims
Trespass
Social housing and anti-social behaviour
Equality Act 2010 matters in housing cases
Mobile Homes Act claims
Andrew also has a particular specialism in property and housing related claims in respect of local authority gypsy and traveller sites. Andrew has worked with a number of local authorities concerning issues such as: licences, Mobile Homes Act claims, water disputes, equitable interests over sites, adverse possession, anti-social behaviour, site management and diversity inclusion and Equality Act issues.
Some recent property case highlights include:
Successfully representing a commercial tenant at multi-track trial in respect of a 1954 Act lease renewal and on appeal before Roth J in the Chancery Division (Rolls Building) in 2022. The trial judgment was upheld save for an adjustment to the trial costs order.
Successfully representing a man who had been in adverse possession of an unregistered village motor garage for in excess of 20 years. After a four-day trial, the trial judge dismissed the claim for possession and made declarations as to his adverse possession and his entitlement to be registered as the proprietor of the garage at HM Land Registry.
Successfully representing a couple in defending the preservation of their rights of way across land previously sold off in part.
Settling a complex and historic boundary and adverse possession dispute between neighbouring properties involving water.
Settling a family ToLATA dispute involving a hotel
Representing a property company in its claim for rescission of the purchase of a public house on the basis of misrepresentations made by the vendor.
Advising and representing a central London homeowner in respect of his professional negligence claim against solicitors as to faulty advice regarding the removal of restrictive covenants from his title prior to commencing the build of an expensive second property on the land.
Advice and drafting in respect of claims against surveyors prior to property purchases.
Advice in respect of right to light.
Advice in respect of a case involving the infringement of public rights of way and rights over an SSSI.
Settling a complex property dispute concerning adverse possession of a gypsy and traveller site.
Probate and other chancery
Andrew Nicklin has a busy chancery and probate practice with considerable experience in contested wills, trust disputes and Inheritance Act claims.
Typical cases in which he is instructed include:
Disputes between trustees and beneficiaries, particularly concerning the conduct of trustees and attorneys and the management of trusts
Advice on the role and duties of trustees, including Beddoe applications in respect of trust litigation
Contested probate, usually involving:
Testamentary capacity
Undue influence
Fraud
Inheritance Act claims and disappointed beneficiaries
Other chancery work involves:
Insolvency applications and advice (recently acting for a liquidator in respect of a construction company with creditors exceeding £2m)
Partnership disputes, usually with a property dimension and/or ToLATA issues
Professional Negligence, often involving property work
Family law barrister Andrew Duncan has developed a strong reputation in all areas of family disputes. Regularly instructed in complex private and public law cases, Andrew has developed a reputation as a fearless advocate who dispenses with advice in a frank and down-to-earth manner. He joined 3PB in September 2023 from a specialist family law chambers.
Professional clients can expect Andrew to be a team player, who goes the extra mile and values the importance of working together. Andrew is instructed across all levels of court allocation. He regularly deals with complex physical and sexual abuse allegations, and within the private law sphere has developed a trusted reputation for cases involving complex parental alienation.
Andrew represents parents, local authorities, children (directly or through their guardian), intervenors, grandparents and divorcees. Andrew without doubt has an ability to get straight to the point, he is a strong negotiator, and a resolute cross examiner.
Andrew is regularly instructed in cases involving complex issues such as: non-accidental injury, sexual abuse, international relocation, parental alienation, significant substance misuse, mental health issues and domestic violence.
Andrew has participated as both Appellant and Respondent in many appeal hearings. A number of those appeals have resulted in re-hearings being directed.
Andrew also assists Not Beyond Redemption, which provides free family law advice and representation to mothers in prison, or who have left prison, to assist in re-establishing and regenerating the fundamental relationship between mother and child.
Outside of a very busy work schedule, Andrew's interests include spending time with friends and his family and all country pursuits from fly fishing for salmon to skiing in the Alps.
Family
Family law barrister Andrew Duncan is regularly instructed in complex private and public law cases, often where dispute involving child protection, domestic violence, abuse or parental alienation issues are involved.
Notable cases include:
Re B [2023]: Andrew represented a Local Authority in a legally complex case where there was a positively assessed special guardian, and a known prospective adopter, neither of which the child lived with at the time of the final hearing. Andrew successfully obtained care and placement orders on behalf of the Local Authority following legal argument.
Re DS [2022]: Andrew represented a father where allegations were made of the most serious form of sexual abuse against both him and his brother in law. After a 10 day fact find where two sets of care proceedings were consolidated, no findings were made against Andrew’s client, who was exonerated, immediately allowed to return to the family home and the care proceedings were dismissed.
Re LM [2022]: Andrew, led by Kings Counsel, gave difficult advice to compromise an appeal brought against his client in the Court of Appeal, recognising the decision of the first instance Judge and the actions of his client was not sustainable in law.
Re RM [2022]: Andrew represented a father where significant historic findings had been made against him at an earlier fact find hearing and an application for further assessment of him had been refused. Following Andrew’s cross examination at the welfare hearing where care and placement orders were sought, the Judge acceded to Andrew’s application for expert risk assessment and an adjournment of the final hearing for that assessment to be completed.
Re D [2022]: Andrew represented maternal family members during a lengthy welfare hearing at the High Court to determine where a child would live following the killing of her mother by the father. The father was held on remand for murder throughout the duration of the trial.
Re C [2022]: Andrew sought an order for adoption on behalf of foster carers in a very complex case where the foster carers had cared for a child for almost 3 years at the time of the hearing, but where there was a positively assessed family member and the added complexity of linked care proceedings in relation to a sibling child being heard at the same time.
Re E [2021]: Andrew represented a mother, led by Kings Counsel, where the parents were in the pool of possible perpetrators following discovery of two rib fracture during a routine X-Ray. Andrew’s team brought about the withdrawal of the case by the Local Authority and the parents were exonerated.
Re T [2021]: Andrew successfully sought the transfer of living arrangements for two sibling children from the mother to the father where there had been earlier findings of parental alienation and a failed therapeutic process.
Re RN [2021]: Andrew successfully sought findings on behalf of his client of the falsification of various allegations of domestic abuse including that the mother had falsified an allegation of attempted murder.
Re L [2021]: Andrew dealt with a complex conjoined cases where the birth parents sought contact with a previously adopted sibling group in private proceedings at the same time as adoptive family were involved in public law proceedings following the breakdown of the adoptive placement.
Re CE [2020]: Andrew appeared for a mother, accused of parental alienation as assessed by a psychologist. Andrew was instructed late in the proceedings when a fact find, and welfare hearing were listed. His advice, and representation brought about agreement to the proceedings and resulted in the vacating of the fact find hearing and the child remaining in the care of his client.
Re B [2020]: On behalf of the children, Andrew successfully opposed an appeal brought by the parents and the children were removed into foster care and the conclusion of the appellate process.
Re TE [2020]: Andrew represented a father who faced a number of allegations of domestic violence over a decade. Following the fact find hearing the court found those allegations not proven and went on to find the mother was the aggressor in the relationship.
Re J [2020]: Andrew appeared as junior for a father to the sibling of a murdered child in the High Court. The case involved complex issues of non-disclosure, significant police disclosure, and a forensic enquiry into the conduct of foster carers at the welfare stage.
Re P [2019]: Andrew acted for the children where he sought the transfer of living arrangements of two children who were living with the mother to their father’s care. This was a complex parental alienation case where the mother had previously made serious allegations of abuse against the father. The children were successfully transitioned at the conclusion of the case.
Re H [2019]: Andrew appeared for a mother who made allegations of significant domestic violence and coercive control, including gaslighting and influence of the child. The proceedings had jurisdictional issues and the court ultimately found all the allegations made by the mother proven.
Re RJ [2018]: Andrew represented a father in a parental alienation case who faced twelve allegations of physical abuse against his child made by the mother. The court found none of these allegations proven and went on to find that the mother had alienated the children from the father and that the child was at risk of significant harm in the care of the mother.
Re PD [2018]: Andrew appeared on behalf of the mother and successfully sought an order for no direct contact between a child and her father. The court made the order sought by Andrew following his cross examination of a consultant psychiatrist, community psychiatric nurse, and CAFCASS officer who had all recommended that there be direct contact between the father and the child.
Dr Angel Matoke-Njagi joined 3PB’s Birmingham office after successfully completing a 12-month pupillage with 3PB.
Angel is a member of 3PB’s Family Law Group and accepts instructions in all areas of family law. She has a keen interest in financial remedies and private and public children law. Angel has experience with financial remedies proceedings under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, private children law disputes concerning children from first hearing dispute resolution appointments to final hearings, and family law injunctions from directions appointments to final hearings.
Angel has been commended for her client care skills, including her positive, pragmatic, reassuring manner and ability to build a rapport with clients quickly. She has experience supporting clients with a full range of cognitive abilities through difficult and upsetting cases and providing them with realistic, practical, and sensitive advice.
Angel’s interpersonal skills have enabled her to efficiently negotiate with opponents and litigants in person to ensure excellent outcomes for clients. Her experience of criminal law in pupillage, in which she secured acquittals, has enabled Angel to develop thorough and robust cross-examination skills that are an asset in contested final hearings.
In academia, Angel taught law undergraduates at the University of Warwick about the English Legal System and Constitutional and Administrative Law. Angel left academia to become a barrister after being awarded the Cassel Scholarship and BPP Pro Bono Award. The latter was awarded in recognition of her strides in volunteering and teaching. Angel volunteered for the Office of the State Public Defender in Mississippi, the Personal Support Unit, and the University of Kent's Law Clinic, among others.
Angel has drafted threshold documents, schedules of allegations, grounds of appeal, skeleton arguments on family matters, such as ToLATA, and advice on various issues, including parental alienation.
Outside work, Angel uses movement (yoga, walking, and weightlifting) to find moments of peace in a busy world.
Family
Angel is a busy member of 3PB’s Family Law Group. She has a keen interest in all areas of family law.
Angel’s recent successes include:
A three-year non-molestation order and findings made against a respondent following Angel’s cross-examination of him.
Settlement at a financial dispute resolution appointment with a 78/22 division of the net proceeds of the sale of the former matrimonial home (the only property in the marriage) in favour of her client.
Obtaining freezing orders and third-party disclosure orders in financial remedies proceedings.
Obtaining no orders for contact (save through letterbox) at Dispute Resolution Appointments and Final Hearings.
Persuading the tribunal that a fact-finding hearing was necessary and proportionate against CAFCASS’s recommendation due to allegations of domestic abuse.
Obtaining live with orders and spend time with orders in line with what was sought by the applicant.
Obtaining prohibited steps orders to prevent respondents from removing the children from the care of the applicant or an institution entrusted with the care of the children.
Resisting an application for more contact than the parties had agreed in mediation.
Negotiating non-molestation orders by consent for applicants, despite previous reluctance to consent from respondents.
Acquiring an order specifying that the applicant would remain with the child’s passport and that the respondent had to inform the applicant before applying for a foreign passport.
Angela Grahame KC (Scot) has been in practice in Scotland since 1995 and became a silk in Scotland in 2009. She was called in England & Wales in 2019. She is the first practising female KC from the Scottish Bar to practice at the Bar in England and Wales.
Angela has extensive experience in many challenging and high-profile personal injury, clinical negligence and abuse cases. She is the Vice Dean of the Scottish Bar - the equivalent of the Vice Chair - and the second most senior Advocate in Scotland.
Angela was the lead counsel in the Vale of Leven Public Inquiry for Greater Glasgow Health Board, the largest Health Board in Scotland. This Inquiry was tasked with investigating how 131 patients had contracted the Hospital Acquired Infection, C Difficile and the cause of death of 34 of those patients.
She was also lead counsel representing the Lord Advocate, the chief legal officer of the Scottish Government and the Crown in Scotland, in the Fingerprint Inquiry following the Shirley McKie trial. This Inquiry changed fundamentally the procedures for Fingerprint investigations in all criminal cases across Scotland.
Angela is regularly in court and has conducted many proofs (evidential hearings), legal debates and hearings in the Court of Session, including those relating to personal injury and clinical negligence claims.
Angela has been instructed as lead counsel and negotiated settlements in many multi-million pound claims. These have included catastrophic brain injury cases which involve 24-hour care and reduced life expectancy.
Angela spent four years as a full time prosecutor, known as Crown Counsel in Scotland (Advocate Depute and Senior Advocate Depute), conducting complex and serious High Court criminal trials, Criminal Appeal Court cases and appeals in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Angela was appointed as an ad hoc Advocate Depute by the Lord Advocate in 2017.
In addition to the above, Angela has been pivotal as counsel arguing cases which have sought to extend the law of liability for sexual abuse. She has been instructed in complex harassment cases. She has also been lead counsel in claims which sought to develop the law in relation to Article 2 claims under ECHR. She was instructed for the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund in the well-known “Braer disaster actions”. Additionally, she has experience in commercial actions, contractual disputes and some judicial review.
Angela is highly regarded by instructing agents for her astute tactical awareness, highly effective negotiation skills and advocacy ability.
She is very interested in the use of other forms of dispute resolution in personal injury and clinical negligence claims; and is one of very few Senior Counsel at the Scottish Bar with high level arbitration qualifications. In 2017 she attained Membership level of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and was fast-tracked to the Fellowship Course in 2018, passing the Fellowship Examination in Arbitral Practice and Procedure and Award Writing with one of the highest marks in Scotland. She attained Fellowship following the requisite oral interview. Her interest in Additional Dispute Resolution continues as she is now studying to become an accredited Mediator.
In 2018, she was appointed as Honorary Lecturer in the School of Law, University of Aberdeen and has and will lecture in both international arbitration and clinical negligence.
As well as her extensive Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence practices, Angela has acted in numerous significant cases.
For example she was involved in The Braer Claims. The MV Braer was an oil tanker which ran aground during a storm off Shetland, Scotland, in January 1993, and a week later broke up causing catastrophic pollution. For over 10 years, Angela was instructed by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Authority in 200+ claims for damages for breach of contract/delict, arising out of the Braer grounding. Some of these cases were:
The Fowlie Claims unreported (6 conjoined actions under the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 for compensation for damage to asbestos cement roofing materials; per Lord Gill)
Anderson v Griffiths (Unreported) 1 December 2004
Shetland Sea Farms v Skuld & Ors, (Unreported) 28 May 2003
Anderson & Ors (Unreported) 8 March 2001 per Lord Gill
Anderson & Ors v Skuld (Unreported) 14 February 2001
Flaws v IOPCF 2001 SLT 897 (Procedure Roll; Action of Declarator; Contract; Offer and acceptance; Time for acceptance; whether within reasonable time)
Flaws v IOPCF 2002 SLT 270 (Inner House) (contract; formation; offer and acceptance; time for acceptance; whether within reasonable time).
Angela has appeared before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in:
Holland v HMA [2005] UKPC D 1; 2005 1 S.C. (P.C.) 3; 2005 S.L.T. 563; (Human Rights; Devolution Issue; Disclosure; Evidence)
Sinclair (Alvin Lee) v HMA [2005] UKPC D 2; 2005 1 S.C. (P.C.) 28; 2005 S.L.T. 553; (Human Rights; Devolution Issue; Disclosure; Procedure)
Robertson v Higson; O’Dalaigh v Higson; Ruddy v McLeod (reported as Robertson v Frame) [2006] UKPC D 2; 2006 S.C. (P.C.) 22; 2006 S.L.T. 478 (Human Rights; Devolution issue; Acquiescence; Temporary Sheriffs)
She appeared for the Crown in the important Full Bench (5 judge) decision in:
Fleming v HMA [2006] HCJAC 64; 2007 J.C. 44; 2006 S.C.C.R. 594 (full bench) (extension to timebar; interpretation of transitional provisions); and in MacDonald v McGowan [2010] HCJAC 36; 2010 J.C. 219; 2010 S.L.T. 735 (plea in bar of trial; "acceptable plea" letters)
Personal Injury
Angela’s expertise in this area is consistently recognised in the leading legal Directories, Chambers UK and the Legal 500. Comments have included: “She has expertise in a wide array of personal injury matters including road traffic accident claims, employers’ liability and catastrophic injuries. She is also experienced in cases concerning industrial diseases and property damage” and “She has a broad breadth of knowledge and is very good on her feet”; “She’s very thorough and measured”; “Sources appreciate her approachable nature and experience in personal injury matters”; “She is incredibly detailed and excellent in Court. No matter what happens in Court, she always handles it superbly.”
The following are some of her reported cases in this area:
Gracie v City of Edinburgh Council [2018] CSOH 37
This was an action of damages raised by a former pupil against a local education authority for injuries sustained in an accident in 1965, the pursuer’s motion to allow a Minute of Amendment was refused as he had failed to aver “exceptional circumstances” justifying the exercise of the court’s discretion under s. 19A of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. The Court determined that it would not be equitable to allow the action to proceed.
Phensrisai v Yutikan 2017 SLT 631
A proof on quantum in a fatal road traffic collision where a former Buddhist monk studying for a PhD sustained spine and chest fractures and sought damages for past and future losses and miscellaneous costs.
Dr Prescott v University of St Andrews [2016] CSOH 3
The pursuer alleged he contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos during his employment with the University when he entered the Old Library building when construction works were ongoing. No Scottish cases have gone to proof in relation to similar circumstances. This is almost the only time a mesothelioma case has proceeded to proof in Scotland. All issues (apart from diagnosis and quantum) were in dispute – the key issues for the Court were those of exposure; negligent exposure; and causation). The Court heard evidence from Dr Moore Gillon, the defenders expert, an internationally renowned expert. The pursuer in the event did not manage to discharge the issues of exposure and causation.
McShane v Burnwynd Racing Stables [2015] CSOH 70; 2015 Rep LR 107
The pursuer was a horse trainer. He was training a horse on a gallop when the horse fell on him and he sustained a serious shoulder injury which rendered him incapable of working. The pursuer alleged that this was due to the poor state of the gallop. Arguments were made in terms of the Workplace (Health, Safety & Welfare) Regulations 1992 and also in relation to the Work at Height Regulations 2005, in respect of which there were no reported cases. This was a very complicated case due to last minute issues which arose, which required changes to the pleadings and further investigations and expert evidence. The Court held that the gallop had not been defective.
Talbot v Babcock International Ltd & Anr [2014] CSOH 160; 2014 S.L.T. 1077
An industrial disease claim. The defenders lodged a Minute of Tender for provisional damages in the usual terms, which was accepted. When the matter came before the court the defenders attempted to impose further restrictions on the return conditions, not contained within the Tender. This case has had consequences for agents drafting Tenders in the future, where they offer provisional damages or they wish the Tender to be conditional in some way.
Shields v Crossroads (Orkney) Ltd [2013] CSOH 144; 2014 S.L.T. 190; 2013 S.C.L.R. 730
This was a Procedure Roll debate before Lord Pentland. The action was brought by a carer against the employer of a social worker assigned to her case in respect of serious injury to her mental health and certain financial losses, following a brief love affair between herself and the social worker. The case is important as it sought to expand the scope and extent of the common law by examining whether the employer had to take reasonable care for the carer’s safety and to protect her against the employee's conduct. The Court held ultimately that there was no basis upon which it would be fair, just and reasonable for the common law to impose a duty on the social worker not to enter into a relationship with her. The case is an authority in this respect.
Police Federation Personal Injury Claims
Law v Chief Constable [2015] (negligence during a training exercise; police officer injured during training)
Stevenson v Chief Constable [2014] (negligence; breach of duty of care; police officer injured during training exercise; whether safe system of work)
Rankin v Chief Constable [2013] (proof before Lady Rae in relation to negligence during a training exercise; breach of duty of care)
Angela was also instructed in the first two reported cases in Scotland arising out of personal injury claims against the Police for injuries during training exercises.
Franklin v Chief Constable of Grampian [2001 Rep LR; 2001 G.W.D. 19-752] (Negligence; Duty of care; Police officer injured during training exercise when injuries inflicted to his wrist by handcuffs; whether safe system of working (instructed by the Police Federation))
Grant v Chief Constable of Grampian [2001 Rep LR; 2001 G.W.D. 15-583] (Negligence; Duty of care; Police officer injured during training exercise when struck with baton on his arm; whether safe system of working (instructed by the Police Federation))
Judicial Review / Criminal Injuries Compensation
Angela has also acted in other proceedings, relating to criminal injuries. For example, she has acted in a Judicial Review in relation to a claimant refused Criminal Injuries Compensation where contributory negligence was deducted.
AS, Petitioner [2013] CSOH 83; 2013 G.W.D. 22-422
Decisions by the First Tier Tribunal, Criminal Injuries Compensation, reducing an award of compensation by 40 per cent after having considered the applicant’s conduct before, during or after the relevant incident, would be reduced and remitted to a differently constituted tribunal where the tribunal’s approach was deficient.
Judicial Review (Criminal Injuries Compensation Claim)
Angela has also acted in other proceedings, relating to criminal injuries. For example, she has acted in a Judicial Review in relation to a claimant refused Criminal Injuries Compensation where contributory negligence was deducted.
AS, Petitioner [2013] CSOH 83; 2013 G.W.D. 22-422
Decisions by the First Tier Tribunal, Criminal Injuries Compensation, reducing an award of compensation by 40 per cent after having considered the applicant’s conduct before, during or after the relevant incident, would be reduced and remitted to a differently constituted tribunal where the tribunal’s approach was deficient.
Angela also undertakes travel claims including many contractual claims brought under the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992/3288.
Clinical Negligence
Angela has built up a well-deserved reputation in this area. The Directories refer to her being "calm, detailed and well prepared in court, with excellent negotiation skills" as well as “trustworthy, reliable and quick-witted.”
Some of her cases are:
Anderson v Lothian Health Board [2018]
This clinical negligence claim was finally resolved after many years. It was a claim against a world-renowned Consultant Orthopeadic Surgeon, involving delay in surgery; negligence during the procedure itself; and failure to adequately review post-surgery. After a number of years, the treatment to resolve ongoing issues resulted in the client having a stroke. There were significant issues around negligence; causation and quantum. This was a high value claim, including claims for future wage loss and future care.
Brits v Kilcoyne & Co [2017] CSOH 24; & see [2017] CSIH 47
This was a professional negligence claim against solicitors who had failed to raise an action before the expiry of the triennium. This was a debate at the instance of the pursuer before Lady Stacey. The pursuer argued that the defenders’ pleadings in relation to waiver were irrelevant. The defenders sought an evidential hearing. The defenders’ pleadings did not offer to prove that a statement by the employer's insurer in the early stages of litigation that the employer would not take a plea of time bar amounted to a unilateral promise or a waiver of the employer's right to later take that plea, and its averments relating to waiver were deleted from probation.
McLean v Argyll & Clyde Acute Hospitals NHS Trust [2017]
The account for this clinical negligence claim proceeded to the Auditor of the Court of Session in relation to the fees charged by counsel which was challenged in the Inner House. Angela was instructed to represent the interests of the Faculty of Advocates who were granted permission to intervene. This reclaiming motion involved novel and important questions of the role of the Auditor, breaches of natural justice, the balance between the duties of counsel in relation to the cab rank rule, what the Court expects of counsel in respect of the preparation to examine expert witnesses and the recovery of judicial expenses.
Reid v Forth Valley Health Board [2016]
This medical negligence claim proceeded under Chapter 42A procedure and involved a lengthy proof in March 2016. The case was about the death of a husband and father due to the alleged negligence of a nurse and a junior A&E doctor who made repeated unsuccessful attempts to reposition a displaced tracheostomy. As a result, the deceased went into cardiac arrest and died. There were separate claims against the nurse and the doctor in relation to their responsibilities and actions and experts on both sides. The family (the widow and son) claimed for loss of society/loss of support/services etc. and also a secondary victim claim for psychiatric injury (nervous shock) as a result of witnessing the deceased in the immediate aftermath.
Mediation
Arbitration/Mediation (ADR)
These proceedings are confidential, but Angela has been instructed both as counsel representing the parties to an arbitration and as an Arbitrator. A list of her cases is available on demand.
Publications
She has also published extensively on the subject, including:
Parratt, D.R., and Grahame, A., ‘Scotland’: (eds: Mistelis, Shore, Ribeiro), World Arbitration Reporter, 2nd Ed., (Juris Publishing, 2018)
Grahame, A., Recognition & Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in the United Kingdom, The Journal of Enforcement of Arbitration Awards, (2018), Vol. 1, No: 1, page 41.
Grahame, A., & Parratt, D.R., The Recognition and Enforcement of International Arbitral Awards: Is there a “Pro-Enforcement Bias” in the English Courts?: The Journal of Enforcement of Arbitration Awards, (2019), Vol. 2 (forthcoming)
Grahame, A., Chapter Contribution to: ‘Women Pioneers in Dispute Resolution’, 2nd Edition, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (2018).
Grahame, A., Multi-Tiered Dispute Resolution Clauses Requiring Mediation or “Friendly Discussions” - What Does That Mean? (2019) (forthcoming)
Grahame, A., Conflicts of Interest and the Removal of Arbitrators on the Basis of Bias, (2019) (forthcoming)
Parratt, D.R., Foreman, P., & Grahame, A., The Scottish Arbitration Handbook (2nd ed.) (commissioned, 2020)
Angela was invited to give evidence before the Justice Committee, Scottish Parliament (2018). Their report of 1 October 2018 references her contribution to the discussion on Dispute Resolution methods.
Anna Leathem is a regulatory, professional discipline and criminal barrister based in 3PB’s Winchester office.
Prior to joining 3PB, Anna practised with a well-known set of chambers in London. She had a busy prosecution and defence practice in crime and dealt with a wide range of offences including drugs, fraud, robbery, domestic violence and sexual crimes. Anna also has experience in dealing with young and vulnerable defendants in the Youth Courts and has completed specialist training with the Youth Justice Legal Centre.
Before undertaking pupillage, Anna worked as a paralegal at a criminal defence firm and assisted the head of litigation in a variety of matters including murder, serious violence, drugs conspiracies and proceeds of crime. She also provided invaluable research assistance for the University of Southampton and University of Oxford produced report into the pains of indeterminate imprisonment for families of IPP prisoners.
Anna also acts on behalf of regulators and registrants. She undertook a secondment with the NMC and managed a large and varied caseload. She presented back-to-back substantive hearings in complex areas, including sexual misconduct and dishonesty, acted in interim order hearings, reviews and applications for restoration to the register.
Anna’s experience at the NMC has benefitted her defence practice and she recently successfully defended a registrant who was facing an interim suspension order. As well as the NMC, Anna has acted for the GDC and IFA.
Outside of work, Anna enjoys rock climbing, cycling and hiking.
Crime
Criminal Defence
Anna Leathem has a busy defence practice and is regularly instructed in the Crown Court and Magistrates’ Courts dealing with a wide range of offences including drugs, fraud, robbery, domestic violence and sexual crimes.
She has experience in dealing with young and vulnerable defendants in the youth courts and has completed specialist training with the Youth Justice Legal Centre.
Criminal Prosecutions - Private & Public
Anna accepts instructions to prosecute on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service and Probation Service. She continues to build upon her experience prosecuting in the Crown Court and Magistrates’ Courts. Anna has also been instructed in private prosecutions.
Extradition/International
Anna has been instructed to act on behalf of numerous clients facing extradition to a number of different countries. She is keen to develop her extradition practice and accepts instructions in this area.
Recent Cases
Offences against the person
R v AP (2024) Crown Court: ABH, intentional strangulation and criminal damage: prosecution of a two-day trial with successful hearsay application in respect of a child’s account captured on police Body Worn Video.
R v RE (2024) Crown Court: assault emergency worker: no evidence offered following successful written representations due to client suffering from a manic episode at the time of the offences.
R v JS (2024) Crown Court: s.18 unlawful wounding: prosecuted in a sentence hearing involving serious violence between two inmates in prison.
R v CB (2021) magistrates’ court: assault by beating: no evidence offered after successful half time submission following cross-examination of the complainant.
Drugs
R v TC (2024) Crown Court: PWITS Class A and possession of ammunition: prosecuted a sentence hearing in which the defendant received immediate custody.
R v RG (2022) Crown Court: PWITS Class A and Class B and possession of criminal property: defended a university student who successfully avoided an immediate custodial sentence.
R v EO (2021) Crown Court: PWITS Class A and Class B: despite the indication of immediate custody, the client was given a suspended sentence owing to Anna’s reliance on case law in which a sentence had been reduced owing to ‘unjustifiable delay’.
Dishonesty offences
R v ML (2024) Crown Court – fraud: fraud reduced to theft and client successfully avoided immediate custody. The sentence hearing was covered in the media.
R v ES (2024) Crown Court – robbery: represented a youth in a successful appeal against sentence. The six-month DTO was replaced with a six-month YRO.
R v JF (2022) Crown Court – dwelling-burglary: two-day trial involving vulnerable defendant who was given a suspended sentence.
Motoring offences
R v AW (2024) Crown Court – dangerous driving: four-day prosecution trial resulting in a conviction.
R v VL (2022) magistrates’ court – speeding: client avoided losing their licence following successful exceptional hardship application.
R v RA (2022) magistrates’ court – multiple driving offences: successful application to re-open case and convictions set aside under s.142 Magistrates’ Court Act 1982.
Weapons
R v PN (2024) Crown Court: possession of a bladed article in a public place: client acquitted following successful representations to the prosecution regarding evidential issues and public interest with no evidence offered.
R v FS (2024) Crown Court: possession of an offensive weapon in a public place: prosecuted in a sentence hearing involving a defendant who had produced a sword in the context of using threatening behaviour to provoke unlawful violence.
R v JWJ (2021) magistrates’ court: possession of a bladed article in a public place – no evidence offered following successful representations to the prosecution.
Sexual offences
R v SS (2024) Crown Court – threaten to disclose private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress and stalking: successfully opposed onerous terms of a restraining order sought by the prosecution.
R v BW (2023) Crown Court – make indecent images of children: prosecuted sentencing hearing in which the defendant had made indecent images of children over a period of four years and breached a SHPO.
R v IK (2022) Youth Court – exposure and sexual assault of female – successfully argued that the test for a SHPO was not made out.
Other cases
R v LD (2024) Magistrates’ Court: criminal damage: no evidence offered after successful opposition to the prosecution’s Res Gestae application to rely on a 999 call.
R v AK and SA (2023) Crown Court: attempt to enter the UK illegally: prosecuted two defendants attempting to enter the UK via migrant boats from France which resulted in custodial sentences.
R v AM (2022) Crown Court; theft and breach of suspended sentence: client avoided activation of suspended sentence despite the new offence being committed only six days into the order being imposed.
IJA v WM (2022) Magistrates’ Court – extradition: successfully represented a requested person whose extradition was discharged in respect of their Article 8 rights.
Professional Discipline and Regulatory Law
Anna Leathem has gained experience of a wide range of professional discipline cases in a healthcare context during her 10-month secondment with the NMC, the largest healthcare regulator in the UK. Since then Anna has prosecuted for both the General Dental Council and prepared cases for the Investigations Committee of the Institute of Financial Accountants. She is keen to extend this experience to other regulators as well as continuing to work with these three prolific authorities, and to represent more registrants.
Anna managed a large and varied caseload at the NMC, often presenting back-to back substantive hearings on behalf of the regulator, which vary from minor to the very complex.
Anna has acted on a range of cases at both the early stages where an interim order is considered to the final stages before a fitness to practise committee. These hearings have regularly involved serious and complex issues.
Antonia Jameson is a barrister specialising in personal injury, clinical negligence and inquests. Her practice encompasses advocacy and advisory work, for both claimants and defendants.
She is experienced in all stages of litigation, from pre-action advice and drafting, to trial. She undertakes personal injury work in a wide variety of areas including occupiers' liability, employers' liability and public liability disputes. She has represented parties in claims for fatal accidents, industrial disease, chronic pain and permanent physical injury.
She returned to chambers in October 2021, having spent 12 years away from the Bar as a full-time mother.
She has always represented a wide variety of clients, appearing in an array of judicial forums, including the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
Antonia has always had a robust, tenacious yet adaptable advocacy style.
She will practice from 3PB’s Bournemouth office, but her caseload will – and did – cover the whole of the UK.
Antonia lives in Dorset, close to the sea, with her husband and three young children. Her passions are the sea, walking, skiing, family and friends.
Antonida’s practice encompasses all areas of family law, residential property law, and Court of Protection.
Her experience across these areas complements her growing specialism in TOLATA, Schedule 1, and cohabitation disputes, and other cases where those areas overlap. In addition, Antonida has advised on probate and Inheritance Act issues.
Antonida is a native Russian speaker. She is happy to accept work in any of Chambers’ geographical locations and is also fully qualified to represent clients on a public access basis.
Outside of law, Antonida enjoys singing opera on a semi-professional level.
Family
Antonida undertakes work in all areas of family law and often represents clients in more than one application, enabling them to have continuity of representation through what is always a difficult period. Her practice covers the following:
Matrimonial Finance
Antonida has successfully represented both husbands and wives at all stages of financial remedy proceedings, including FDA, FDR, Final Hearings, mediation, and enforcement proceedings. She always favours achieving a settlement which works for her clients but is not phased by voluminous documentation and detail, and she has successfully proven fraudulent doctoring of bank statements in two cases.
Recently, Antonida has acted in several cohabitation cases with cross-applications under TOLATA and Schedule 1 of the Children Act, including two cases concerning Islamic marriages in circumstances similar to the developing jurisprudence in Akhter v Khan. She has also represented clients in TOLATA proceedings between other family members and has advised a same-sex couple on pre-nuptial agreements.
Notable cases have included:
V v V (2023) – Represented and advised husband throughout matrimonial finance, TOLATA and Children Act proceedings on a direct access basis, successfully proving contempt of court by fraudulent falsification of bank statements.
H v W (2023) – Acted in contemporaneous TOLATA and Family Law Act proceedings between unmarried couple.
C v B (2022) – Negotiated a Tomlin order settlement in TOLATA claim between unmarried couple with children.
A-D v D (2021) – Successfully settled at FDR a medium-asset case achieving an 80/20 split of assets in favour of the wife.
K v S (2021) – Advised wife on landlord and tenant law as part of enforcement of a financial remedies order, drafted possession proceedings, and attended possession hearing.
A v A (2020) – Represented husband throughout Family Law Act, Children Act, and matrimonial finance proceedings in a matter involving doctored bank statements and Imerman disclosure, successfully proving fraud by the wife.
V v P (2020) – Achieved outright lump sum for rehousing in settlement of TOLATA and Schedule 1 proceedings, and drafting a charge on a property as security.
P-B v D (2020) – Represented mother in children proceedings together with a joint TOLATA and Schedule 1 proceedings, successfully settling at FDR, and representation for enforcement and trial of children matters and dispute about contents of the home.
B v B (2019) – Advised a military wife on maintenance pending suit.
Private Law Children
Antonida undertakes a wide range of private children work and has been instructed by mothers, fathers, grandparents and NYAS in applications for child arrangement orders, prohibited steps orders and specific issue orders. She has represented clients at all stages of proceedings and her cases often involve sensitive elements such as intractable hostility, domestic and sexual abuse (including allegations of sexual abuse towards the child and threats to kill), and witness protection. Frequently Antonida works through interpreters and intermediaries.
Recent cases have included:
Z v S-H (2023) – Stepped in to cover part-heard trial on behalf of NYAS Guardian in child arrangements proceedings involving significant physical abuse by father to mother and emotional abuse to children.
T v B and W (2022) – Negotiated return of children in a father’s urgent application following the mother’s relocation by agreement involving the grant of a licence on a house for the mother, which was drafted at court.
R v H (2022) – Successfully obtained no order for contact in a case where the father suffered from alcoholism and the children did not wish to see him.
A v D (2019) – Successfully represented a respondent mother in resisting an application by the father for contact where the 12-year-old child’s wishes and feelings were strongly against any direct contact exhibited through school non-attendance, self-harm and suicidal thoughts.
M v L (2018) – Represented the grandmother of children at a directions hearing in the context of the children’s move into witness protection meaning she would be denied all contact.
I v B (2018) – Successfully adjourned final hearing and resisted applications for amendments to interim child arrangements instructed to stand in for a colleague with 30 minutes’ notice.
R v R (2017) – Successfully representing a mother in her application for the discharge of a Special Guardianship Order.
Public Law Children
Antonida has appeared in the Family Court and High Court on instructions by parents, grandparents and Local Authorities in all stages of public law proceedings, including interim and final care and supervision orders, secure accommodation orders and other applications, including under the inherent jurisdiction. She has also been instructed on emergency protection orders at short notice.
Recent cases have included:
Re D (2022) – Acted in inherent jurisdiction proceedings in relation to 15-year-old boy with behavioural difficulties.
Re M (2021) – Represented father in 8-day final care hearing, prepared following advice and grounds of appeal, and advised on revocation of placement order.
Re O’M (2020) – Represented a father in an application for a secure accommodation order and deprivation of liberty orders in relation to a 16-year-old girl.
Re G (2019) – Represented local authority for application in High Court case involving unexplained death of a baby.
Re W (2018) – Represented a mother at final hearing arguing for placement of the children with their grandmother.
Re K (2018) – Instructed by a local authority in an application by a 16-year-old child to live with his grandmother under a care order by agreement.
Re R (2017) – Attended on behalf of a local authority at a final hearing where the authority would take over responsibility for a care plan in proceedings brought by a different local authority where the carer was moving between local authority areas.
Re S (2017) – Noting brief on behalf of the local authority in a 10-day fact-finding hearing in a case involving incest between children in the family.
Domestic Abuse
Antonida regularly represents both applicants and respondents in applications under the Family Law Act 1996, including for non-molestation and occupation orders.
Notable cases include:
B v G (2018) – Successfully obtained a transfer of tenancy for a mother in the context of private law children proceedings.
O v O (2018) – Represented a wife in an application for an occupation order in the unusual circumstances of her husband’s mental breakdown.
P-R v R (2018) – Secured discharge of a non-molestation order on behalf of the respondent father on the basis of undertakings.
T v M (2017) – Settled applications for non-molestation orders by way of cross-undertakings as well as resolving numerous disputes about chattels.
FDR Hearing service
Antonida Kocharova is available for private remote FDR hearings.
Property and Estates
Antonida regularly advises and represents clients in property law disputes at application hearings, mediations, CCMCs, PTRs and trials, as well as drafting necessary documents for issuing and defending claims. She undertakes work in all areas of property law including:
Boundary disputes and claims for trespass and nuisance
Disputes over covenants, easements and rights of way
Landlord and tenant disputes, including possession hearings and breaches of covenant and housing disrepair
Forfeiture and possession of commercial premises, including dilapidations and leasehold renewal proceedings
Assured agricultural occupancies
Service charge disputes
Applications under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996
Inheritance Act claims and probate disputes
Proceedings relating to social housing, mobile homes and licensed premises
Registration issues
Vesting orders.
In addition to pure property work, Antonida is growing a particular specialism in cases where property and family issues overlap in the context of TOLATA applications. She has recently represented two clients in TOLATA/Schedule 1 cross-applications in the context of Islamic marriages (where a Nikah ceremony was not followed by a civil ceremony).
Notable cases have included:
R v R (2023) – Advised and drafted pleadings for parallel proceedings between siblings, as well as representing in defending application for occupation order.
L Ltd v A and A (2023) – Advising, representation, and drafting of standstill agreement in commercial claim by a shop owner against landlord for disrepair resulting in water damage to stock.
S v G (2023) – Successfully settled protracted boundary dispute at mediation.
Re W (2022) – Advised on Inheritance Act dispute between siblings.
S v G (2021) – Won appeal establishing an assured agricultural occupancy for estate overseer/farm manager.
S v B (2021) – Advised on and won preliminary issue trial on whether heads of terms reached at mediation were binding.
H&H v D&D (2021) – Advised parents who had sold their house to help their adult child purchase a house as to their rights in the annex built for them.
T v T (2021) – Possession hearing in probate context.
W and C v S (2021) – Advised on misrepresentation on sale of house.
S v P Ltd (2020) – Prepared claim for disrepair of roof on behalf of leasehold owner of flat.
B v F (2019) – Representing the claimant in possession proceedings between family members where defences were based on TOLATA constructive trust arguments and proprietary estoppel.
P, E v C (2019) – Drafting possession proceedings where executors succeeded as landlord.
Ground Rent Estates 5 Ltd v Pell Buy It Investments Ltd (2018) – Representing a long leaseholder pro bono as junior counsel to Cheryl Jones in the First-Tier Tribunal challenging service charges for a waking watch and post-Grenfell remedial works to cladding on a residential tower block;
S v K (2019) – Advising a leaseholder on rectification of a mistake in registration of a garage under two titles.
Court of Protection
Antonida takes on both property and welfare matters in the Court of Protection.
Some of the cases she has worked on have involved:
Re CG (2023) – Resisted application for revocation of Enduring Power of Attorney.
Re LTG (2022) – Advised on exercise of Lasting Powers of Attorney in relation to maintenance payments to P’s spouse.
Re MI (2022) – Representing local authority for section 21A application.
Re CB (2021) – Advised P’s son direct access and prepared court forms in an application for deputyship and residence.
Re MG (2021) – Provided advice on the role of P’s preference for location of accommodation in a case involving incapacity following brain injury.
Re MDK (2019) – Acted on behalf of P’s daughter in section 16 residence dispute between siblings.
Re N (2018) – Preparing local authority evidence in a section 21A application relating to the deprivation of liberty where the protected party’s daughter objected to and caused the failure of several placements as well as making numerous complaints and online posts against care home staff and local authority staff from various local authority departments.
Advising social workers on appropriate procedures and drafting of applications for standard authorisation.
Drafting a position statement on behalf of a local authority in a residence dispute relating to aftercare under s117 MHA 1983.
Antonida is keen to grow this area of her practice and will accept Court of Protection work relating to both property and welfare.
Court of Protection
Antonida regularly advises and represents attorneys, family members, and local authorities in both property and welfare cases, including cases involving dementia, mental illness, brain damage, and significant learning disabilities in young adults. Her work has encompassed advising on applications for standard authorisation, deputyships, and aftercare under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
As part of her public family law practice, Antonida has appeared at High Court level in cases involving the deprivation of liberty of children under the inherent jurisdiction, and she has also advised on the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction in relation to adults in the Court of Protection. In addition, she has undertaken secondments with two different local authorities advising on a large number of individual cases and has provided representation in court, with a particular emphasis on deprivation of liberty cases.
Notable cases
Re CG (2023) – Resisted application for revocation of Enduring Power of Attorney.
Re LTG (2022) – Advised on exercise of Lasting Powers of Attorney in relation to maintenance payments to P’s spouse.
Re D (2022) – Acted in inherent jurisdiction proceedings in relation to 15-year-old boy with behavioural difficulties.
Re MI (2022) – Representing local authority for section 21A application.
Re KSC (2021) – Acted in a case where the issue was whether a 66-year-old man had capacity and whether the inherent jurisdiction should be exercised to protect him from catfishing scams.
Re CB (2021) – Advised P’s son direct access and prepared court forms in an application for deputyship and residence.
Re MG (2021) – Provided advice on the role of P’s preference for location of accommodation in a case involving incapacity following brain injury.
Re O’M (2020) – Represented a father in an application for a secure accommodation order and deprivation of liberty orders in relation to a 16-year-old girl.
Re MDK (2019) – Acted on behalf of P’s daughter in section 16 residence dispute between siblings.
Re N (2018) – Preparing local authority evidence in a section 21A application relating to the deprivation of liberty where the protected party’s daughter objected to and caused the failure of several placements as well as making numerous complaints and online posts against care home staff and local authority staff from various local authority departments.
Antonietta is an extremely driven barrister and has a particular versatile ability to deal with difficult, demanding and / or vulnerable clients, or cases that are sensitive in nature. Antonietta has been recognised as Leading Junior, in the field of Property Law, for four consecutive years, describing her as a feisty, excellent and stalwart advocate, and always prepared.
Antonietta specialises in all property related matters, ranging from housing, boundary disputes, adverse possession, easements and restrictive covenants, landlord and tenant (both commercial and residential) and more. Antonietta has successfully seen her cases through to judicial review hearings in the Administrative Court and in the Court of Appeal. She also appears in First-tier Tribunal – Property Chamber.
Antonietta also accepts work on a direct access basis.
Property and Estates
Specialising in all property related matters, Antonietta is recognised by the legal directories year on year as Leading Junior in the field of Property Law, describing her as a feisty, excellent and stalwart advocate.
Commercial Landlord and Tenant
Antonietta has a wealth of experience acting for large retailers, developers, pension trusts and public authorities, as well as commercial tenants,
Antonietta’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, Antonietta works with her clients to resolve issues and disputes as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Residential Landlord and Tenant
Acting for both landlords and tenants, Antonietta 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. Antonietta has successfully seen her cases through to judicial review hearings in the Administrative Court and in the Court of Appeal.
Land Law
Antonietta’s expertise covers all areas of Land Law, acting both land owners and developers. Her practice covers areas including; unregistered land adverse possession, ( boundary issues, right to light, easements and restrictive covenants, trespass and nuisance Antonietta also offers experience in Party Wall act disputes, and property damage matters.
Social Housing
Antonietta works with local authorities and stakeholders in a wide range of their property related issues from possession claims and homelessness appeals, injunctions (formerly known as ASBI and ASBOs), closure orders and committal proceedings. Antonietta also advises on stakeholders and authorities on regulatory and policy issues.
Notable cases
Successfully sought permission from the Court of Appeal in a matter which concerned anti-social behavior from a tenant’s autistic son, whom had been rehoused elsewhere
Successfully applied to the Administrative Court against a section 128 possession notice against an introductory tenant for allegations of anti-social behavior of trespassers in his home whilst he was serving a prison sentence
Defending a tenant against a possession claim on the ground of rent arrears accrued after they were decanted following severe floods at her property
Successfully applied for a costs order in the First-tier Tribunal
Defending a costs application in the First-tier Tribunal, pursuant to an appeal being withdrawn
Acting in a tree-root damage claim involving Monterey Pine trees, where the trees were interfering with a neighboring fence and tarmacadam drive
Acting for a local authority in committal proceedings for breach of an injunction order, pursuant to the Anti-social Behavior Crime and Policing Act 2014
Direct Access
Antonietta also accepts work on a direct access basis.
In the course of his career Arthur Blake has been recognised by the Legal 500 as a leading Junior at the Bar in the field of Administration Law.
During his practice he has developed comprehensive experience in all areas of Common Law with particular emphasis on Judicial review in the field of Immigration and Prison Law. Arthur has also extensive experience in the area of criminal appeals.
Between 2005-2010 Arthur acted exclusively for the former Qatari Secretary of State for Art Culture and Heritage, Sheikh Saud Bin Mohammed Bin Ali Al-Thani. Arthur was responsible for conducting negotiations between the Attorney General of Qatar and the Sheikh in respect of a multi-million pound dispute. Arthur also advised the Sheikh in respect of satellite litigation arising out of the dispute concerning various individuals and auction houses. Arthur has regularly appeared in the High Court, Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.
Arthur was appointed as a fee paid Immigration judge in 1995.
Administrative and Public Law
Arthur Blake offers expertise in a broad range of civil law, and specifically advises and represents clients
in criminal appeals, judicial reviews, immigration and prison law.
Parole and Prison Law cases include:
R V Home Secretary, ex parte Zulfikar (No1)(1996) COD 256 (QBD) - a locus classicus on the principles of Parole.
R v Ex parte McLeod [2002] EWHC 390 - Principles on disclosure in categorisation of prisoners.
Potter Kavanagh, Vickers and Gorman AVCSSHD (2002) AC27 - concerning incentives and earned privileges for convicted prisoners in denial. Challenging a sentence plan for a whole life tariff prisoner where it includes a requirement that they should complete a Sexual Offenders Treatment Programme despite the fact that such a prisoner is in denial of the index offences and therefore is ineligible to undertake the course. Seeking to argue that such a target is prima facie perverse where the prisoner is ineligible for release at any stage of the sentence and the effect of failure to comply with the sentence plan precludes the prisoner from advancing under the prisons enhanced earnings and privileges scheme. Whether on the peculiar facts of such a case such treatment engages Article 5 or 6 and 8 of ECHR.
R V Secretary of State, ex parte Lockhart and Davies (2003) - Obtained permission to seek Judicial Review of the process of “slopping out” as being in breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Shrimpton V the Secretary of State for the Home Department (IAT) - Appeal engaging correct principles to be applied in removal and/or deportation cases involving Articles 8 of the ECHR. In particular, the burden of proof placed on the Secretary of State as Appellant, when appealing a decision from an adjudicator who has allowed an appeal on the basis of evidence that was not before the Secretary of State at the time of his decision. Correct approach with reference to re “M” (Croatia).
Laiji V SHHD - Extent of delay on the part of a decision maker in arriving at a decision when he is considering removal from the UK and the relationship between the delay and Article 8 Proportionality.
Raza V SSHD - Extent to which delay is relevant when considering an application for leave to remain in the UK outside of the Immigration Rules and with reference to Home Office discretionary policy on Article 8 Cases. The relevance of evidence of rehabilitation in a convicted foreign national when considering the reasonableness of deportation on the grounds that such removal is conductive to the public good.
SSHD V Rehman (2001) UKHL 47 - First Special Immigration Appeal Commission (SIAC) case on the meaning of the term National Security.
Richards V National Probation Service - The extent to which the probation service can require compliance with instructions from individuals carrying out community orders/sentences. Court ruling that existing probation service rules and guidance in excess of the law.
Secretary of State & The Governor of HMVP Full Sutton V Cannan - Whether a prisoner serving a whole life tariff should be denied enhanced status under prisons incentives and earned privileges scheme by not undertaking offending work addressed at rehabilitation.
Shrimpton V Secretary of State for Justice - JR concerning the test to be applied in respect of a minister’s duty to provide offending behaviour courses to prisoners to improve their overall prospects of obtaining early release. Judgement considered the extent to which resources are to be considered when undertaking the balancing exercise under Article 8 (2) ECHR.
R (De Vietter) V Chief Constable Thames Valley - Case concerning the duties placed on a Chief Constable to check accuracy and validity of information held on police records regarding a previous allegation of criminal sexual behaviour as opposed to a conviction when and before disclosing the same as being “relevant”, to a prospective employer pursuant to an enhanced criminal record disclosure. Review of test of relevance in context of Article 8 ECHR balancing exercise.
R (Louis) V Ealing Magistrates’ Court - Review of Justice of Procedure of Committal to Prison for Non Payment of Fines imposed by the Crown Court and Activation of Sentence of Imprisonment in Default. Meaning of “wilful refusal” to pay. Further review of Magistrates’ Court practice of allocating part payments towards costs before fine elements of sentence; whether permissible and/or lawful as increases risk of imprisonment and therefore engages the liberty of subject issues.
Djakija V Secretaty of State (2003) EWCA 1394 - Challenge to removal directions of a Kosovan national re: sufficiency of protection and burden of proof.
Caetano & Riordan V Governors of H.M.P. Whitemoor & Secretary of State (2004) - Challenge to retrospective imposition of policy on status of current categorization.
Noye V Governor of H.M.P. Whitemoor & Secretary of State (2004) - Challenge to conditions in special secure units (SSU) re: Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Permission granted and SSU closed down at HMP Whitemoor.
Noye v Minister for Justice (2017) - Challenge to Ministers refusal to follow advice of Parole Board.
Jonathan King V CCRC - Seeking a review of the CCRC decision, in particular putting forward the argument that a late change in amending dates in an Indictment can prejudice a fair trial within the scope of Article 6 ECHR.
Public and Regulatory
Disciplinary Tribunals
Arthur has acted in numerous cases before professional bodies disciplinary tribunals. He recently acted in a case before the disciplinary panel of The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. He successfully argued that the procedure followed engaged both the Rules of Natural Justice and the ECHR. He obtained a stay of the proceedings on the basis of abuse due to delay.
Inquest
Inquest Kate Peyton (2005) - Acted for the family of BBC journalist Kate Peyton who was shot dead on news assignment in Mogadishu. Coroners verdict led to advice to BBC on contracts concerning assignment of journalists to world danger areas.
Ashley Blood-Halvorsen specialises in business and property disputes with particular emphasis in property and estates, contentious probate and commercial litigation.
She is down to earth, approachable and connects well with lay clients who are often appearing in court for the first time. Part of her customer service offering is being responsive and providing advice that is straight to the point.
Ashley is a prize winning barrister, having been awarded both the Nicholas Pumfrey Memorial Scholarship and the Blackstone Entrance Scholarship by Middle Temple, and the Dean’s Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) Scholarship. In addition, she won the Baron Dr Ver Heyden de Lancey Prize as the best Middle Temple student on the BPTC at her centre.
Publications
Clawing Back the Cash — The Test for Permission to Challenge a Trustee in Bankruptcy's Remuneration — A Look at Singh v Hicken
Article published on Feb 11, 2019 in the Corporate Rescue and Insolvency Journal - Citation: (2019) 1 CRI 8. Authors: James Davies and Ashley Blood-Halvorsen
Cannabis: A look at sweeping global change
Published in June 2019 as a paper for the working party of the Society of Conservative Lawyers. Forward written by Victoria Prentis MP.
Ashley is a guest editor of the Surveyors chapter of the Encyclopaedia of Professional Partnerships by Sweet & Maxwell.
Academia
Ashley read history at the University of Toronto, where she specialised in the history of religion. She relocated to England in 2011 to study law and graduated top of her class, winning the Sweet & Maxwell Law Prize as the top performing final year student. During her law degree she spent a summer studying civil law in France at Paris II-Panthéon Assas University (Sorbonne). She was awarded a scholarship from the Fondation pour le Droit Continental to attend.
Interests
Outside work, Ashley’s varied interests include Jewish apocalyptic literature, Freddie Mercury and day trading stocks on listed exchanges.
Property and Estates
Ashley Blood-Halvorsen specialises in business and property disputes with particular emphasis in property & estates and contentious probate.
Read more about Ashley's expertise in her specialist profiles below.
Probate and Estates
Ashley has a particular interest in all aspects of probate and estates work, advising and representing individuals. Before qualifying as a barrister, she spent some time working for a firm tracing beneficiaries to estates. She is currently a STEP Affiliate and earned a merit in her Taxation of Trusts and Estates exam.
Cases include:
Obtaining a freezing injunction in relation to monies arising out of a sale of a trust property.
Drafting a particulars of claim regarding breach of trust in the sale of a property from an estate.
Advising on and appearing in hearings for the removal of trustees and executors.
Providing advice regarding a beneficiaries entitlement to commence possession proceedings regarding a residential property.
Advising executors regarding potential inheritance act claims and claims of historic devastavit with limitation elements.
Advising claimants regarding inheritance act claims by:
Adult children and those who were maintained by the deceased;
Cohabitees of the deceased;
Spouses of a polygamous marriage entered into outside of England and Wales.
She has given talks regarding:
‘DIY Will Drafting and Digital Assets – what can go wrong?’ in connection with STEP East Midlands
‘The cost of dying - litigation costs in Probate and Inheritance Act claims’
She can provide quantum advices for infant settlement hearings when a compromise has been made on behalf of minor children in Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claims.
Cases include:
Re Estate of GB
Advised, and drafted particulars of claim regarding a breach of trust, fiduciary duty, devastavit and fraud of an executor. Ashley subsequently successfully represented the Claimants in a summary judgment application in the High Court.
Re Estate of JC
Part 8 proceedings regarding the construction of a clause in a will and whether or not a trust is properly constituted.
Re Estate of EJ
Advising an executor regarding potential claims on the estate from a beneficiary in Australia.
Re Estate of MS
Advising an executor regarding a 1975 claim from a polygamous wife with a severely disabled child.
Re Estate of KS
Representing the adult child who was maintained by the deceased in 1975 proceedings. Successfully resisted a strike out application in the High Court.
Re Estate of PB
Advised in a 1975 claim involving a cohabitee and a separated spouse. Questions over what formed part of the net estate.
Re Estate of PS
Advising in a 1975 claim involving a cohabitee who has a legal interest in the joint property. Dispute about whether the applicant is entitled to a life interest.
She is willing to consider matters on a Conditional Fee Arrangement in appropriate cases. Ashley also routinely appears in mediations for her clients.
Coownership and Trusts of Land
Ashley regularly advises on and appears in Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA) claims. She has experience of occupation rent claims and where there has been a failure to pay the mortgage by one party. She also has experience of where on party alleges that they were engaged so to rely on the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 this can involve issues around non-qualifying ceremonies.
She acts for parties in mediation and alternative dispute resolution.
Cases include:
M v M
Dispute between a father and son regarding various properties, promissory estoppel, and constructive trusts with an international element. The matter started as a small claim and was transferred to the multi-track. Proceedings were settled after Ashley drafted a Reply to the Amended Defence.
DH v PP
Dispute between former cohabiting couple and whether or not there was a common intention constructive trust.
SH v ZM
Dispute between a former couple which included significant analysis of financial statements, taking of an account and occupation rent.
DY v MH
Dispute between former cohabitating couple where it was alleged that there was an engagement which was denied. There was an argument about whether a ‘garden office’ constituted a substantial improvement to the property. The matter was settled in a mediation in which Ashley appeared.
JF v MR and KR
A matter which concerned express declaration of trust between a mother and son with the former girlfriend. Arguments surrounding running an equitable account before the relationship breakdown to take into account significant unmet contributions made by one party.
RM v PB
A dispute about jointly held property and whether an unsigned declaration of trust constituted a ‘settled agreement’ between the parties. Satellite arguments over estoppel and whether there has been detriment. The property was in negative equity the majority of time since purchase.
Land and Boundaries
Ashley acts for businesses and individuals in respects of, right of access, rights of way, and boundary disputes. Recent work includes:
Interference with a right of way involving cross-examination of a claimant who accepted that the alleged interference was not substantial.
Advising a charity regarding interference with an easement and derogation from grant.
Drafting statement of cases for boundary disputes and advising on Part 36 offers.
Interpreting rights of way within title deeds and TR1s.
Advising regarding an easement for the supply of where the servient tenement freeholder threatened to interrupt the supply for which an injunction was obtained.
Advising regarding a ‘property hijack’ fraud and the right to an indemnity under the Land Registration indemnity scheme.
She also acts in matters regarding conveyancing disputes including third party claims of overreaching rights. She has a particular interest in easements including the construction thereof.
Commercial Landlord and Tenant
Ashley Blood-Halvorsen accepts instructions on behalf of both landlords and tenants and has experience in dealing with possession and forfeiture claims, and injunctive relief. Recent work includes:
Advising on lease extensions pursuant to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 including what is meant by in occupation for the purpose of its business.
Relief from forfeiture hearings.
Proceedings where there has been unauthorised Airbnb use.
Obtaining an emergency injunction in a commercial landlord and tenant dispute involving the CRAR procedure.
Advising on lease extensions pursuant to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
Advising whether leases have been forfeited or surrendered and the enforceability of a deed of guarantee where it is irregular.
Successfully resisted a claim for loss of bargain related to guaranteed rental income and the repudiation of a lease.
Interpreting leases and classifying whether business, residential or common law in relation to holiday lets.
Residential Landlord and Tenant Housing
Ashley acts on behalf of landlords and tenants in respect of the following areas:
Possessions by personal representatives in the context of a death estate.
Defending counterclaims arising out of disrepair claims.
Appearing in injunction hearings to permit a gas safety inspection.
Defending deposit protection claims pursuant to the Housing Act 2004 including where there are multiple tenants and successive tenancies.
Matters which involve subletting of properties and which engage section 18 of the Housing Act 1988.
Advising landlords in respect of HMOs and the mandatory licensing regime including Rent Repayment Orders.
Ashley also regularly appears in mortgage possession hearings on behalf of the lender.
She has experience in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for breach of covenant proceedings and service charge disputes including the interpretation of long leases.
Cases include:
GB v AP, NS and EH
Currently advising pre-issue a long leaseholder in relation to repairing covenants and enforcement covenants with the freeholder. Interesting point of law in relation to direct enforcement of the repairing covenants against another long leaseholder within the same building who recently died.
LS v MC
Advising on the interpretation of a lease and supplemental lease for an application to the FTT. Dispute over the reasonableness of service charges and whether the property constitutes a ‘dwelling’ for the purposes of the 1985 Act.
Commercial
Financial Services and Regulated Lending
Prior to completing pupillage with 3PB Barristers, Ashley Blood-Halvorsen had a career at Thomson Reuters working primarily in regulatory compliance with an emphasis on financial services industry. Her work encompassed both UK and EU legislation. Her experience includes FSMA 2000, Solvency II Directive and the Credit Consumer Act 1974.
She represents banks and financial institutions at interim hearings. Her practice includes:
Successfully appealing a summary judgment on behalf of a bank based in Abu Dhabi.
Advising on Financial Ombudsman Service compensation and the application of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930 and 2010.
Advising a non-EEA company regarding authorised push payment fraud which involved the consideration of consumer regulatory regimes and the revised Wire Transfer Regulations.
Successfully defending a bank in a dispute regarding the Credit Payment Recovery guidelines.
Ashley also regularly represents lenders and suppliers in consumer credit and mis-selling claims. Her practice includes the new wave of PPI claims (including the unfair relationship s140A CCA 1974) which often involve arguments over limitation. She also has experience in claims for alleged mis-selling of solar panels pursuant to section 75 CCA 1974.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Ashley regularly appears in insolvency hearings such as the winders, bankruptcy hearings, costs arising out of those hearing and application to set aside statutory demands.
Her insolvency experience includes applications to annul bankruptcy orders in the context of matrimonial financial remedies.
During her pupillage she assisted her supervisor in the reported case of Singh v Hicken [2018] EWHC 3277 (Ch) who represented Mr Hicken. Singh v Hicken concerned a challenge to trustee’s remuneration. Mr Justice Nugee (as he was then) considered the approach to be adopted to such applications, including the applicability of the provisions in the Insolvency Practice Direction dealing with remuneration applications.
Contract disputes
Ashley has particular expertise in the formation and the interpretation of contracts. She writes commercial analyses for LexisNexis such as ‘Language trumps purpose in relational contracts (Quantum Advisory Ltd v Quantum Actuarial LLP)’.
She also has a specific interest in matters which allege repudiatory breaches. Other experience relating to formation includes jurisdictional disputes and governing law clauses particularly between parties in England and Scotland.
She has specific experience in the following industries:
Agency agreements including business broker sale agreements and estate agents. She has successfully argued the meaning of ‘introduction’ for a claimant in a breach of contract dispute.
Recruitment disputes where there is a dispute about candidates and their ‘introduction’ including whether provisions amount to a penalty clause.
Her experience includes proceedings that involve ostensible, implied, and apparent authority. She recently advised on such matters against a well-known fintech company.
Ashley appears in procedural matters including interim applications and case management hearings such as:
Disclosure before proceedings
Summary judgment
Set aside default judgment
Relief from sanctions
Disposal hearings
Costs and case management hearings.
Family
Much of Ashley’s practice overlaps family matters and disputes. She regularly advises on TOLATA matters and has appeared in applications to annul bankruptcy order in the context of marital breakdowns.
Co-ownership and Trusts of Land
Ashley appears in Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA) claims. She has experience of occupation rent claims and where there has been a failure to pay the mortgage by one party. She also has experience of where on party alleges that they were engaged so to rely on the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 this can involve issues around non-qualifying ceremonies.
She acts for parties in mediation and alternative dispute resolution.
Cases include:
M v M
Dispute between a father and son regarding various properties, promissory estoppel, and constructive trusts with an international element. The matter started as a small claim and was transferred to the multi-track. Proceedings were settled after Ashley drafted a Reply to the Amended Defence.
DH v PP
Dispute between former cohabiting couple and whether or not there was a common intention constructive trust.
SH v ZM
Dispute between a former couple which included significant analysis of financial statements, taking of an account and occupation rent.
DY v MH
Dispute between former cohabitating couple where it was alleged that there was an engagement which was denied. There was an argument about whether a ‘garden office’ constituted a substantial improvement to the property.
JF v MR and KR
An ongoing case involving an express declaration of trust between a mother and son with the former girlfriend. Arguments surrounding running an equitable account before the relationship breakdown to take into account significant unmet contributions made by one party.
Matrimonial Finance
Ashley accepts instructions for FDAs and FDRs. She has a particular interest in proceedings involving inherited wealth upon divorce. Her insolvency experience includes applications to annul bankruptcy orders in the context of financial remedies.
She is particularly instructed by Intervenors when there is a dispute about the beneficial interest in real property and or trusts.
Cases include:
ML v CL and The Official Receiver
Represented the Husband in an application made by Wife to annul Husband’s bankruptcy. The Wife alleged the Husband made himself bankrupt to frustrate matrimonial finance proceedings. Arguments over whether the Husband was cash flow insolvent and the significance of a Capital Gains Tax liability.
RV v KV
Represented the Husband at interim hearings regarding an application by a third party to intervene in the matrimonial finance proceedings who was resident in Zimbabwe. Successfully represented Husband at the final hearing. Issues concerning the authenticity of a purported deed of trust, beneficial interest in the former matrimonial home and sharing of the other matrimonial property. Matter was settled on the first day of the final hearing.
SD v KD and SN
Represented the proposed intervener at a Financial Dispute Resolution hearing. Husband claims he has a beneficial interest in the Intervenor’s property based on claiming monies used for the purchase were not a gift. Ashley continues to represent the Intervenor.
SN v PN and SK
Represented the Husband at a First Directions Appointment. Identified that there was an arguable case for the Husband’s mother to intervene in the matrimonial finance proceedings on the basis she has a beneficial interest in real property obtained by the couple before they were married. Ashley continues to represent the Husband.
Direct Access
Ashley Blood-Halvorsen is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public and professional clients under the Direct Access (or Public Access) scheme.
Audrey is an enthusiastic and passionate Family practitioner, and enjoys the variety of issues and challenges that family practice entails.
She is thorough in her preparation, possesses excellent client-care skills, and is an experienced and skilled advocate.
Recent cases
Relocation case (move from UK to Canada) : representing the applicant mother - case concluding in a successful relocation application
Financial remedies case. Case is particularly interesting as it involves issues of capacity
A number of applications for non-molestation orders. To date, all applications made by Audrey have been successful
A number of private children cases involving all aspects of child arrangements
Direct access private children work.
Audrey accepts instructions in a range of Family work:
Matrimonial Finance and Divorce
Financial orders under s25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996
Interlocutory applications for maintenance pending suit and s37 injunctions to prevent dissipation and to recover hidden assets
Transfer of tenancy
Overseas assets
Third parties, usually in-laws, intervening in ancillary relief proceedings
Applications for provision for children under the Children Act 1989 Sch 1
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975.
Private Law Children
Audrey has experience of cases involving, for example, child arrangements in relation to general contact issues, where the child lives and how much time the child spends with each parent, prohibited steps and specific issue orders. She also has a keen interest in cases involving issues concerning the removal of children from the jurisdiction, abduction and financial applications for children, and cases that have an international dimension.
Non-Molestation and Occupation proceedings
Audrey has acted in a number of cases involving the application, and response, to orders sought under the Family Law Act. She has experience of fully contested final hearings in respect of Occupation and non-molestation orders.
Public Law Children
Audrey has acted in Care Proceedings involving the Local Authority applying for adoption orders in respect of the subject Children. She accepts instructions from local authorities, respondents (both parents and grandparents) and children’s guardians. She has a particular interest in dealing with cases involving significant harm from neglect, severe emotional abuse causing psychological damage to children, and cases involving serious physical harm.
Audrey has undertaken a number of pro-bono cases, including cases involving the application of The Family Law Act, The Children Act and The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
CRIME
Audrey only defends in cases involving serious crime. She represents persons accused of offences of particular complexity and seriousness.
She has been involved in a number of cases that have attracted national press attention. Her first case to be reported nationally was when she was just eight months into her practice. The Sun reported on the exceptionally lenient sentence her client received, and criticised the leniency that was shown to her client by the Court. Since then, many of Audrey’s cases have been nationally reported. One of her cases (resulting in her client being acquitted after a two month trial) is in the process of being made into a film. Another of her cases was referenced in the movie ‘Bridget Jones' Baby’ (2016).
Audrey develops a good working rapport with her clients. She is repeatedly instructed by those she has previously represented, and by instructing solicitors. She often receives letters and cards of thanks from those she defends. A card from a nurse, whom she recently defended, reads ‘thank you for your support and hard work on my case, and for believing in me. You are brilliant at what you do’ : R v B, Southampton Crown Court, October 2015 : Not guilty verdicts.
Pending Cases of note (2017)
Blackmail : Case to be heard (Winchester 2017)
Grievous bodily harm with intent (London 2017)
Recent cases
Attempted murder charge, reduced at Court to Child Cruelty : NOT GUILTY verdicts by the Jury after trial (May 2017)
Successfully defended an army sergeant accused of affray and assault upon two soldiers. His not guilty verdict was reported in a number of national newspapers. For example, see: media article
Reported in the national papers: Defended a female accused of a vicious offence of glassing a male. Her client had seventeen previous convictions for violence towards others. She received a suspended sentence order. Achieving a suspended sentence for her client was a great accomplishment in view of the circumstances of this case, and the defendant’s background. media article
Defended a police officer accused of severe harassment on an ex-partner, and data protection offences. On the BBC national news and within the national papers: media article
Successfully defended in a heavily reported kidnap trial, where part of Audrey's cross examination of the main complainant was reported in the press: R v Charlotte Devaney and others media article & media article
Instructed in a nationally reported case to defend a male charged with possession of a firearm, and grievous bodily harm with intent. Following preparatory advice from Audrey in relation to the defendant’s mental health at the time of the offences, experts were instructed, and the defendant was found to be insane at the time of the offences by two psychiatrists. Insanity was therefore a live issue in this trial: media article & media article
Other cases:
R v L (2014) : Solely instructed to defend a director of a company charged with corporate manslaughter. Prosecuted by very senior counsel
R v O (2013) : Sole counsel defending in a three month conspiracy to steal trial
R v C (October 2011) : Armed robbery. Solely defending a 13 year old. Defendant found not guilty
R v H Others (December 2010): Solely defending a male accused of offences of false imprisonment, wounding with intent, and threats to kill. Following a 6 week trial, the defendant was acquitted of all charges by the Jury.
Court of Appeal cases
Audrey has also appeared on a number of occasions as sole counsel in the Court of Appeal.
R v Omar Blake (2010) EWCA Crim 2821. For appellant. Supply of class B drugs. Appeal against sentence allowed
R v Pickett (2010) EWCA Crim 2757. For appellant. Consideration of manifestly excessive consecutive sentences in a young defendant’s case. Appeal allowed
R v Conway (2008) EWCA Crim 845. For appellant. Consideration of compensation orders. Appeal allowed
R v Donald Cooper (2008) EWCA Crim 1215. For appellant. Supply class A drugs. Appeal dismissed
R v O (2009) – Armed robbery. 15 year old appellant. Appeal dismissed
R v Jason Ralph and Others (Junior defence counsel) – Led by Matthew Jewell. For the applicant. The Court quashed the applicant’s conviction.
Led cases
R-v-Jobarteh and Others: Junior prosecution counsel. Violent disorder - Operation Montego. Led by Maria Lamb. Violent disorder. Ten defendants, nine of whom were youths. Southampton Crown Court
R v Ralph and Others: Junior defence counsel. Led by Matthew Jewell. Conspiracy to handle stolen goods - high value plant equipment. Conviction quashed by the Court of Appeal.
Additional
Audrey was invited by HHJ Burrell QC to act as one of the barristers in a Judges Training DVD which deals with issues that could arise within a trial.
She is a qualified advocacy trainer. She is also the mini pupillage co-ordinator for Winchester.
Sexual Offences
Pending Cases of note (2017)
Serious child sex offences, Southampton 2017
Serious historic child sex offences, Bournemouth 2017
Rape, Southampton 2017
Indictment with nine counts of rape, Southampton 2017
Recent cases
Defended a male in his late 70’s accused of historic sexual offences : Client found Not Guilty on all counts on the indictment
Defended a male found to be mentally unfit to partake in this trial. Defendant found not to have done the act, and thus not guilty, following Audrey cross examining three civilian witnesses. R v E, Southampton Crown Court
Successfully defended a school teacher, from a well known private school, accused of sexual offences. Reported nationally
R v A (June 2011): Prosecuting a defendant for historic sex offences. Defendant represented by Queens Counsel
Led cases
R-v-Howard: Junior prosecution counsel. Complex historic sex abuse case, where the offences dated back to 1962. Led by Robert Bryan. Winchester Crown Court
Family barrister Ayesha Bell-Paris is regularly instructed in cases following the breakdown of a relationship and offers a holistic wrap-around service; whether that be resolving the arrangements for children, or the parties’ financial affairs. Ayesha also has significant experience in care/public law proceedings and applications arising from the Family Law Act 1996.
Ayesha has a balanced practice and has represented Local Authorities, parents, extended family members, intervenors, cohabitees, divorcees, same sex couples, and children (both directly and via a Guardian). She has been instructed in cases at all levels of allocation, including in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
Ayesha has also assisted clients at mediation, resulting in the resolution of matters without the need for proceedings to be issued.
Ayesha is regularly instructed in cases involving complex family dispute issues such as international relocation, parental alienation, substance misuse, mental health issues, domestic violence and non-accidental injury.
Ayesha also accepts instructions directly from members of the public under the Direct Access scheme.
Outside of chambers, when not kept busy by her two young children, Ayesha enjoys country pursuits, skiing and travelling. She supports and has been a volunteer with the charity, Independent Parental Special Education Advice (IPSEA), which helps children and young people with special educational needs and/or disabilities in England to get the right education.
Family
Family barrister Ayesha Bell-Paris specialises in disputes over children in both public care or adoption/fostering cases and in privately-funded disputes over parents' financial affairs and suitable arrangements for their children. She focuses on private law children (including cases involving international elements and removal from the UK), matrimonial finance and TOLATA cases.
Ayesha has a developed a busy and varied practice advising local authorities, parents, wider family members, children, divorcees and cohabitees.
Recent cases include:
Reported cases:
W-C-T (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 845
Ayesha acted for a respondent to an appeal following a fact-finding hearing in Care Proceedings whereby findings of sexual abuse had been made against the appellant by a Circuit Judge. The appeal was successfully defended and dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
Recent cases:
P v F [2022]
Ayesha successfully defended an application for an Occupation Order brought by her client’s ex-partner. The court ultimately agreed that Ayesha’s client should remain living in the property and an order was made against the Applicant to vacate the property.
Re L [2021]
Ayesha acted for a parent in final hearing in Care Proceedings in which the Local Authority sought Care and Placement Orders in respect of the child (supported by the Children’s Guardian) due to concerns in respect of previous longstanding alcohol misuse. The court refused the Local Authority’s application and allowed time for further assessment of the parents. The proceedings concluded with the child being rehabilitated into the parents’ care.
Re M [2019]
This was a private law dispute involving an application for permanent removal from the Jurisdiction. Ayesha successfully achieved an order permitting her client to relocate to Germany with the subject children and discharge of previous prohibited steps orders.
Re B [2019]
Ayesha represented a father at a multi-day final hearing in care proceedings in which all other parties supported Care and Placement orders being made in relation to two children. Ayesha successfully persuaded the court to resist making final orders and to direct an independent social work assessment of her client.
B v P [2015 & 2018]
TOLATA proceedings culminating in a final hearing at which Ayesha obtained an order for sale of a jointly owned property and a favourable division of the equity for her client. Ayesha was instructed in the subsequent enforcement proceedings in which a possession order was obtained and costs awarded.
Re R-T [2017]
Ayesha represented a mother in care proceedings who was accused of inflicting significant bruising upon her young child. No findings of inflicted injury were made during the fact finding hearing and the proceedings concluded with both subject children being rehabilitated home to her care pursuant to a Supervision Order.
Ben Amunwa helps a vast range of clients resolve complex education, employment and public law disputes. He takes instructions in strategic cases that often raise technical points of law, public interest considerations and commercially sensitive issues.
Ben’s analytical approach and integrity have earned him high esteem across his practice areas.
He is driven by achieving positive outcomes for all his clients. Ben has secured numerous central government policy reversals, positively affecting the lives of thousands. In the landmark case of DMA & Others v SSHD [2021] 1 W.L.R. 2374, Ben represented a severely disabled claimant and successfully established a ‘duty to monitor’ the performance of third-parties in high value public sector contracts.
In his education practice, he helps families, schools and local authorities ensure the right provision and adjustments are made for children and young people.
In employment and commercial, he advises senior executives, regulated professionals and start-ups to navigate legal risk.
Ben is an innovative and helpful collaborator who brings expertise across several disciplines and is often able to anticipate and address points that others miss, such as in equalities or data protection law. Where necessary, he develops novel arguments and tests legal boundaries. He is currently acting in an unprecedented test case before the Court of Appeal for 90 families seeking damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 for being subjected to an unlawful government policy.
Publications
Ben features on his Law Mostly Blog and is the author of "High Court declares Home Office may grant migrants access to benefits on any visa type (PA and NA (by her litigation friend and mother PA) v SSHD)", "Immigration bail (Practice notes)", "Illegal working: dealing with employees (published by Lexis Nexis PSL) and "Supporting Migrant Workers: rights-based approaches"(published by Law Centres Network).
Education
Ben Amunwa has extensive experience in resolving education law disputes that span early years to higher education settings.
He provides advice and representation on admissions, exclusions, SEN, discrimination, judicial reviews, transport, school complaints and OIA matters, as well as teachers’ regulation and civil claims. Ben’s clients include local authorities, families, university students, and national teachers’ unions.
Since 2014, Ben has appeared regularly in SENDIST appeals (including multi-day extended appeals and onward appeals to the Upper Tribunal). He has acted in complex appeals with Exceptional Case Funding. Ben is adept at expert witness handling and is able to support teams of professional witnesses with ease.
Ben is a well-established SEN practitioner who focuses on finding the right solutions for the children and young people. His accessible and collegiate approach to SEN hearings has been praised by principal educational psychologists and instructing solicitors alike. He provides seamless additional support where matters escalate into judicial reviews, complaints or human rights damages claims.
Ben is also a prolific trainer who enjoys engaging individuals, educators and local authority professionals in understanding and applying the framework of law, policy and judicial learning in the education sector. He recently published a 45-page manual providing an introduction to SEN and education law.
Employment and discrimination
Ben Amunwa is an experienced employment lawyer who advises and assists employers and employees on grievances, disciplinary matters, dismissals, discrimination, sexual harassment, whistleblowing, business transfers, wages and holiday disputes, union matters and modern slavery.
Ben has conducted complex trials in person and remotely via video-link, including several 15-day discrimination, victimisation and whistleblowing trials cases involving thousands of pages of evidence and multiple witnesses.
Ben’s experience includes settlement negotiations, drafting (employment contracts, internal policies and pleadings) and representation in Tribunals, civil courts and before regulatory panels. He primarily focuses on the corporate, legal and public sectors but also accepts instructions from other fields or industries.
He provides practical and strategic advice, negotiation skills and effective representation at preliminary hearings, multi-day trials and appeals.
Owing to the breadth of Ben’s practice, clients often request him when atypical points arise, such as wasted costs, self-incrimination, breaches of disclosure duties, data protection or immigration issues. Unusually, he has cross-examined numerous solicitors (including partners at magic circle law firms) in his employment trials, as well as questioning executive witnesses over sexual harassment allegations.
Ben has given training to employment law practitioners and has written an acclaimed guidebook for the Law Centres Network on employment rights (described by a Head of Employment as “incredibly useful and thorough”), plus many articles and blogs.
Administrative and Public Law
Ben Amunwa is frequently instructed in urgent, high-profile and complex public law matters for individuals, NGOs (such as The Unity Project and LIBERTY) and local authorities. He has acted in high-profile, cutting-edge litigation. Several of his recent cases have been reported in the national media.
Ben has a track-record of successfully deploying equality law points in judicial review proceedings. Working closely with committed teams of solicitors and other colleagues, he has helped achieve life-changing outcomes for some of his clients, often obtaining urgent court orders for interim relief and substantial settlements or awards of compensation.
Ben enjoys a good reputation before the Administrative Court and is undaunted by heavyweight opponents. He has appeared in cases that concern the application of international law, rights derived from Treaties as well as domestic statutory interpretation and issues of constitutional and fundamental rights.
Ben regularly assists on matters of international law, extraterritorial jurisdiction, fundamental rights, detention, discrimination, statutory duties and costs. He maintains an interest in child rights and education law challenges (including special educational needs cases). He has published many articles and blog posts on these topics.
Ben assists individuals and public sector clients on information law, privacy and data protection matters. He has acted for claimants and defendants in numerous damages claims involving unauthorised disclosure of personal data and breaches of human rights, (including vicarious liability claims). Ben has advised and represented clients in information rights appeals in the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber), including appeals concerning legal advice privilege, historic protection arrangements for the Royal Family and Cabinet Ministers and intelligence concerning the analysis of criminal offence data.
Notable recent cases
TG, MN, HAA & MJ v SSHD (2024): acting for a lead Claimant in a systemic challenge to the re-purposing of RAF Wethersfield as asylum support accommodation and related policies. Instructed by DPG.
Smith v SSHD (2024): acting for a proposed intervenor in a constitutional challenge to the compatibility of the new criminal offence in section 60C of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 with the ECHR. Led by Tim Buley KC. Instructed by LIBERTY.
MN, ZR & others v (1) SSHD (2) SSD (3) SSFCDA (4) The Prime Minister (2023): representing lead claimants in a challenge to the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy. Proceedings led to a large-scale urgent evacuation of Afghan citizens from Pakistan to the UK. Case widely reported in the Independent and BBC News. Led by Tom de la Mare KC. Instructed by Deighton Pierce Glynn (‘DPG’).
PA & NA (by her litigation friend and mother PA) v SSHD [2023] EWHC 2476 (Admin): SoS’s ‘no recourse to public funds’ (‘NRPF’) policy declared unlawful for misdirecting caseworkers on the exercise of their statutory discretion. SoS produced a new policy in response. Led by Alex Goodman KC. Instructed by DPG.
R (HA & Ors) v SSHD [2023] EWHC 1876 (Admin): correct interpretation of regulation 10A of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 payments to pregnant women and children under 3, while accommodated in contractor-run hotels. Systemic delays and breaches of the statutory duty to provide asylum support quickly. Led by Zoe Leventhal KC. Instructed by DPG.
Home Office v ASY & Ors [2023] EWHC 196 (KB): scope and content of the ECHR Article 3 duty to avoid the inhuman and degrading treatment by reason of destitution. On appeal to the Court of Appeal. Led by Alex Goodman KC. Instructed by DPG.
Training/Conferences
Ben is also a prolific trainer and conference chair and speaker whose recent engagements have included:
Chair at Public Law Project’s event on ‘Challenging unfairness in the immigration system’
Chair and speaker at ‘Asylum support in the cost of living crisis’
Speaker at Public Law Project’s Advanced Judicial Review conference on ‘Systemic legal challenges’
Berenice Mulvanny is a specialist criminal practitioner instructed on the most serious offences on the Western circuit, including murder, rape and other serious sexual offences, fraud and dishonesty offences, firearms and explosives, drugs conspiracies, arson, and serious violence. She both prosecutes and defends and is a highly sought-after junior, having been led on a number of serious cases including high profile allegations of sexual offending and multi handed murder.
Her ability to deal with sensitive and difficult allegations with tact and confidence, especially with cases involving young and vulnerable witnesses has resulted in her being instructed in many delicate cases, one involving one of the largest historical sexual abuse cases and resulted in a documentary broadcasted in 2021.
An exceptional and persuasive advocate who often acts for defendants who have no experience of the court process, who hold positions of responsibility and find themselves charged with serious and (if proven) potentially career ending sexual offences. She has successfully defended police officers, medical professionals, teachers, care workers and military personnel. She also acts for vulnerable, elderly and young defendants.
Berenice is experienced in confiscation proceedings and proceeds of crime as well as other ancillary orders such as Sexual Harm Prevention Orders and Criminal Behaviour Orders.
She is a Grade 4 Prosecutor for the CPS and specialist rape and serious sexual assault prosecutor and is accredited by the Bar Standards Board to act directly on behalf of individuals and organisations under the Public Access Scheme.
Berenice has been placed on the approved CPS Advocates Counter Terrorism and Serious Crime Group Specialist Panels and is an advocacy trainer for the Western Circuit and an approved pupil supervisor.
Crime
Berenice Mulvanny is a specialist criminal barrister dealing with the most serious criminal offences including murder, rape and other serious sexual offences, firearms and explosives, drugs conspiracies, serious violence, arson and offences of dishonesty. She both prosecutes and defends and is a highly sought-after junior, having been led on a number of serious cases including high profile allegations of sexual offending and multi handed murder.
Berenice has been placed on the approved CPS Advocates Counter Terrorism and Serious Crime Group Specialist Panels. She is a level 4 CPS and specialist rape and serious sexual assault prosecutor and is accredited by the Bar Standards Board to act directly on behalf of individuals and organisations under the Public Access Scheme.
Examples of Recent Cases
Violence, Public Order and General Crime
R v P 2023: Winchester Crown Court. Defending in a s18 wounding with intent. Acquitted after trial.
R v M 2023: Winchester Crown Court. Youth charged with attempted murder
R v S and B 2023: Portsmouth Crown Court. Defending a mother charged with causing or allowing serious harm to a baby. Acquitted after trial.
R v G and others 2022/2023: Lewes Crown Court. Murder
R v R 2022: Winchester Crown Court. GBH on a baby
R v C and others 2022: Portsmouth Crown Court. Defending in a multi handed conspiracy to commit GBH with intend and false imprisonment. Acquitted after legal argument.
R v B and others 2021: Winchester Crown Court. Prosecuting a multi handed murder and assisting an offender. Convictions after trial.
R v A 2021: Southampton Crown Court. Defending a serving police officer for assaulting his partner. Acquitted after trial.
R v KG 2020/2021: Southampton Crown Court. Possession of prohibited weapon, manufacturing a firearm and possession of explosives
R v H & another 2020: Bournemouth Crown Court. Kidnap and grievous bodily harm
R v M 2020: Southampton Crown Court. Robbery of a convenience store with a knife
R v L 2020: Bournemouth Crown Court. Defending in an Insolvency Service prosecution for multiple counts of acting as a director whilst disqualified, failing to deliver up books and records to the liquidator and various Companies Act 2006 offences
R v L 2019: Salisbury Crown Court. Death by careless driving
R v A 2019: Southampton Crown Court. Attempted section 18, grievous bodily harm with intent
R v H 2019: Southampton Crown Court. Child abduction
R v G and others 2019: Southampton Crown Court. Group knife point robbery of a convenience store
R v P 2019: Southampton Crown Court. Perverting the course of justice
R v M and another 2018: Southampton Crown Court. Child cruelty.
R v A 2018: Winchester Crown Court. Defending a witness in a murder trial facing contempt of court proceedings
R v W 2018: Southampton Crown Court. Defending an allegation of kidnap and sexual assault. Acquitted after trial
R v J 2017: Bournemouth Crown Court. Multiple counts of robbery and grievous bodily harm with intent
Drug Offences
R v N and others 2023: Portsmouth Crown Court. Multi handed conspiracy to supply class A- an EncroChat operation.
R v S 2022: Southampton Crown Court. Multi handed conspiracy to supply class A.
R v M and others 2022: Southampton Crown Court. Defending a youth charged with importation of cannabis along with 22 co-defendants. Acquitted after trial.
R v L 2020: Southampton Crown Court. Possession with intent to supply. Modern Slavery Act defence with a National Referral Mechanism (NRM) referral.
R v T 2018: Winchester Crown Court. Operation Crosslands. Supplying a controlled drug of class A to another
R v B 2017: Southampton Crown Court. Possession of a synthetic cannabinoid spice (legal high) with intent to supply after the new legislation came into force
Operation Pretty 2016 - 2017: Southampton Crown Court. Defending multiple defendants charged with possession with intent to supply class A
R v R 2016: Portsmouth Crown Court. Conspiracy to supply cocaine. The “Sugar network”
Dishonesty
R v W and another 2023; Southampton Crown Court. Conspiracy to commit fraud- over £100,000.
R v T and others 2022: Southampton Crown Court. Defending in a multi handed NHS fraud/Bribery. Prosecution offered no evidence at the close of their case after legal argument on disclosure failings.
R v H 2020: Southampton Crown Court. Aggravated burglary with a sword
Operation Flood. R v R and others 2019: Bristol Crown Court. Conspiracy to blackmail, theft and handling stolen goods
R v L 2019: Southampton Crown Court. Blackmail.
R v D 2017: Winchester Crown Court. Aggravated burglary with a pick axe handle
R v S and others 2016 - Southampton Crown Court. Conspiracy to steal and conspiracy to handle stolen goods
R v P 2016: Winchester Crown Court. Dwelling burglary
R v J and others 2016: Portsmouth Crown Court. Conspiracy to steal over £100,000
Reported cases
R v P 2014 - Court of Appeal Criminal Division. Leave to appeal sentence granted and appeal allowed with the sentence being reduced by nearly half. Defendant had been convicted of multiple breaches of a restraining order over a long-standing neighbour dispute. [2014] EWCA Crim 1280.
Sexual Offences
Berenice Mulvanny has extensive expertise in sexual offences including rape, including historic allegations, voyeurism, buggery, inciting underage sex and other serious sexual offences. She has experience of ancillary orders such as Sexual Harm Prevention Orders and Criminal Behaviour Orders and is a level 4 CPS and specialist rape and serious sexual assault prosecutor.
Berenice is an exceptional and persuasive advocate. Her strength is her ability to deal with sensitive and difficult allegations with tact and confidence, especially with cases involving young and vulnerable witnesses. she often acts for defendants who have no experience of the court process, who hold positions of responsibility and find themselves charged with serious and (if proven) potentially career ending sexual offences. She has successfully defended police officers, teachers, care workers and military personnel. She also acts for vulnerable, elderly and young defendants.
Examples of recent cases
R v H 2022: Guildford Crown Court. Defending allegations of rape, controlling and coercive behaviour and false imprisonment. Prosecution offered no evidence after extensive legal argument at trial.
R v Y 2022/2023: Winchester Crown Court. Prosecuting kidnap at knife point and rape. Life sentence imposed and upheld in the Court of Appeal.
R v M 2022: Bulford Court Martial Centre. Defending a Naval Officer charged with sexual assault. Acquitted.
R v M 2021: Portsmouth Crown Court. Prosecuting a multi complainant allegation of multiple rapes against a football coach.
R v S 2021: Southampton Crown Court. Defending a vulnerable client charged with rape of a child under 13, Acquitted after trial
R v B 2021: Oxford Crown Court. Defending a bailiff charged with rape. Acquitted after trial.
R v C 2021: Winchester Crown Court. Prosecuting a rape of a child under 10. Conviction after trial
R v S 2021: Portsmouth Crown Court. Counsel for the defendant charged with multiple counts of non-recent sexual activity with a child when the defendant was a secondary school teacher.
R v M 2020: Southampton Crown Court. Prosecuting attempting to pay for the sexual services of a child. Convicted after trial. Conviction upheld in the Court of Appeal.
R v W 2020: Winchester Crown Court. Counsel for defendant charged with sexual assault and kidnap.
R v B 2020: Southampton Crown Court. Counsel for defendant on a 17 count indictment including arranging the commission of a child sex offence and possession and distribution of indecent images of children
R v G 2019/2020: Poole Youth Court. Youth charged with assault by penetration
R v D 2019: Southampton Crown Court. Counsel for a 90 year old defendant charged with sexual assault of a child under 13 and sexual activity with a child family member
R v R 2019: Southampton Crown Court. Historic rape dating back to 1959
R v H 2019: Bournemouth Crown Court. Disclosure Counsel. Rape of an escort and witness intimidation
R v L 2018: Bournemouth Crown Court. Counsel for a vulnerable defendant requiring an intermediary charged with assault by penetration.
R v A 2018: Southampton Crown Court. Counsel for defendant charged with exposure and sentenced to a suspended sentence
R v B 2018: Southampton Crown Court. Prosecuting a transgender woman for numerous offences of inciting a girl under the age of 13 to engage in sexual activity.
R v H 2018/2019: Winchester Crown Court. Led by Adam Feest QC prosecuting a high-profile defendant charged with 50 counts of historical sexual abuse
Motoring Offences
Berenice Mulvanny has extensive experience in defending a wide range of driving and motoring offences, ranging from offences in the Crown Court where death has resulted to minor driving matters on a private or direct access basis in the Magistrates’ Court.
Example cases include:
R v I 2020- Winchester Crown Court. Defendant, a taxi driver, charged with causing death by careless driving of a motorcyclist.
R v A 2019- Southampton Crown Court. Defendant charged with dangerous driving and attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent with the use of his car as a weapon in a road rage incident.
R v L 2019- Winchester Crown Court. Defendant charged with causing death by careless driving after crashing his car whilst under the influence of alcohol which resulted in the death of the front passenger.
R v P 2019- Winchester Crown Court. Young defendant charged with dangerous driving and driving with a controlled drug (cannabis) above the specified limit after a lengthy police pursuit.
R v P 2018- Bournemouth Crown Court. Successful application to suspend driving disqualification pending appeal against conviction and sentence.
A former Director and Head of the Care Department at the law firm Cartwright King, Carol Clelland qualified as a solicitor in 1994 and has over 25 years of experience in family law. She joined 3PB's 70-strong Family Group in February 2020.
For the last 20 years Carol has specialised in care and associated proceedings, representing a wide and varied client base consisting of both lay and professional clients. She has represented parents, grandparents and other family members, Guardians, Gillick competent children, intervenors, vulnerable persons via the Official Solicitor and directly as well as Local Authorities. Carol regularly represent clients addressing issues of sexual and physical abuse, non-accidental injuries, chronic neglect, substance misuse, force marriage and honour based violence and cases with international and jurisdictional issues.
Carol is a strong advocate who is known for her sound and sensible advice and representation.
Cases of Note:
Re: Z (Independent Social Work Assessment) [2014] EWCH 729 (Fam) - Representing the father who was an over stayer from India, in a case where a non-mobile child suffered serious multiple injuries that had left her with life changing disabilities. Following an extensive fact findings hearing where a substantial amount of expert evidence was presented to the court the father was exonerated of all wrong doing. He thereafter sought to be assessed to care for his daughter. Such assessment was undertaken by the local authority however we sought to challenge this assessment on behalf of the father as fundamentally flaw and unsafe to be relied upon. At this time the case was in week 72. The court granted the assessment stating as follows:-
In any case in which a local authority applies to the court for a care order, the assessment of a parent is of critical importance. That assessment will be a key piece of the evidential jigsaw which informs the local authority’s decision-making, in particular with respect to the formulation of it final care plan. If the assessment is deficient then it is likely to undermine the reliability of the decision-making process. It follows, therefore, that any assessment of a parent must be, and must be seen to been fair, robust and thorough.
Was RD’s assessment of the father fair, robust and thorough? In my judgment it was not……
Re: Solihull MBC v S-B [wasted costs] 2016 - Representing a father who was facing serious allegations of sexual abuse of his daughter (S) and son (B) solely on the basis of the daughter demonstrating extreme sexualised behaviour. The son was not demonstrating any such behaviour and the daughter who had specific needs has been exposed to numerous professionals and periods in residential home.
The father consistently denied the allegations and argued as follows: i) there was no evidence of sexual abuse; and ii) if S had been sexual abuse there was a significant number of individuals who could be perpetrator of such abuse.
Upon adducing the evidence to support his case the father invited the local authority to revise the basis of it’s case to one of S being beyond parental control and discharging the proceedings in respect of B. The Court themselves challenged the Local Authority on more than one occasion as to how it was going to make it’s case out however notwithstanding this the Local Authority continued with the case as originally pleaded and sought findings against the father.
Following a full fact hearing the father was fully exonerated, B was returned to his care and the father agreed to S being placed in a specialist residential unit.
The father sought costs from the local authority from the date when all the evidence was adduced and he invited the local authority to revise the basis of case to the conclusion of the proceedings.
A wasted cost order was made against Solihull MBC with the judge stating as follows:-
“In the circumstances I am compelled to the view that an adverse order for cost against SMBC is not only justified but necessary”
Care and adoption
Carol Clelland often represents local authorities and parents in complex cases involving expert evidence, serious non-accidental injury to children, cases involving attempted murder, rape, incest, physical violence, FGM, fabricated and induced illness (FII), parents with serious learning disability, sexual abuse, vulnerable parents, and cases with multiple international elements.
Carol’s work for such a varied client base has provided her with a depth of knowledge of procedure and practice as well as extensive advocacy skills. She regularly represents parties in care cases involving the following: -
Non-accidental injuries and death
Sexual abuse
Child exploitation and trafficking
Force Marriage/Honour violence
FMG
Chronic neglect, drug and alcohol addiction
Mental health issues and personality disorders
Domestic Abuse
Cross-boarder case/ international element
Special Guardianship
Adoption
Secure accommodation
Discharge of care orders/revocation of placement orders
Interlocutory applications such as S38 applications/ s34 applications
Inherent jurisdiction and Wardship
Private law
Carol Clelland is regularly instructed in complex proceedings involving children which include allegations of physical and emotional abuse, sexual abuse, domestic violence and parental alienation. She is used to handling applications where there has been social work involvement after and regularly represents parties in cases involving:
R16.4 Guardian - parental alienation/implacable hostility
Special Guardianship
Removal from the jurisdiction
Cross-boarder applications/Hague convention
Recovery orders
Specific issue orders / Prohibited Steps Order
Surrogacy
Caroline Stone’s practice focuses on public law with a particular expertise in national security litigation and a developing practice in education law. She also has significant experience of employment cases.
Caroline is an accomplished advocate and acts on behalf of a diverse range of clients, including individuals, companies and a variety of public authorities. She is frequently instructed in complex matters raising issues of public importance, including human rights challenges, and has appeared before the Court of Appeal and High Court, in addition to various specialist Tribunals and the County Court. She is a member of the Attorney General’s B Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown, having previously been appointed to the C Panel.
Notable cases include:
In the matter of Russian sanctions - advice regarding Ukraine-related designations and closed material procedures under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.
R (Sarkandi, Nabipour and Ors) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2015] EWCA Civ 687, [2016] 3 All E.R. 837 - the leading appellate authority on s.6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the use of ‘closed material’ in civil proceedings.
Z, Y, U, W, BB, PP and G v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 9 - protracted litigation regarding the continued feasibility of HMG’s Deportation with Assurances policy (proposed deportations of suspected terrorists to Algeria).
In the matter of an Academy - advising the Department for Education in a high-profile case concerning the potential termination of an Academy’s funding as a result of poor governance and failure to comply with the Independent School Standards (in particular, provisions relating to safeguarding and the need to promote community cohesion, including concerns about extremism and radicalisation).
Caroline is a founding and Assistant Editor of and contributor to the leading practitioner’s textbook National Security: Law, Practice and Procedure (Oxford University Press, March 2021).
Caroline’s meticulous attention to detail, tenacity, pragmatic advice and personable approach are among her key strengths. These skills are of particular value in the protracted, multi-party (claimant and/or defendant) cases in which she is often instructed, especially those involving substantial documentation.
Complementing her domestic practice in public law and human rights, Caroline also has extensive experience of international law and foreign jurisdictions. Whilst working at the War Crimes Chamber of the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sarajevo) prior to joining 3PB, Caroline’s caseload included Bosnia’s first genocide trial relating to a massacre at Srebrenica. In 2012, she was a Judicial Assistant to the Appeals Chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (based in The Hague), dealing with appeals arising from the conviction of Charles Taylor, former President of Liberia. In late 2011, as a Pegasus Scholar, Caroline undertook a 2-month secondment at the Legal Resources Centre, Cape Town, one of South Africa’s pre-eminent public-interest law clinics.
In 2009, Caroline was nominated for a Bar Pro Bono Award for her involvement in R (Compton) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust [2008] EWCA Civ 749, 1 WLR 1436 (a leading Court of Appeal authority on protective costs orders, the predecessor to cost-capping orders), for which she and her co-Counsel received a special commendation from the judging panel.
In her downtime, Caroline has a passion for singing and photography.
Public and Regulatory
Caroline has a broad public law practice, encompassing judicial review, statutory appeals, hearings before quasi-judicial bodies (e.g. regulatory panels) and civil matters with a public law element.
As an experienced member of the Attorney General’s Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown in civil matters (since 2011), she is regularly instructed by a variety of central government departments and agencies, including the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence and Ofsted.
Caroline’s ability to present complex legislative and policy frameworks in a clear, intelligible fashion particularly lends itself to this area of law; so too, her aptitude for identifying and advising on novel points of law. Having observed public law cases from both sides of the spectrum, Caroline is alive to the unique challenges of litigating both for and against public authorities, in particular the need for timely advice which takes into account both wider policy implications and the unknown variables often associated with such cases.
Other public law experience
Prior to being called to the Bar, Caroline gained extensive experience of public law and human rights issues whilst working at the pioneering legal charity, the Public Law Project (‘PLP’). As a Legal Intern (2005), she advised on diverse matters including the powers of the DVLA; support for ‘looked after’ children; and challenging the decision of an NHS Primary Care Trust regarding the provision of elective plastic surgery.
In 2006, Caroline worked as a researcher on the The Dynamics of Judicial Review Litigation, a Nuffield Foundation-sponsored study into the mechanics of judicial review, in particular the permission stage, undertaken by the Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex and PLP. As part of this research, Caroline interviewed dozens of solicitors - working for central and local government, leading private firms and NGOs - about specific judicial review applications covering all the core areas of public law.
International Law and Human Rights
Caroline’s work in various foreign jurisdictions complements her domestic public law and human rights practice.
Appeals Chamber, Special Court for Sierra Leone, The Hague (2012) - as a Judicial Assistant (P3), Caroline worked on the preliminary appellate proceedings arising from the conviction of Charles Taylor, former President of Liberia, for his role as an accessory to war crimes and crimes against humanity in neighbouring Sierra Leone. This work involved complex legal research, drafting and case-analysis.
Visiting Pegasus Scholar, Legal Resources Centre, Cape Town (Autumn 2011) - a privileged opportunity to work at the ‘coal face’ of public interest law in South Africa, encompassing a variety of public law and constitutional challenges. Caroline’s work ranged from assisting with asylum seeker and refugee appeals to advising on the constitutionality of proposed legislation which purported to restrict access to sensitive state information and criminalise ‘whistle-blowing’ in the security sector.
War Crimes Chamber, State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo (2007) - as a Judicial Assistant, Caroline drafted procedural and substantive decisions, including a major judgment in a case involving crimes against humanity (Tanasković, X-KRŽ-05/165) and a procedural decision concerning the legitimate use of pre-trial confessions as evidence and the scope of the right to silence. Caroline’s caseload included Bosnia’s first domestic trial for genocide relating to the murder of over 1000 individuals at the Kravica Farming Cooperative warehouse near Srebrenica.
Published Articles
“The South African ‘Secrecy Bill’: taking stock”, Constitutionally Speaking, 8 June 2012 and UK Human Rights Blog (abridged version), 24 June 2012
“Corner House Revisited: The Law Governing Protective Costs Orders”, [2009] JR 43
National Security, Counter-Terrorism and International Relations
Caroline is a specialist in national security litigation, including cases with an international relations dimension. She is frequently instructed by various central government departments in complex and sensitive matters across the range of such cases. In addition to in-depth knowledge of the subject-matter, Caroline brings to this field an aptitude for mastering technical detail and distilling key points from vast swathes of information; a responsive approach, necessary to tackle the rapid developments or unexpected occurrences which frequently arise in such litigation (whether legal, factual or policy-related); and an ability to work collaboratively and effectively with the range of clients often involved. Caroline’s background in international law and foreign jurisdictions has also proved invaluable to her practice in this area.
Caroline’s experience encompasses:
Immigration measures taken on national security grounds, including deportations (and ‘deportation with assurances’), deprivations (Al Jedda v SSHD) and exclusions.
SIAC immigration bail:
- Resisting the grant of bail and making applications to revoke bail (involving consideration of Arts. 5 and 8 ECHR)
- Variation of bail conditions
- Advisory work regarding the scope of SIAC’s bail powers
Civil damages claims, e.g. arising from allegations of misfeasance in public office or false imprisonment.
Financial sanctions and travel bans (UK, UN and EU sanctions regimes).
Removal of individuals’ passports in the exercise of the royal prerogative to prevent travel (typically to ISIL-controlled territory) for terrorist-related purposes, e.g. XH v SSHD; TH v SSHD; AS v SSHD; KCM and Ors v SSHD.
Terrorism Prevention Investigation Measures (‘TPIMs’), e.g. SSHD v JM & Ors (s.9 review relating to TPIM notices served against three members of Al-Muhajiroun).
Inquests involving issues of national security concern and sensitive material.
Procedural matters, for example:
- Anonymity applications
- Testimonial immunity of non-parties
- W & Ors reverse confidentiality order
- Complex disclosure issues (raising Art. 6 ECHR issues)
Executive action taken in the education sphere due to concerns about radicalisation and extremism, e.g. termination of government funding (please see Caroline’s Education profile for further details).
Cases of note include:
O3 v Secretary of State for the Home Department
A complex deportation and asylum appeal before SIAC (consideration of Arts. 3 and 8 ECHR) (sole junior, led by Jonathan Glasson QC).
Bail: [2019] UKSIAC SC_147_2018: successfully resisting O3’s application for bail despite his detention for over 2 years at the date of the hearing.
Khaled, Abdulrahim, Maftah and Ors v The Security Service and Ors
Tortious claims for misfeasance in public office and conspiracy to injure in relation to sanctions measures imposed by the UN 1267 Committee, pursuant to the claimants’ nominations by the UK as individuals associated with Al Qaida (alleged reliance by the UK on torture-tainted detainee evidence) (led by Rory Phillips QC and, later, Kate Grange QC).
These claims form part of a broader action - Kamoka and Ors v The Security Service and Ors (12+ claimants) - and are linked to the Bel Haj litigation (allegations of collusion in the extraordinary rendition and mistreatment of a senior LIFG commander).
R (Khaled) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs; R (Maftah) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs - associated judicial reviews by which the claimants sought to challenge various decisions of the Foreign Secretary and others related to their designation (led by Kate Grange QC).
R (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission
Judicial review of SIAC’s decision not to amend the terms of a W & Ors reverse confidentiality order to enable HMG personnel to access material served in previous SIAC proceedings (sole junior, led by Robin Tam QC).
Z, Y, U, W, BB, PP and G v Secretary of State for the Home Department - protracted litigation regarding the continued feasibility of HMG’s Deportation with Assurances policy (proposed deportations of suspected terrorists to Algeria) (latterly as senior junior, led by Robert Palmer).
Court of Appeal, [2015] EWCA Civ 9: correct legal test to be applied when considering a breach of Art.3 ECHR on return to a non-Convention State (e.g. regarding prison conditions).
SIAC, remitted appeal, 18 April 2016: legality of the DWA arrangements (including informal verification methods), in particular in light of ‘reverse-closed’ evidence submitted by the appellants.
R (Sarkandi, Napibour and Ors) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2015] EWCA Civ 687, [2016] 3 All E.R. 837; [2014] EWHC 2359 (Admin) - the leading appellate authority on s.6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 and the use of ‘closed material’ in civil proceedings.
The underlying judicial review related to the Foreign Secretary’s decision to propose five individuals alleged to be senior members of the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines for EU sanctions (interplay between domestic and EU processes leading to the imposition and annulment of sanctions).
Inquests related to the Stalker-Sampson Inquiry (McKerr and Ors)
Advising as to disclosure obligations (including re. LPP) in ‘legacy’ inquests relating to the controversial deaths of nine individuals in Northern Ireland during The Troubles and associated allegations of a ‘shoot-to-kill’ policy on the part of the British Army and Royal Ulster Constabulary.
L1 v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Statutory review and appeal by an individual deprived of British nationality and subsequently excluded from the UK (whether the decision to wait until the appellant was outside the country to deprive him of his citizenship was an abuse of process) (latterly as sole junior led by Jonathan Glasson QC).
Al Rawi & Ors v The Security Service & Ors
Multi-party civil litigation arising from the detention of individuals at Guantanamo Bay and Coalition facilities, raising complicated issues of disclosure and international human rights and humanitarian law. This work was undertaken, in part, during a six-month secondment to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Publications and lectures
Caroline is a founding and Assistant Editor of the forthcoming practitioner’s textbook National Security: Law, Practice and Procedure (Oxford University Press, early 2021).
In addition to her editorial role, Caroline authored/co-authored:
Chapter 4 – Powers of the Security and Intelligence Agencies
(Topics covered by this chapter include the interception of legally-privileged communications under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016)
Chapter 7 - Executive Measures and Civil Proceedings: Common Evidential and Procedural Issues
(Topics covered by this chapter include costs in cases involving closed proceedings and anonymity and reporting restrictions)
Chapter 14 – Civil Proceedings: General
(CMPs under the JSA 2013; Public Interest Immunity; jurisdictional bars, including state immunity and justiciability)
Caroline regularly provides training to civil servants regarding civil litigation in the national security sphere, covering both substantive and procedural issues.
Administrative and Public Law
Administrative and Public Law cases of note include:
Inquests related to the Stalker-Sampson Inquiry (McKerr and Ors)
Advising as to disclosure obligations (including re. LPP) in ‘legacy’ inquests relating to the controversial deaths of nine individuals in Northern Ireland during The Troubles and associated allegations of a ‘shoot-to-kill’ policy on the part of the British Army and Royal Ulster Constabulary.
In the matter of an Academy
Advising the Department for Education in a high-profile case concerning the potential termination of an Academy’s funding as a result of poor governance and failure to comply with the Independent School Standards (in particular, provisions relating to safeguarding and the need to promote community cohesion, including concerns about extremism and radicalisation).
Syed & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 196 (sole junior)
Interpretation of the Immigration Rules: (i) whether ACCA’s Professional Level Qualification was a “UK recognised bachelor or postgraduate degree” qualifying for the award of points under the Tier 1 (Post Study) work route; (ii) role of UK NARIC in assessing the level of non-degree qualifications obtained in the UK.
Cattrell v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] EWCA Civ 572 (sole junior)
Successfully resisting an appeal by the Secretary of State challenging the award of Incapacity Benefit, in exceptional circumstances, to an individual who had severe allergy (interpretation of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Regulations 1995).
R (Compton) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust
[2009] EWHC 1824 (Admin), [2010] P.T.S.R. (C.S.) 5
Judicial review of a PCT’s decisions regarding the closure of hospital facilities. Key issues included (i) the lawfulness of the consultation process and (ii) the principles governing the apparent bias of advisors to public authorities.
[2008] EWCA Civ 749, 1 W.L.R. 1436 (assisted during pupillage)
One of the leading Court of Appeal authorities on protective costs orders, the predecessor to cost-capping orders: guidance on (i) the criteria and procedure for making and setting aside protective costs orders and (ii) the scope of the “general public importance” test.
SFO v Lexi Holdings Plc (In administration) [2008] EWCA Crim 1443, [2009] Q.B. 376
Drafting submissions for this crucial Court of Appeal case determining the scope of the amended ‘legislative steer’ contained in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Other examples of Caroline’s work in this field include:
Advising as to the legality of a European Arrest Warrant issued against an individual residing in Cyprus (interpretation of the Child Abduction Act 1984).
Advising former police officers in relation to challenging decisions taken by the Police Medical Appeal Board (receipt of injury awards/pensions).
Representing a Councillor accused of breaching the Code of Conduct before his local Standards Committee and thereafter appealing to the First Tier Tribunal (allegations of bullying and breaching provisions regarding respect for others; whether actions undertaken in Councillor’s “official capacity”).
Advising on and/or appearing in judicial reviews and other public law matters on behalf of HMRC and the former UK Border Agency, e.g. arising from condemnation hearings or other enforcement action.
In her early years of practice, Caroline gained significant experience of asset forfeiture law, including civil recovery and restraint proceedings. Cases included advising the former Serious Organised Crime Agency as to the merits of pursuing civil recovery following a failed prosecution in relation to a £6 million fraud.
Please see Caroline’s National Security profile for further details of her judicial review, public law and human rights expertise.
Public Inquiries
Though she has yet to gain direct experience of Public Inquiry work, Caroline has had cause to consider Inquiry materials in the course of her national security cases, e.g. the Stalker/Sampson Inquiry (deaths in Northern Ireland during The Troubles) and the Detainee Inquiry, led by Sir Peter Gibson. She also has significant experience of protracted, multi-party litigation, usually involving multiple government departments and invariably requiring management of significant disclosure exercises.
Caroline is keen to further develop her interest in Public Inquiries and welcomes new instructions in this area.
Professional Discipline and Regulatory Law
Caroline’s notable regulatory cases include:
JC v OFSTED [2011] UKFTT 449
Successfully resisting an appeal against temporary suspension from the register of childminders (safeguarding concerns, including allegations of assault; relevance of concurrent police investigation considered).
General Medical Council v Dr A
Instructed as a junior in a 6-week prosecution of a consultant before the GMC’s Fitness to Practise Panel (charges of dishonesty and financial misfeasance relating to fertility treatment).
In the matter of a Councillor
Representing a Councillor accused of breaching the Code of Conduct before his local Standards Committee and thereafter appealing to the First Tier Tribunal (allegations of bullying and breaching provisions regarding respect for others; whether actions undertaken in Councillor’s “official capacity”).
In addition to a proven track record in public law, Caroline brings to this area significant experience of disciplinary processes/issues from her employment practice and an understanding of the persuasive advocacy required to ensure the best result for her clients. She is keen to further develop her interest in this field.
Education
In the course of her public law practice, Caroline has undertaken a range of education-related cases. She is particularly keen to specialise further in Education law and brings to this area not only a wealth of relevant experience from other areas of her practice (e.g. disciplinary issues, discrimination claims and contractual disputes), but also a down-to-earth, considered approach which is particularly well-suited to the sensitive issues and high stakes often at play in education cases.
Caroline’s education-related experience to date includes:
School admissions
(clerking Admission Appeal Panels, including provision of legal advice regarding disability discrimination)
School exclusions
- Representing a school before an Exclusion Appeal Panel (under the previous regime)
- Providing training to local authorities and Independent Review Panel members on legislative changes
Judicial review
Legal action in respect of Ofsted reports (schools)
Appeals against suspension of registration by Ofsted (Early Years and Child Care providers)
Governance issues in Academies
Safeguarding
Prosecutions for non-attendance (under s.444 of the Education Act 1996)
Whilst at PLP, Caroline’s education-related work included:
Advising on the lawfulness of a University’s disciplinary scheme
Advising a teacher about a potential judicial review in relation to a CRB certificate (which disclosed that the teacher had been the victim of a crime)
Advice regarding a potential judicial review of a decision to close the (then) last all-male state school in Hackney
Cases of note include:
R (Dawatul Islam UK and Eire) v OFSTED
Successfully resisting a school’s application to judicially review an unfavourable progress monitoring inspection report (breach of the Independent School Standards; consideration of the Prevent Duty).
Findings challenged included those relating to the quality of education, the ‘spiritual, moral, social and cultural’ development of pupils, the welfare of students, leadership and Schedule 10 of the Equality Act 2010.
In the matter of an Academy
The case concerned the potential termination of an Academy’s funding as a result of poor governance and failure to comply with the Independent School Standards (in particular, provisions relating to safeguarding and the need to promote community cohesion, including concerns about extremism and radicalisation).
JC v OFSTED [2011] UKFTT 449
Successfully resisting an appeal against temporary suspension from the register of childminders (safeguarding concerns, including allegations of assault; relevance of concurrent police investigation considered).
In addition to the matters listed above, Caroline particularly welcomes new instructions in the following areas:
SEND appeals
Independent Review Panels
Internal academic appeals
Fitness to Practice hearings (student and Teaching Regulation Agency)
Disciplinary and grievance procedures
The intersection between national security and education law
Higher education cases
Employment and Discrimination
Caroline has significant experience of both advisory work and advocacy in employment law matters. Her cases range from preliminary hearings to substantive multi-day trials, representing the full spectrum of the labour market – from cleaners to hedge fund employees; care home providers to public authority employers (e.g. the Ministry of Justice, DWP and FC&DO). Caroline’s meticulous attention to detail ensures she is always fully conversant with the finer details of her client’s work environment - of particular assistance in relation to industries which are heavily regulated or more technical in nature.
Caroline has also advised on the merits of appealing decisions to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Caroline has experience of:
Unfair dismissal – including constructive unfair dismissal, gross misconduct and the reasonableness of selection criteria for redundancy
Employment status
TUPE
Unlawful deduction of wages (including bonus schemes)
Breach of contract claims
Whistleblowing: public interest disclosures relating to health and safety
All forms of discrimination claims, including indirect discrimination
Equal Pay Act claims
Cases of interest include:
Acting on behalf of the (former) UK Border Agency in successfully defending a claim for discrimination ‘arising from disability’ brought under the (then) novel provisions of s.15 of the Equality Act 2010 (consideration of the necessary causal link between the impugned conduct and the disability relied upon).
Successfully arguing that a school groundsman who had accounted for his own tax and national insurance for over 20 years, had a considerable degree of autonomy in the manner in which work was completed and undertook similar jobs elsewhere as a contractor, was nonetheless an ‘employee’ for the purposes of an unfair dismissal claim.
Advising as to whether a Civil Service injury benefit scheme (Ministry of Defence) was indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of age.
Advising whether termination of employment in order to prevent a local authority employee accessing his pension amounted to age discrimination.
Persuading a Tribunal that despite technical difficulties with its website having prevented a prison governor from submitting his claim online on the final day of the limitation period, it was nevertheless reasonably practicable for him to have presented his claim in time (consideration of (then) new procedural Rules and the validity of incorrectly-submitted applications)
Caroline represents both Claimants and Respondents, providing valuable insight into the complexities of the workplace environment and the underlying factors which drive and shape employment litigation. She is alert to the commercial realities which often call for the pragmatic resolution of a case.
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).
Catherine Purdy is a specialist Family and Personal Injury practitioner. Catherine undertakes work in all areas of family law, including public and private law, domestic violence and finance issues.
She advises on a wide variety of work in the area of personal injury. She acts for both claimants and defendants, appearing in fast and multi-track cases at all stages, from drafting pleadings, early directions and interlocutory applications, through to final hearings, where both liability and quantum may be in issue.
Catherine’s clients have included individuals of all ages who have experienced both physical and psychological injuries.
Family
Catherine undertakes work in all areas of Family Law, including Children, Public and Private Law.
Public:
Instructed by Local Authorities, parents, grandparents and Guardians
Cases involving allegations of all types of “significant harm”
Cases in the High Court, County Court and Family Proceedings Court
Involved in “Operation Romulus & Remus”: allegations included child sexual abuse. Hearing lasted 3 weeks
Re: N (preliminary hearing reported at [2000] 1 FLR 134). Final hearing lasted 5 weeks.
Private:
Instructed by parents and grandparents
Residence and contact applications, including those with allegations of physical, emotional and sexual abuse and domestic violence
Nullity cases: involving bigamy and non-consummation
Domestic Violence
Acts for both applicants and respondents in Family Law Act injunctions and committal applications, including Occupation Orders.
Finance:
Ancillary relief applications, including interlocutory relief
Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 applications
Applications under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996
Inheritance Act applications.
Catherine is a Member of the Family Law Bar Association.
Personal Injury
Catherine undertakes a wide variety of work in the area of personal injury. She acts for both Claimants and Defendants, appearing in fast and multi-track cases at all stages, from drafting pleadings, early directions and interlocutory applications, through to final hearings, where both liability and quantum may be in issue.
Catherine's clients have included individuals of all ages who have experienced both physical and psychological injuries.
Catherine accepts instructions under Conditional Fee Agreements in appropriate claims, from insurance company-backed litigants, Local Authorities and other privately-paying individuals.
Catherine’s cases have involved:
Allegations of fraud in a RTA claim
Abuse of Process argument and whether there was a failure to litigate all possible claims simultaneously
Slips and trips caused by:
- Recent adverse weather conditions
- Defects in and/or a failure to maintain the highway
- Spills and obstacles in the work place
- Spills and obstacles in shops, leisure centres and other public places
A claim for an already wheelchair-bound claimant under the Highways Act 1980
A child whose arm was trapped in an escalator
Claims involving the use of holiday homes
A Fatal Accidents Act claim resulting from an accident on a fishing boat
A claim in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority involving psychological damage of an alleged rape victim
A loss of earnings claim based on alleged psychological damage.
Catherine has appeared for family members of the deceased at inquests and has lectured in-house on all aspects of Employers and Occupiers Liability Claims.
Catherine has completed Equality and Diversity Training.
Charles Fulton is a barrister with 3PB, specialising in personal injury.
Prior to moving to the self-employed Bar, Charles worked in health policy, initially as a Policy Officer at the Nursing and Midwifery Council. In this role, he analysed pieces of legislation to provide policy guidance to colleagues, and researched and wrote the organisation’s Strategic Context Report in order to help to develop its long-term strategy. He then worked as a Senior Policy Officer for Diabetes UK, where he was the policy lead for the charity’s work in relation to children and young people.
Charles has also undertaken pro bono work for the Free Representation Unit, has mooted at Inner Temple and at BPP University, and has represented Newcastle University at the European Universities’ Debating Championship.
In his own time, Charles enjoys travelling, learning languages and visiting museums and art galleries. He speaks upper intermediate level Spanish and intermediate level French.
Charles Fulton is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. Please contact Charles for a copy of his privacy policy which sets out the basis upon which any personal data he may collect about you, or that is provided to him, will be processed by him. He will provide a copy of this policy to you within 2 working days of its request.
Personal Injury
Charles Fulton is regularly instructed to appear on behalf of Claimants and Defendants in a variety of Personal Injury hearings and trials.
He has been instructed in:
Road Traffic Accident Fast Track trials. He has dealt with the following issues in such trials:
Liability
Causation
Assessment of general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity
Credit hire
Fundamental dishonesty
Costs
Public liability Fast Track trials
Interim application hearings
Case Management Conferences.
Charles has additionally drafted the following types of paperwork:
Infant approval quantum advice
Advice on liability and quantum
Particulars of Claim
Further and Better Particulars
Schedule of Loss.
Charles is keen to develop a practice in other aspects of personal injury, in particular, product liability claims and travel claims. He is also keen to develop a practice in Multi-Track personal injury work.
Clinical Negligence
Charles is keen to develop a clinical negligence practice and to accept instructions in this area.
Charles Irvine is regularly instructed in the Court of Appeal, High Court, County Court and the Tribunals on a range of civil matters covering property, trusts, commercial & insolvency proceedings. He is able to accept instructions on a direct public access basis.
Commercial
Charles has significant expertise in commercial disputes and contractual and professional negligence cases. He is noted for his expertise in insolvency, in particular, individual bankruptcy and commercial insolvency, including boardroom disputes between directors and shareholders. He also has expertise in commercial disputes concerning contracts, guarantees and sureties.
In particular, including:
Company litigation
Corporate and individual insolvency
Partnership
Breach of contract
Agency
Misrepresentation
Recent and reported cases:
In the matter of M (2023)
Charles successfully defended a debtor who was facing bankruptcy in respect of a debt of around £500,000 and in related High Court proceedings concerning a disputed debt of £375,000 arising from a purported breach of and/or the assumption of a company’s debt by a director.
S v H (2022)
Charles successfully negotiated a sizeable settlement in an unfair prejudice petition brought by his client against a co-director in a quasi-partnership dispute. The underlying dispute raised issues concerning the controlling director’s misappropriation of company assets, breach of fiduciary duties by failing to promote the success of the company and undeclared dividends and salary payments made to the client’s detriment.
G P Ltd v C (2021)
Charles successfully represented a former employee (C) in getting a High Court claim brought by her former employer (G) dismissed and opposing an interim injunction being entered against her for a purported breach of confidentiality. It was alleged that C obtained G’s commercially sensitive information and passed it onto her new employer. The context was that the G’s former founding director had left G to set up a rival company and C had left G to join him. These proceedings were part of an attempt to obtain information to sustain G’s claim against the former director.
In the matter of Sinton European Logistics Ltd (2019) [2019] 2 WLUK 327
Charles successfully represented the liquidator of Sinton European Logistics in a claim brought against the former director of the company that had gone into creditors' voluntary liquidation. The director was liable to pay £20,360 to the liquidator in respect of various payments made, before the company had gone into liquidation, in breach of his fiduciary duty as director. (LTL 22/2/2019 EXTEMPORE: [2019] 2 WLUK 327)
Greatbatch v Sirius Marine Service Ltd (Re Rhapsody) [2018] EWHC 4062 (Admlty)
Charles successfully brought proceedings in the Admiralty Court in respect of defective workmanship carried out by the Defendant. The case raised issues as to the correct measure of damages for pleasure vessels.
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Technosport London Ltd & Agyeton [2016] EWHC 797 (IPEC)
High Court trial concerning passing off and trade mark infringement of the BMW word mark and roundel logo.
Doctor Associates Inc v Hussain [2014] EWHC 3384 (IPEC)
High Court application to set aside default judgment on terms in a passing off case.
GHML v Maroo [2012]
Led by David Berkley KC of 3PB for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the fiduciary duties owed by directors. Advising a large group of companies on their standard terms and conditions and updating the same in light of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Banking and Finance
Regularly instructed on behalf of lenders in a range of contractual and enforcement of security proceedings, especially with guarantee obligations, insolvency and/or property issues. Junior counsel to David Berkley KC of 3PB in a SME mis-selling claim against a large banking group, which settled and was reported in the Sunday Times (2 August 2015).
Property and Estates
Charles enjoys a busy property practice and his experience includes:
Real property, with a focus on trusts of land, proprietary estoppel and the interpretation of deeds.
Landlord and Tenant: Commercial and residential landlord and tenant law, including possession, advising on secured and assured tenancies, 1954 Act renewals and forfeiture and surrender
Recent and reported cases:
Hambling & anor v Wakerly & anor [2023] EWHC 343 (Ch); [2023] All ER (D) 77 (Feb)
Charles was successful at both first instance and at appeal in a claim brought against his clients for: (i) interference with a right of way, which was dependant on the interpretation of a transfer; (ii) interference with a right to light; and (iii) proprietary estoppel. Charles won on all issues at first instance. On appeal, the issue centred on whether the interpretation of a right of way and whether there was any “ancillary” use arguments which would benefit a right of way. Again, Charles was successful in opposing the appeal.
The case attracted a significant amount of national press interest:
https://www.3pb.co.uk/charles-irvine-successful-in-high-profile-neighbours-boundary-dispute/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11788527/Couple-face-160-000-bill-losing-legal-battle-against-monstrous-millionaire-neighbours.html
https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/news/effect-of-practical-geographical-realities-when-construing-express-easement-hambling-v-wakerly]
Gillbac Ltd v (1) Clinkett & (2) Persons Unknown [2023]
Charles successfully represented the Claimant in complex commercial possession proceedings involving the removal of a former business tenant from premises to be sold to developers as part of a £2.8million development. The former tenant took forceable repossession of the site to operate from and refused to leave on the basis that the local council had failed to find alternative premises for him to operate from. The matter attracted a national press interest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fficIWeoP5M
https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/bailiffs-trying-evict-london-barber-24735294
https://southwarknews.co.uk/featured/rotherhithe-evicted-small-business-owner-gets-keys-back-and-is-free-to-start-trading-again/
Uddin & Begum v Hussain & Islam [2023]
Charles successfully obtained a High Court injunction on behalf of the Claimants to prevent the Defendants (their son and daughter-in-law) from selling a home in which they all lived in. In the substantive claim, the Claimants seek to set aside/void a fraudulent transfer deed which transferred the property into the Claimants’ son’s sole name. The Claimants assert that their son forged for his parents’ signature on the transfer deed. Alternatively, the First Defendant made his parents sign the transfer deed on the basis of a fraudulent misrepresentation and/or as a result of applying undue influence and/or by mistake.
Carshalton Beeches Bowling Club Limited v Seaton House School [2020]
Charles successfully represented the Defendant, Seaton House School, named Independent Preparatory School of the Year 2018, at a 3 day trial in the County Court at Central London. The claim concerned a business lease renewal under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and a claim for a new lease under the principles of proprietary estoppel. The case has attracted news coverage including in The Telegraph, The Times, the Evening Standard and the Daily Mail.
Shah & Shah v Greening & Greening [2015]
A 2 day trial in the High Court concerning the specific performance of a contract for sale which raised issues of illegality and exceptional hardship.
Pressland v Sonigara [2015]
A 2 day trial at the County Court at Central London concerning the surrender of a lease by operation of law.
Hayatt v Cherwell District Council [2014]
First Tier Tribunal Property Chamber (Residential Property) appeal against the refusal to revoke an Interim Management Order.
Charles Hogan joined 3PB in November 2021 as an established family law specialist, having built a busy practice at a small chambers in Northampton. He brings experience of complex matters beyond his year of call.
Charles combines outstanding academic ability with a pragmatic approach. He has an easy rapport with both lay and professional clients and works hard to achieve the desired outcome.
He welcomes instructions in all areas of family law and TOLATA, with a particular focus on family finance and private Children Act applications.
Charles has a background in business, having worked in an account management role at a communications company for four years before reading law at the University of Buckingham. He is also frequently involved in the award-winning family business, Hogan's Cider in Alcester, Warwickshire.
He is the author of "Trust and Confidence: do we need it? Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker [2014] HCA 32" which was published in the Buckingham Student Law Review 2015 Vol 1 pp 19-28.
Outside of work, Charles plays guitar and writes songs in a rock band. He follows football and cricket, reluctantly keeps fit and enjoys anything powered by internal combustion.
FAMILY
Charles Hogan is an established family law specialist, and brings experience of complex matters beyond his year of call.
Financial remedies and TOLATA
Charles has substantial experience in financial remedies, including the dealing with the following issues:
international assets
freezing injunctions
interveners
applications under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984
separation agreements
applications to vary an order for periodical payments
disputes as to whether sums advanced by a third party was a loan or a gift
pension sharing, including cases involving the instruction of a PODE
personal injury damages.
He is alive to issues at the early stages of First Appointment, focuses on presenting the client’s case succinctly and powerfully at FDR in order to obtain the best indication and settlement, and provides effective representation at final hearing where a settlement is impossible.
Charles can assist with drafting questionnaires and practice direction documents.
Charles also advises and represents clients on TOLATA disputes, from the pre-issue stage to final hearing.
Significant cases:
N v N – Charles represented the wife in a long-running dispute between two Iranian nationals, with competing divorce petitions in Iran and England. There were substantial assets both in the UK and Iran, a freezing injunction in the UK, and an application under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 for financial remedy in the UK after a divorce settlement in Iran.
F v F – Charles represented the husband in a case where the wife did not engage with financial proceedings. He secured an order for her committal, an order for sale of the family home, and costs at all stages of proceedings, as well as providing advice as to how to obtain a warrant for possession of the family home under CPR 83.
C v C – Charles represented the wife in a case where the husband claimed that the mortgage had been paid off by a loan from his father. At final hearing, the court heard the evidence of the father and the parties, and Charles persuaded the court that the sum advanced was in fact a gift.
Private child
Charles has extensive experience in private Children Act applications, including:
Relocation, both internally and internationally
Allegations of serious physical and sexual abuse
Parental alienation
Section 91(14) orders
Parentage disputes between same-sex couples
Drug and alcohol issues
Enforcement applications
Charles is very experienced at all stages of proceedings, and has a record of successfully challenging professional recommendations at final hearing.
Significant cases:
M vs RB and R – Charles represented the second respondent civil partner of the birth mother in an application by the birth mother’s former partner for contact and parental responsibility.
A vs T - Charles represented the father accused of historic sexual offences against children in his application for contact, and was successful at the fact-finding hearing in achieving no findings against the father, and ultimately an order for unsupervised contact.
K vs M – Charles represented the mother in an application by the father for contact, where the father had made threats to kill the mother, and numerous applications to enforce child arrangements orders. Charles secured an order for the father to have supervised contact only.
Injunctions
Charles has considerable experience in representing both applicants and respondents in applications for non-molestation orders and occupation orders, and is aware and provides advice at all times as to how these matters interact with other parts of a wider dispute.
Charles has also represented a defendant in an application for a gang injunction.
Significant cases:
B v B – Charles successfully represented the respondent husband, allowing him to return to the family home after an occupation order was granted at an interim stage;
K v K – Charles successfully represented the wife at the final hearing of her application for an occupation order, securing her occupation of the family home;
West Midlands Police v M – Charles represented a defendant in an application for a gang injunction brought by a Chief Constable under The Policing and Crime Act 2009, settling the matter with undertakings given by the client on favourable terms.
Care and adoption
Charles has significant experience representing parents at all stages of care proceedings, including multi-day final hearings involving complex issues, including:
Drug and alcohol issues, including those heard in the Family Drug and Alcohol Court
Mental health issues, including representing clients assisted by intermediaries and advocates
Allegations and findings of serious sexual abuse
Allegations and findings of serious physical abuse
Non-accidental injuries
Interim removal
Applications for independent assessment
Expert psychological and psychiatric evidence
Cases where placement abroad is a realistic option
Significant cases:
Re V – Charles represented the mother as junior counsel in a fact-finding hearing to determine allegations that she committed serious sexual abuse against her children, and had large amounts of indecent images of children on her devices. The evidence included evidence provided by the FBI.
Re T – Charles represented the father in the final hearing of his application to discharge a care order, and was instructed on day two of the four-day hearing after the father had ceased instructing his previous solicitor and barrister. The application was unsuccessful, but Charles succeeded in preserving the father’s current favourable contact arrangements.
Re A – Charles secured an culturally appropriate independent social work assessment of a Ghanian father in care proceedings after the parenting assessment prepared by the Local Authority did not take sufficient account of the father’s cultural identity and beliefs.
Charlotte Hadfield is the Head of 3PB’s Education Team.
Her main specialism is in public law, particularly education, health and social care, with a complimentary expertise in employment cases and professional discipline cases arising out of related sectors.
Education, health and social care
Charlotte accepts instructions across the full spectrum of these interrelated areas, including:
SEND appeals (including National Trial cases)
Discrimination (including disability discrimination) claims in the FTT and County Court
Judicial review, including decisions relating to SEN provision under EHC Plans, education otherwise than at school, continuing healthcare assessments, social care assessments, unlawful exclusions
Governance issues in academies and free schools
School/parent relationships, including parent bans, internal complaints, protection from harassment
Admissions (lawfulness of admissions arrangements, compatibility of admissions arrangements with the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act)
Exclusion appeals
Legal action in respect of Ofsted and CQC reports (schools, care providers)
Appeals against cancellation of registration by Ofsted (Early Years and Child Care providers)
Contractual and tortious claims against education providers
Safeguarding, DBA (formerly CRB) issues
Internal academic appeals and fitness to practice hearings
NCTL proceedings (see also Charlotte’s Public and Regulatory profile)
Disputes relating to school fees
Mental Capacity/Court of Protection
Charlotte accepts instructions to appear in the Court of Protection and is well versed in Court of Protection practice and procedure. She is experienced in anticipating and addressing points about capacity that may arise in education, health and care proceedings outside of the Court of Protection, e.g. in relation to young persons in appeals before SENDIST.
Charlotte regularly delivers training on the law relating to education, health and social care to a variety of different audiences, including solicitors, local authorities, university student advisors, lay panel members and parents.
For Charlotte's education law expertise please see her Education profile.
Employment and Discrimination
Charlotte is instructed by Claimants and Respondents across the full spectrum of employment law. She has a particular interest in employment cases in the education, health and care contexts and regularly advises on:
Unfair dismissal
Redundancy
Breach of contract/unlawful deductions
Working Time Regulations
TUPE
Discrimination
Whistleblowing
Equal Pay
Breach of Restrictive Covenants
Charlotte regularly delivers training on employment law to solicitors and HR professionals. Please see Charlotte's separate Education & Discrimination profile.
Professional Discipline
Charlotte also regularly accepts instructions in respect of all of the professional regulators, including teachers before the NCTL, regulated healthcare practitioners before the HCPC, GMC, GDC, GOC etc, and solicitors before the SDT.
Charlotte also acts for students pursuing qualifications in the regulated sector, whether they are facing action from the external regulator or internal disciplinary action from their course provider.
For Charlotte's Disciplinary & Regulatory Proceedings expertise please see her separate profile.
Employment and Discrimination
Charlotte is instructed by Claimants and Respondents across the full spectrum of employment law. She has a particular interest in employment cases in the education, health and care contexts. She regularly advises on the following claims:
Unfair dismissal
Redundancy
Breach of contract/unlawful deductions
Working Time Regulations
TUPE
Discrimination
Whistleblowing
Equal Pay
Breach of Restrictive Covenants
She is frequently instructed on behalf of both Respondents and Claimants in complex discrimination/detriment cases, and has extensive experience of cases involving direct/indirect discrimination and/or victimisation and harassment; whistleblowing, equal pay, and detriment to part-time workers. Charlotte has a particular interest in TUPE cases.
Charlotte has also represented clients charged with disciplinary offences before professional regulators. She has particular insight into the operation of disciplinary panels thanks to her experience as a Legal Assessor for the Nursing and Midwifery Council.
The crossover between Charlotte’s education practice and her employment practice, means that she is ideally placed to act in employment claims by teachers. She has extensive experience of acting on behalf of local authorities, schools and teachers in employment claims.
On the non-contentious side, Charlotte is available to advise on the drafting and interpretation of contracts of employment, disciplinary and grievance procedures, and compromise agreements.
Reported cases:
Harris v Academies Enterprise Trust [2015] IRLR 208 EAT (whether employment tribunals are bound by Mitchell case management principles)
Morgan Motor Co Ltd v Morgan (2015) UKEAT/0128/15 (factors to be taken into account when considering an application for relief from sanction)
Crystal Palace FC Ltd and Anor v Kavanagh & Ors [2014] IRLR 139 CA (whether an administrator can dismiss for an ETO reason)
Education
Charlotte is passionate about education and enjoys a wide and varied practice covering the full spectrum of education law and related regulatory law. She is regularly instructed on behalf of parents, young people, students, schools, academies, HE providers, local authorities, universities and Early Years and Child Care providers/practitioners.
Her work includes:
SEND appeals (including National Trial cases)
Discrimination (including disability discrimination) claims in the FTT and County Court
Judicial review, including decisions relating to SEN provision under EHC Plans, education otherwise than at school, continuing healthcare assessments, social care assessments, unlawful exclusions
Governance issues in academies and free schools
School/parent relationships, including parent bans, internal complaints, protection from harassment
Admissions (lawfulness of admissions arrangements, compatibility of admissions arrangements with the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act)
Exclusion appeals
Legal action in respect of Ofsted and CQC reports (schools, care providers)
Appeals against cancellation of registration by Ofsted (Early Years and Child Care providers)
Contractual and tortious claims against education providers
Safeguarding, DBA (formerly CRB) issues
Internal academic appeals and fitness to practice hearings
NCTL proceedings (see also Charlotte’s Public and Regulatory profile)
Disputes relating to school
Charlotte regularly provides training on education law to a variety of different audiences, including LEAs, solicitors, university student advisors, lay panel members and parents.
Reported cases
BA v Nottinghamshire County Council [2021] EWHC 1348 (Admin) (JR)
DJ, R (on the application of) v Welsh Ministers & Anor [2018] WLR (D) 646
DS, R(on the application of) v Wolverhampton City Council [2017] ELR 630
SN v Nottinghamshire County Council [2014] UKUT 002 (AAC)
Oxfordshire County Council v JL (2010) EWHC 798 (Admin)
Mental Capacity/Court of Protection
Charlotte accepts instructions to appear in the Court of Protection and is well versed in Court of Protection practice and procedure. She is experienced in anticipating and addressing points about capacity that may arise in education, health and care proceedings outside of the Court of Protection, e.g. in relation to young persons in appeals before SENDIST.
Public and Regulatory
Charlotte is an expert in all aspects of education law, and in disciplinary and regulatory proceedings.
Education Law
Charlotte is passionate about education and enjoys a wide and varied practice covering the full spectrum of education law and related regulatory law. She is regularly instructed on behalf of parents, young people, students, schools, academies, HE providers, local authorities, universities and Early Years and Child Care providers/practitioners.
Her work includes:
SEND appeals
Discrimination (including disability discrimination) claims in the FTT and County Court
Judicial reviews
Governance issues relating to academies and free schools
School/parent relationships, including parent bans, internal complaints, Protection from Harassment
Admissions (including infant class size appeals, lawfulness of admissions arrangements, compatibility of admissions arrangements with the Equality Act 2010 and Human Rights Act)
Exclusion appeals
Appeals by Early Years and Child Care providers and practitioners against cancellation of registration by Ofsted
Contractual and tortious claims against education providers
Issues relating to safeguarding, CRB, DBA disclosures
Internal academic appeals by university students
NCTL proceedings (see also Charlotte’s Public and Regulatory profile)
School fee disputes
Employment Tribunal proceedings (see also Charlotte’s Employment profile)
Charlotte regularly provides training on education law to a variety of different audiences, including LEAs, solicitors, university student advisors, lay panel members and parents.
Reported cases
Oxfordshire County Council v JL [2010] EWHC 798 (Admin)
SN v Nottinghamshire County Council [2014] UKUT 002 (AAC)
Professional Discipline and Regulatory Law
Charlotte accepts instructions in respect of all of the professional regulators, including teachers before the NCTL, regulated healthcare practitioners before the HCPC, GMC, GDC, GOC etc, and solicitors before the SDT.
Charlotte also acts for students pursuing qualifications in the regulated sector, whether they are facing action from the external regulator, or internal disciplinary action from their course provider.
Charlotte specialised in criminal law for the first 6 years of her practice and has since specialised in education, regulatory and employment law. She has an excellent understanding both of the regulatory/criminal law that governs regulatory proceedings, and of the persuasive advocacy required to achieve the best possible result for her clients. Charlotte is also able to advise clients on associated legal action, e.g. judicial review in respect of publication decisions.
Recent work includes:
Representing a student nurse facing internal disciplinary action and removal from their nursing degree
Representing a solicitor accused by the SRA of misleading the court
Representing a solicitor accused by the SRA of failing to act with integrity and compromising client confidentiality
Representing a teacher accused by the NCTL of “grooming” a pupil
Representing a registered psychologist before the HCPC
Charlotte Steer is a family law barrister at 3PB based in Oxford. Charlotte completed 11 months of her pupillage at a specialist family law chambers and successfully completed the last month of pupillage in September 2023 at 3PB.
Charlotte has developed a busy family law practice in both private and public law proceedings in addition to proceedings under the Family Law Act 1996. Charlotte represents parents, local authority’s and children through their Children’s Guardians at all hearings from first hearing through to contested final hearings.
Charlotte regularly deals with cases involving allegations of neglect, physical and emotional abuse, domestic violence, substance misuse and mental health issues. Charlotte also has experience in private law cases involving allegations of parental alienation, in addition to cases involving issues with capacity.
Charlotte has been commended for her incredibly thorough preparation and her ability to assimilate complex information and to distil salient facts and arguments into detailed position statements, that have both gravitas and authority, which is far beyond her year of call. Charlotte puts her client's case fearlessly, with both authority and compassion.
During pupillage, Charlotte had exposure to the full spectrum of family law proceedings, including both fact find and welfare hearings involving complex non-accidental injury and sexual abuse. Charlotte assisted her pupil supervisor with the preparation of lengthy schedules of inconsistencies, complex position statements, advice on appeal and skeleton arguments. During the first month of her second six, Charlotte successfully appealed a magistrates’ decision to a Circuit Judge.
Prior to joining chambers, Charlotte worked as a paralegal in the childcare department of a well-respected Family team at a Northampton law firm. Charlotte worked predominantly on care proceedings, both before and after issue, in addition to rule 16.4 cases and applications for Special Guardianship Orders.
After completion of the BPTC, Charlotte worked at a law firm in London and assisted with private family law cases, such as applications under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989 and Divorce and Ancillary relief proceedings, in addition to civil litigation disputes.
Outside of work, Charlotte enjoys playing badminton having previously played for her county, going to the gym and spending time with friends. Charlotte enjoys travelling, having undertaken an around the world trip during her gap year and is always keen to explore new places and experience different cultures.
Cheryl Jones is a member of the Property and Estates and Commercial teams. She specialises in real property and trusts, with a particular interest in constructive trusts and estoppel. Cheryl is also an insolvency specialist, dealing with both personal and corporate insolvencies and related issues. She also has a strong practice in probate matters and is known for taking on cases which have unusual or cross-border elements.
She is a qualified mediator and a member of the Bar Pro Bono Unit.
Cheryl sits as a Recorder in both Civil and Criminal and is also Deputy Insolvency and Companies Judge, sitting in the High Court.
Called to the Bar in 1996, after achieving a First Class degree from Lancaster University as a mature student, Cheryl undertook pupillage in a leading Insolvency Chambers in Lincolns Inn and brings life experience and common sense to all areas of her practice.
Commercial
Cheryl Jones is an experienced commercial and traditional chancery barrister with an established High Court practice. Her practice encompasses commercial litigation, company and shareholder disputes, insolvency and trusts disputes. She welcomes instructions in the following areas:
Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVA)
Injunctions preventing the presentation of a petition
Director’s disqualification
Transactions at an undervalue and preferences, wrongful trading and misfeasance
Applications to set aside statutory demands and bankruptcy petitions
Applications by trustees in respect of real property
Income Payment Orders (IPO)
Third party applications.
Cheryl Jones regularly acts on behalf of both applicants and respondents in urgent applications out of court hours and haves particular experience in relation to:
Freezing Injunctions
Prohibitory injunctions
Norwich Pharmacal Orders
Search Orders
She regularly advises and acts for insolvency practitioners, trustees, creditors and debtors and individuals in relation to a wide variety of matters. Also being a part-qualified accountant, not only gives Cheryl the ability to deal with complicated factual issues as well as the legal complexities, but also the ability to assimilate accounts quickly and efficiently.
Recent cases
Blackburn v Southwell [2014] EWCA Civ 1347 - a ground breaking claim in proprietary estoppel on behalf of the successful claimant
In re Nicholas Christou [2014] EWHC 79 (Ch) - allegations of fraud and forgery against an executor
Foxholes Nursing Homes Ltd v Accora Ltd [2013] EWHC 3712 (Ch) - an application to restrain the presentation of a winding up petition
Agarwala v Agarwala [2013] EWCA Civ 1763 - appeal in respect of a beneficial interest in a commercial property
Duncan v Duncan [2013] EWCA Civ 1407 - a party he had previously represented
Hope v Knight [2010] EWHC 3443 (Ch) - Inheritance Act Claim by long-estranged wife and child against estate of husband
Representing liquidators against directors in complex claims for misfeasance, transactions at an undervalue and preferences
Representing a bankrupt in claims against trustees in bankruptcy who are alleged to have acted against the interest of the bankrupt in the residue of the estate
Representing a bankrupt in a disputed Centre of Main Interests petition.
Property and Estates
Cheryl’s property and private client practice encompasses trusts of land and proprietary estoppel, as well as boundary disputes. She has an extensive knowledge of and practice in probate and trusts issues.
Cheryl sits in the High Court as a Registrar, dealing with both high value bankruptcy matters and company matters, as a Chancery District Judge and as a Civil and Criminal Recorder. She is also a trained mediator.
Speaking
With a background in lecturing at Westminster University, Cheryl welcomes any opportunity to give talks on in all the areas in which she practices. She aims to give clear, precise and uncomplicated talks that are of long term practical use to solicitors, barristers and anyone with an interest in the subject.
Her more recent interesting cases include
Agarwala v Agarwala [2016] EWCA Civ 1251; [2017] 1P&CR DG17 - relating to the date from which a trustee in breach of her trust was no longer acting unlawfully; calculations of equitable damages by a trustee and other associated issues
In re Castrillon (High Court) (2016) with elements of Colombian law, alleged undue influence and fraud. Settled by way of mediation to client’s satisfaction
In re Freud (High Court) (2016), on an intestacy where a brother and sister could not agree the burial arrangements for their deceased mother or the subsequent disposition of the estate
In re Kramer (High Court) (2016), a claim by personal representatives for declarations under the Trusts of Land & Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 in conflict with previous decisions of a religious court and need for accounting from executor de son tort.
Blackburn v Southwell [2014] EWCA Civ 1247 [2015] 2 FLR 1240 - representing a co-habitee claiming estoppel against her former partner
Christou (Pittas v Christou) [2014] EWHC 79 (Ch) - acting for the executor in highly contested claim, subsequently advising on the retention of costs from the Defendant’s inheritance after the Defendant’s bankruptcy
Gabitass v Watkins (High Court) (2014), successfully resisting a claim by a stepson for provision from an estate on the grounds that he did not come within the act.
In re Agarwala (2014), successfully setting aside two wills on the grounds of forgery and entering Indian will to probate against allegations of malpractice and fraud from the unsuccessful brothers.
Duncan v Duncan [2013] EWCA Civ 1407 - appeal against a finding of conflict of interest in relation to a barrister acting for one party against a party he had previously represented
Agarwala v Agarwala [2013] EWCA Civ 1763 - appeal in respect of a beneficial interest in a commercial property
Hope v Knight [2010] EWHC 3443 (Ch) - involving the first consideration of long time separation of a married couple in connection with the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependants) Act 1975, in the light of Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42
In Re Sanussi - consideration of the laws of intestacy where the deceased had multiple legal wives in Nigeria but had English property to be divided
Many other cases involving advising and bringing claims for undue influence, want of knowledge and approval or incapacity; Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependants) Act 1975; to remove executors/personal representatives; property claims by executors/personal representatives.
Cheryl believes that strenuous efforts should be made in all cases to settle matters without the need for a trial, and many of her cases do settle at mediation, but she is a fearless advocate for her client when it is clear that no sensible settlement can be reached.
Although Cheryl is officially located in the London Office of 3PB, and is particularly well placed to accept instructions in London, she also accepts instructions throughout the Midlands, South East and in Bristol. She is computer literate, providing swift and lucid advices by email if so desired.
Mediation
Cheryl is an experienced barrister practicing in the areas of Chancery and Family Law and has a practical and down-to-earth approach to all her work, coupled with intellectual rigor.
She also sits as a Recorder and a Deputy Insolvency and Companies Judge, sitting in the High Court.
Cheryl’s judicial experience, coupled with an ability to think laterally gives her a real advantage when acting as a mediator. She understands the day to day concerns of the lay client and the sensitivities ADR can bring, and as such is willing to take as much time as is necessary to reach a resolution - at times taking the less travelled path and looking at creative solutions to the apparently insoluble.
She is flexible in her approach and appreciates that even in apparently straightforward matters, there may be underlying emotional issues which have to be acknowledged and addressed in order to give the best chance of settling the actual legal issues. In those matters, Cheryl will address and value the emotional issues, without allowing them to get out of hand or to interfere with a sensible settlement.
Where the issues are practical or legal, she will seek to assist the parties to look at alternative solutions of ways of solving them. It is her experience that it is often the issues that appear to be trivial which are of greatest importance to one or more of the parties.
Cheryl encourages parties to resolve matters in a sensible and workable way, reaching an agreement which is clear and unambiguous. Where necessary she will assist with the drafting of an agreement.
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.
Dr Christopher Whelan practises mainly in Employment Law, though he advises on Corporate and Commercial Law and matters relating to the Professions.
Prior to his Call to the Bar, he spent 25 years as an academic lawyer at the Universities of Oxford and Warwick where he taught Labour, Commercial and European Union Law. He now combines practice with his current post at Oxford.
He has around 70 publications in various journals including the Industrial Law Journal and the Modern Law Review. He has written or edited six books on subjects such as small claims courts and professional liability insurance. His most recent book is on the control of creative accounting. His most recent law review articles have included ‘Some Realism About Professionalism’, an analysis of the role played by lawyers in the Enron bankruptcy, ‘Law Firm Ethics in the Shadow of Corporate Social Responsibility’ and ‘Privatizing Professionalism’: analyses of the ways in which clients influence or even control lawyers’ ethical practices.
He has acted as a consultant to the Dutch and French governments, the Office of Fair Trading, the National Consumer Council and the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia. He is a member of the Industrial Law Society, the Institute for Employment Rights and the International Bar Association.
EMPLOYMENT AND DISCRIMINATION
Christopher practises mainly in Employment Law, though he advises on Corporate and Commercial Law and matters relating to the Professions.
Prior to his Call to the Bar, he spent 25 years as an academic lawyer at the Universities of Oxford and Warwick where he taught Labour, Commercial and European Union Law. He now combines practice with his current post at Oxford.
He has around 60 publications in various journals including the Industrial Law Journal and the Modern Law Review. He has written or edited six books on subjects such as small claims courts and professional liability insurance. His most recent book is on the control of creative accounting. His most recent law review articles have included ‘Some Realism About Professionalism’, an analysis of the role played by lawyers in the Enron bankruptcy, ‘Law Firm Ethics in the Shadow of Corporate Social Responsibility’ and ‘Privatizing Professionalism’: analyses of the ways in which clients influence or even control lawyers’ ethical practices.
He has acted as a consultant to the Dutch and French governments, the Office of Fair Trading, the National Consumer Council and the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia. He is a member of the Industrial Law Society, the Institute for Employment Rights and the International Bar Association.
MEDIATION
Christopher is an accredited Mediator.
Christopher Aylwin has over 40 years’ experience in the field of commercial litigation, regularly appearing on behalf of both corporate and private clients.
His specialisms include professional negligence and negligent mis-statement in a commercial context, warranty and valuation disputes, partnership disputes, shareholder disputes (including petitions under section 459 of the Companies Act), breaches of trustees’ and directors’ duties and director’s disqualification.
He advises on passing off and markets. He advises on technology and construction claims covering all aspects of the field. He has appeared for claimants and defendants in cases concerning defective design, defective work, loss and expense and professional negligence, many of them multi-party. He also frequently represents those accused of professional disciplinary offences and appears regularly before the Disciplinary Tribunals of the ICAEW and the ACCA.
Commercial
Christopher has over 40 years experience in the field of commercial litigation. He appears regularly on behalf of both corporate and private clients in the Chancery Division, the Queen’s Bench Division and the Technology and Construction Court. He brings to his practice an acute appreciation of the need for strategic thinking in the context of large-scale litigation, as well as an attention to minute detail. He is well-used to organising and assimilating large quantities of documentary evidence.
As well as having wide experience in the commercial field, Christopher’s specialisms include professional negligence and negligent mis-statement in a commercial context, warranty and valuation disputes, partnership disputes, shareholder disputes (including petitions under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006, formerly section 459 of the Companies Act 1985), breaches of trustees’ and directors’ duties and director’s disqualification.
He also has specialist experience of passing off and markets.
Christopher frequently represents those accused of professional disciplinary offences and appears regularly before the Disciplinary Tribunals of the ICAEW and the ACCA.
He has lectured on commercial matters, as well as on professional discipline, in Chambers’ seminars and to various firms of solicitors, to the Chancery Bar Association and to the Professional Conduct and Complaints Committee of the Bar Council.
Christopher is a member of TECBAR and has wide experience in the Technology and Construction Court. He is also a member of the Chancery Bar Association and the Professional Negligence Bar Association.
Recent cases:
Seery v Leathes Prior [2017] EWHC 80 (QB)
Consideration of the scope of duty owed by a solicitor to his client in the context of a dispute between the directors/shareholders of a private limited company and whether the solicitor had acted in breach of duty in failing to advise his client to seek relief by means of an unfair prejudice petition pursuant to section 994 of the Companies Act 2006. Detailed consideration of expert evidence regarding the method to be applied when valuing the company’s shares.
PNH Holdings Europe Limited v Phillips [2016] (Unreported)
Examination of the criteria to be applied in an application for pre-action disclosure pursuant to section 33 of the Senior Courts Act and CPR 31.16(3) by one shareholder against the other in a two-shareholder company, based upon allegations of unfair prejudice and alleged breaches of a shareholder agreement between them.
Iteshi v Bar Standards Board [2016] EWHC 2943 (Admin)
Whether the making of a “restriction of proceedings” order against a non-practising barrister in regard to litigation conducted by him on his own account could amount to “misconduct” in the context of Core Duty 5 (conduct likely to diminish public trust and confidence) of the Bar Handbook.
Gallarotti v Sebastianelli [2012] EWCA Civ 865; [2012] Fam Law 1206; [2012] 2 P and CR DG 17
The factors to be taken into account when determining the beneficial interests of parties to a Stack v Dowden/Jones v Kernott common intention constructive trust arising out of a domestic property purchase, where the property had been purchased in the name of one party only and financial contributions to the purchase price were unequal.
Lloyds TSB Bank plc v Markandan and Uddin (a firm) [2010] EWHC 2517 (Ch); [2011] PNLR 6; [2011] P and CR DG 11; and [2012] EWCA Civ 65; [2012] 2 AllER 884; [2012] PNLR 20
Rights of a mortgage lender under the terms of a bare trust to recover mortgage monies paid away by its solicitors as the result of a fraud perpetrated on both the solicitors and the mortgage lender by the purported vendors of a property, without any involvement in the fraud on the part of the solicitors.
Plumbly v Beatthatquote.com Limited [2009] EWHC 321 QB
Refusal of a company to make an allotment of shares under an employee share option agreement, where the claimant was alleged to have acted in repudiatory breach of his contract of employment.
Moriarty and Another v Customers of BA Peters plc [2008] EWCA Civ 1604; [2010] BCLC 142; [2009] BPIR 248; [2011] WTLR 1661
The rights of customers of a company in administration whose monies were received by the company prior to administration on trust terms but which were nonetheless used by the company to reduce its indebtedness to its bankers on its overdrawn current account.
Moriarty and Another v Customers of BA Peters plc [2008] EWHC 2005 (Ch); [2010] 1 BCLC 110; [2008] BPIR 1180
Dispersal of a brokerage company’s assets by administrators when part of the relevant assets comprised deposit monies received from customers on trust terms, prior to the administration.
O’Brien and Another v Dempsey [2008] EWHC 357 (QB)
The correct approach to the assessment of the reliability of witnesses in a claim for the recovery of two loans where the existence of the loans was disputed, the loans were not evidenced in writing and they had been made in confusing circumstances.
Elvee Limited v Taylor and Others [2001] EWCA Civ 1943
Discharge of search and seizure orders on grounds of material non-disclosure where there is a need to preserve physical evidence resulting from execution of the order.
Nayler v Beard and Others [2001] EWCA Civ 1201
Disclosure in partnership proceedings of an affidavit of means sworn by one of the partners in matrimonial proceedings.
R v Grainger and Another [2001] EWCA Crim 1648
Whether the Court has jurisdiction under the Company Directors Disqualification Act to limit disqualification to directorship of a public company.
Professional Negligence
Christopher has over 30 years experience of professional negligence litigation. He appears regularly on behalf of both corporate and private clients in the Chancery Division, the Queen's Bench Division and the Technology and Construction Court, both for Claimants and Defendants.
Christopher has experience in a wide range of fields of professional negligence, negligent mis-statement and breach of duty. His previous cases have involved accountants, architects, barristers, commercial franchisers, company directors, engineers, receivers, solicitors, surveyors, trustees, underwriters and valuers.
He has specialist expertise in the field of directors' disqualification and frequently represents those accused of professional disciplinary offences. He appears regularly before the Disciplinary Tribunals of the ICAEW and the ACCA.
Christopher has lectured on commercial matters, as well as on professional discipline, in Chambers seminars and to various firms of solicitors, to the Chancery Bar Association and to the Professional Conduct and Complaints Committee of the Bar Council.
Recent cases:
Seery v Leathes Prior [2017] EWHC 80 (QB)
Consideration of the scope of duty owed by a solicitor to his client in the context of a dispute between the directors/shareholders of a private limited company and whether the solicitor had acted in breach of duty in failing to advise his client to seek relief by means of an unfair prejudice petition pursuant to section 994 of the Companies Act 2006. Detailed consideration of expert evidence regarding the method to be applied when valuing the company’s shares.
Scriven v Scriven and Evans Mockler Limited [2015] EWHC 1690 (Ch)
A substantial trial regarding, inter alia, an examination of the fiduciary, contractual and common law duties owed by a firm of accountants to the promoter, shareholder and director of a series of private, family-owned trading and property companies, such duties having to be established in the absence of any express retainer or client care letter; together with complex issues of causation and an evaluation of the measure of damages associated with various alleged breaches of the accountant’s duty resulting in lost profits and loss of capital gain.
Construction and Engineering
Christopher has over 30 years experience of technology and construction claims covering all aspects of the field. He has appeared for claimants and defendants in cases concerning defective design, defective work, loss and expense and professional negligence, many of them multi-party.
Christopher is familiar with all the principal standard forms of construction contract as well as the standard forms of professional retainer, and frequently advises on their interpretation. Many of his cases have concerned claims worth £1 million and more. By way of example, in the case of Tubetech International Limited (see below) he acted for the successful claimant in a multi-million pound contractual dispute concerning the cleaning of condenser pipework at the world’s largest liquefied natural gas plant.
He has experience of preparing for and fighting long-running cases. He has the ability to organise and absorb technical detail and to arrange the presentation of cases which are “paper heavy” efficiently and economically.
He also has wide experience of general commercial matters and appears regularly in the Chancery Division of the High Court.
Christopher is a Tecbar Accredited Adjudicator.
Recent cases:
Kingfisher Builders v Sear [2011] EWHC 1122 TCC
Contractual rights of the parties to a building contract in circumstances in which the work content had been so substantially varied as to virtually amount to a new contract.
Thurgood v Coyle [2007] EWHC 2696 (Ch)
Whether the administrator of a property development company had the right to sell construction design rights which were the subject of restrictions on assignability contained in a JCT design and build contract, to a purchaser of the company’s assets.
Technip-Coflexip and Others v Tube Tech International Limited [2005] EWCA Civ 1369; 106 Con LR 32
Whether a specialist contract for the cleaning of a major component at a liquefied natural gas refinery based upon a daily rate for the provision of men and equipment, was a contract for services or a contract of hire.
Tube Tech International Limited v Technip-Coflexip and Others [2004] EWHC 2 (TCC)
Ostensible authority of an offshore company to enter into a contract on behalf of an international consortium comprising its controlling shareholders.
Tongyuan (USA) International Trading Group v Uni-Clan Limited [2001]
Available grounds for resisting summary enforcement in the UK of a foreign arbitration award.
Colin McDevitt is a true specialist in Personal Injury, Clinical Negligence, Inquests and Employment Law.
Colin started out in a scientific career studying Biochemistry and Physiology at University and working in pharmaceuticals for a number of years before being called to the Bar in 1995. His legal practice benefits from his analytical and evidence-based approach and is complimented by a commercial insight from his time in industry. He is an expert with finances, calculations and Schedules/Counterschedules of Loss.
Lectures and Seminars
Colin is a popular and regular speaker at the many events that 3PB is involved in. He was the Judge in Mock Trials in Cardiff for a national motor insurer in a case involving disputed liability and a credit hire claim in front of an audience of several hundred lawyers and case workers. He facilitated an open workshop for a firm of solicitors in the West Midlands, whose clients benefitted from round table discussions to solve the problems their businesses were encountering. He has also been an advocate in a series of Mock Tribunals in which he demonstrated to an audience of small and medium enterprises the skills and techniques needed in a tribunal. He has presented a series of seminars to HR professionals for which he received the following feedback, "Thank you very much for your support with our seminars this year which were a great success and very well received." He also lectures on legal topics such as new legislation and recent case law developments.
Colin is an accredited mediation advocate who has represented parties in Counsel to Counsel negotiations, formal Mediations (using a Mediator), Judicial Mediations and at settlement meetings at ACAS.
Colin McDevitt is a keen cyclist and a volunteer Expedition Trainer for the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award. He is a junior rugby coach and plays bass guitar.
Employment and Discrimination
Colin is recognised as a senior junior in employment, equality and related claims. He has considerable experience at all stages of litigation from pre-action advice and guidance right through to representation at the final hearing in the Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and High Court.He is consistently ranked in the Legal 500 for his determination, success and ability to get to the heart of the matter. He works for employers and employees in claims such as restrictive covenants, all types of discrimination, unfair dismissal, PIDA, TUPE and breach of contract.
Colin has a national practice, appearing in tribunals and courts up and down the land including Preston, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Nottingham, Leicester, Birmingham, London (Watford, Stratford, Croydon, Aldwych), Ashford, Bury St Edmunds, Bedford, Reading, Southampton, Bristol, Taunton and Exeter.
He receives regular instructions from Local Authorities, large transport companies and national organisations in complex and high value claims. He also represents employees, including Senior Management Teams and managers of high street retailers, universities, schools, banks and councils.
Colin is equally well regarded in his complementary practice in personal injury, clinical negligence and professional negligence. He worked in the pharmaceutical industry before training as a barrister, which gives him commercial insight. He is very strong on Schedules of Loss and Counterschedules.
Colin is:
A strong team member who gives clear and practical advice and guidance on all legal issues, including tactical positions
A talented and well-prepared advocate for procedural hearings as well as trial
Experienced at settlement meetings and mediations
Consistently regarded as a leading practitioner in the field of employment law by the Legal 500 and by his instructing solicitors
Cases - Unfair Dismissal:
Bosworth v Northampton Borough Council [2016]: A successful multi-day claim on behalf of the claimant who had effectively been forced to take 2 pay cuts over the course of a few years. When the latest proposal for a reduction in pay resulted in the respondent conducting a dismissal and immediate re-engagement policy, the claimant attempted to comply with the draconian requirements but was dismissed. The respondent claimed that the claimant had resigned but Colin McDevitt successfully persuaded the Tribunal that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. Colin McDevitt cross-examined the Councils’ senior executives. The claim also involved TUPE-related issues.
Spencer v Centrewest: Colin McDevitt represented the respondent which had dismissed the claimant for suspected theft of a colleague’s rucksack. The claimant complained that the dismissal was unfair, a view originally upheld by the Tribunal after a multi-day claim. However, the Tribunal had gone off on a folly of its own and had misapplied the law of theft. Colin McDevitt prepared the appeal documentation and represented the respondent in the Employment Appeal Tribunal in its successful appeal (UKEAT/0481/12/DM).
Aird v BOFA: The claimant was dismissed from the respondent’s accounts department after the discovery that he had previously been convicted of 2 offences of cheque fraud. The claimant had been a book-keeper for 2 previous employers and his fraud amounted to over £170,000. He had been sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment. The claimant claimed unfair dismissal. Colin McDevitt advised and represented the respondent, initially by drafting the Defence and then by successfully applying to the Tribunal for the claim to be struck out.
Morgan v CdMR: A very satisfying conclusion to lengthy and hard-fought litigation. Colin McDevitt advised the claimant from the pre-claim stage throughout in proceedings that involved a successful week-long claim, a successful claimant’s review (on issues of taxation), a successful opposition of the respondent’s appeal in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the securing of an award of costs for the claimant against the respondent in the EAT before HHJ
McMullen (UKEATPA/1952/11/ZT). The claimant had been dismissed for redundancy but it was shown that the respondent’s process was flawed.
Ford v Abbycars: Colin McDevitt represented the claimant in this constructive unfair dismissal claim. The matter was appealed and Colin McDevitt represented the claimant in the Employment Appeal Tribunal (UKEAT/0472/07/DA). In the appeal, Elias P made observations about the nature of the causal connection necessary to link the resignation and the repudiatory breach when a constructive dismissal is claimed.
Gooljary-Wright v C.K. Solicitors: Colin McDevitt represented the respondent firm of solicitors in its successful defence of a claim by a former employee solicitor.
King v Lymington Citizens' Advice Bureau: Colin McDevitt represented the claimant in her successful claim of unfair dismissal against her employer CAB. The claimant had telephoned The Samaritans when she was concerned about the suicide risk of a person whom she was helping with her debts. The claim was reported on local TV news and in The Evening Standard.
Discrimination
Colin McDevitt is highly experienced with discrimination claims. He was part of the 3PB team which lectured extensively on the Equality Act 2010 shortly before its introduction.
Disability Discrimination
Colin has great experience with disability claims. His personal injury expertise instils great confidence when medical issues arise. Examples of the disabilities litigated are cancer, MS, overweight, the effects of stroke, diabetes, depression, PTSD, dyslexia, dyscalculia and narcolepsy.
All causes of action have also been advised upon and litigated, for example direct discrimination (s.13), indirect discrimination (s.19) failure to make reasonable adjustments (ss. 20 and 21) and discrimination arising from disability (s.15). Colin McDevitt has advised on whether or not to concede disability, knowledge of disability and the effects of disability. He has defended a County Court claim on behalf of a hotel in a compliant regarding disabled access.
Cases:
Hitschmann v OCDP: A successful claim representing the claimant in her claim of constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination in relation to Multiple Sclerosis. The respondent was a charity which championed the needs of people with disabilities but, after cross-examination of a senior manager by Colin, was found to have discriminated against the claimant.
Despard v Transalis: Colin McDevitt represented the respondent in this claim for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination arising from the claimant suffering a heart attack and a series of strokes. Decision awaited.
Edwards v Co-Op: A successful defence representing the Co-Op in a multi-day claim arising out of the claimant’s difficulty with numbers. Colin McDevitt conducted a successful Preliminary Hearing concerning multiple disability-related issues. After the trial, Colin secured an Order that the claimant pay costs to the respondent.
Race Discrimination
Mruke v Khan: A highly complex, modern-day slavery case involving a migrant domestic worker in which Colin McDevitt represented the respondent. The 2 week trial involved detailed cross-examination by Colin McDevitt of the Tanzanian claimant, a Detective Constable and a barrister. The claimant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and, at the Preliminary Hearing in front of HHJ Peter Clark (UKEAT/0240/13/DM), Colin McDevitt successfully opposed the claimant’s appeal on the race discrimination claim for reasons that were later upheld in the Supreme Court case of Taiwo v Olaigbe [2016] UKSC 31.
Ajgarni v Vodafone: Colin McDevitt represented the respondent in this successful defence against a multi-day claim of race discrimination in circumstances where the claimant had been dismissed before he accrued enough service to allow him to bring a claim of unfair dismissal. The claimant’s claim failed in its entirety when his claim of race discrimination was dismissed.
Kassa v Nurture Day Nursery: A multi-day claim acting for the successful respondent which terminated the claimant’s employment for personality reasons very shortly after she started work. The claimant claimed that she had been discriminated against on grounds of race but a detailed analysis of the evidence, skilful cross-examination and forceful submissions from Colin resulted in the claim being dismissed.
Sex Discrimination
Olayemi v Okoreaffia: Colin became involved in this lengthy and complex piece of litigation after liability had been established but before remedy (compensation) had been decided. The claim arose from the respondent’s treatment of his former business partner. Colin McDevitt represented the respondent in the Tribunal and also the Employment Appeal Tribunal before Supperstone J (UKEAT/0221/11/MC). The main issues in the EAT were the correct application of the burden of proof in sex discrimination claims and the instances of harassment that the Tribunal was to have regard to when making determinations of harassment.
Sardana v You At Work: A lengthy multi-day trial in which Colin represented the successful respondent in a claim of unlawful sex, race and religious discrimination. The claimant attempted a scattergun approach to her dismissal and raised claims based upon 3 protected characteristics. Colin was involved in all stages of preparation of the case leading up to and including the final hearing, including drafting a Scott Schedule of complaints which was instrumental in demonstrating the weakness of the claimant’s case. The claims were all dismissed by Tribunal and Colin then later applied for costs against the claimant and secured an Order for costs and that the claimant pay Colin’s client £10,000 (the maximum at the time).
Kelly v IDPP: A factually heavy and complex claim by a female recruitment consultant who claimed sex discrimination as a result of an evening out at a West End lap dancing club. Colin represented the respondent. Through robust and determined cross examination Colin demonstrated the unreliability of the claimant’s evidence. The claim was dismissed. The case attracted national press coverage and featured on the front page of London’s Evening Standard.
Dias v YMCA Training: Colin successfully defeated a claim of sex discrimination and unfair dismissal and his cross-examination demonstrated that the claimant had lied.
Savings v Twang.net: Colin represented the claimant who had been offered a job before informing the employer of her pregnancy. The employer then rescinded the job offer. Colin succeeded in the claim of pregnancy-related discrimination and compensation and secured an Order that the respondent pay the claimant’s costs.
Religious and Sex Discrimination
H v F School: A multi-day trial representing a faith school in its defence to a claim of pregnancy and religious discrimination. There was an ongoing, but toxic, working relationship and the situation needed to be handled with great care and sensitivity. Colin managed his team of witnesses, governors, finance staff and faith leaders to achieve an excellent resolution for his client.
TUPE
Colin has significant experience of TUPE claims, examples of which are below.
Multiple claimants v Thomson Directory: Colin represented most of the Regional Managers in a claim arising from a restructure of Thomson Directory. The business structure of the company before and after the restructure required detailed analysis and the claim resulted in a week-long Preliminary Hearing.
Gilbert v Loomis and BDI Securities: The claimant claimed that he had been dismissed for a reason connected with a TUPE transfer. Issues in the trial included whether there had been a TUPE transfer, whether there had been a service provision change, whether there was an ETO reason entailing changes in the workforce, whether the claimant had been allocated to the undertaking immediately before the transfer, whether the dismissal was automatically unfair, whether the duties to inform and consult had been complied with, whether information had been passed from the transferor to the transferee and quantum. Colin represented the claimant in his successful claim.
Pack v Suffolk New College: A claim in which Colin represented the College where there was an issue about the transfer of the football teaching and provision to students to a local football club. The matter was brought to a satisfactory conclusion at the Tribunal.
Rice v GM Rail and 5 others: Colin was involved in a group claim by 43 rail workers who were engaged in an engineering project on the London Underground. The workers had been summarily dismissed 3 days before Christmas and so they mounted a group claim against 6 respondents. The claim involved a lengthy Pre Hearing Review after which directions to prepare for trial were given. The claims were successfully compromised shortly thereafter.
Restrictive covenants
A common component of this type of claim is the confidentiality to which both parties attach great importance and which they seek to maintain. For this reason, case names are not stated in this section of the web page. However, in general terms, Colin has advised and represented clients (employers and employees) in the County Court and High Court and provided advice to companies and employees on the effect and enforceability of restraint clauses, e.g. geographical restriction, non-solicitation, non-compete and so on. A great number of clients obtain Colin’s advice and representation through the Direct Access (Public Access) route.
Clinical Negligence Colin read Biochemistry and Physiology at University and then worked for a number of years in pharmaceuticals. His background in the life sciences and experience in industry gives him an invaluable understanding of the medical and commercial aspects of the claims he assists with. He specialises in personal injury, clinical negligence and fatal accident claims including those with multiple injuries and claims with experts from a number of disciplines. He receives regular instructions from his solicitors in the following areas:
Employers’ liability (workplace regulations including manual handling operations regulations)
Industrial injuries (including HAVS)
Defective machinery
Occupiers’ liability
Road traffic accidents
Clinical negligence (including cosmetic surgery, dental)
Ancillary matters including: Extension of time for issuing a claim form; Limitation; Contribution; Causation (including medical causation); Costs; Costs-only proceedings.
Colin is a member of the Personal Injuries Bar Association (PIBA) and the Professional Negligence Bar Association (PNBA)
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE NOTABLE CASES
K v Dr B (GP), Walton Centre NHS Trust and Southport and Ormskirk NHS Trust [2014 and ongoing]
A claim in which the claimant had presented with papilloedema but who went blind in both eyes at the age of 20 years. The claim is that the claimant’s GP failed to refer him with sufficient urgency for specialist investigation and that the specialist centres to which he was eventually referred both negligently delayed proper treatment by way of lumbar puncture or other means to reduce his raised intracranial pressure. Causation is disputed and the claim is, naturally, of significant value given the claimant’s youth and the effect of his disability.
B v Frimley Park Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2013 and ongoing]
Representing the claimant who underwent a trapeziectomy operation on her wrist to relieve symptoms of arthritis. Due to a surgical blunder the wrong bone was excised (the scaphoid instead of the trapezium). The Trust denied liability on the basis of the inherent risk of scaphoidectomy when undergoing trapeziectomy. After receiving the Particulars Of Claim which argued a lack of informed consent as well as complaining about the surgical technique, the trust conceded liability. The claimant underwent numerous pain blocks, suffered carpal collapse and was treated by way of a 4 corner fusion to stabilize her wrist. This latter procedure was unsuccessful and the claimant had to undergo wrist arthrodesis. The injury is significant with significant ongoing problems.
A v Dartford NHS Trust [2013 and ongoing]
Acting for the estate, infant daughter and husband of a deceased young wife and mother who was a lupus sufferer. She attended A&E complaining that her throat was “closing up” but was discharged home. Within an hour she suffered a cardiac arrest and fell into a coma. After living in a persistent vegetative state for 18 months she then passed away. Whilst breach of duty (the discharge home) was admitted, the issues of causation and quantum are being litigated. A very high value claim.
A v Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust [2013 and ongoing]
A young woman was subjected to an over-zealous vaginal investigation shortly before giving birth which caused a third degree perineal tear, resulting in faecal and urinary incontinence. She is not likely to return to employment due to her physical injuries and resulting depression. Breach of duty, causation and quantum was initially disputed but, after pleadings, liability was admitted. The claimant has a significant risk of deterioration in her condition. Provisional damages are claimed.
S v Southend University Hospital NHS Trust [2013 and ongoing]
Acting for the claimant who acquired a non-negligent bacterial infection after undergoing an elective total hip replacement. There was then a negligent failure to timeously diagnose a gram negative infection followed by a further negligent delay in performing a radical debridement and exchange of components. In addition there was treatment of the E.coli infection with an antibiotic to which the organism was resistant. Causation and quantum are disputed. The claimant has a life-long need for antibiotic therapy and the prospect of completely losing her hip joint. Her business failed and there is a complex claim for loss of business, dividends and earnings.
B v North Cumbria University Hospital NHS Trust [2013]
The claimant was prescribed oral ciproflaxin antibiotics which caused the rupture of his Achilles tendon. The claim arose from a lack of informed consent due both to the absence of a warning of the risk of tendon damage and to the absence of advice to immediately cease taking the antibiotic if symptoms suggestive of tendinitis are experienced. The claim was successfully compromised.
A v The Hospital Group [2012-2013]
Acting for the claimant who underwent cosmetic surgery procedures of liposuction and abdominoplasty. There were many allegations of negligence including a breach of the heparinisation protocol by the continued prescription of the anticoagulant Clexane, a failure to review Clexane administration after substantial blood transfusion, the provision of a substandard discharge letter and a delay in re-admitting the claimant to hospital for debridement once the wound infection was suspected. The claimant was left with bilateral dog ears, extensive scarring and a loss of the claimant’s belly button with a revised belly button being anatomically misplaced. The claimant required 4 remedial surgical procedures. The claim was strongly resisted but it was compromised a month before trial.
S v Barking, Havering And Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust [2012]
Representing the claimant who underwent elective total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for the treatment of endometriosis and a large ovarian cyst. As a result of the procedure the claimant developed a vesico-vaginal fistula. During the said procedure no record was made of any adhesions or endometriosis involving either the bladder or in the region between the uterus and the bladder. Towards the end of the hysterectomy and closure of the vaginal vault there was bleeding from the bladder base and additional haemostasis was required to the bladder base. After diagnosis of the vesico-vaginal fistula, the claimant underwent laparotomy with closure of the vesico-vaginal fistula. The allegations of negligence included: poor surgical technique (the surgeon tore the claimant’s bladder muscle during mobilisation of the bladder off the cervix as a result of the dissection being in the wrong tissue plane); and the surgeon used excessive electrodiathermy to stem the bleeding from the base of the bladder, causing avascular necrosis. The claim was successfully compromised.
L v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2012]
A claim for alleged negligent treatment when the claimant underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy for the treatment of uterine fibroids. The procedure was carried out via a low transverse laparotomy incision and was technically moderately difficult because of distorted anatomy, mainly due to a large fibroid on the right hand side. The operation notes made no mention of the ureters. Within a week of discharge from hospital the claimant was in severe left sided groin pain caused by damage to an ureter. The claimant developed a number of urinary tract infections. The claim was that the total abdominal hysterectomy procedure was carried out negligently because there was no attempt to identify the course of the right ureter during the surgery, resulting in the right ureter being accidentally tied. The contemporaneous operation notes made no mention of the position of the ureter or of any attempt to locate the ureter by palpation or dissection at any time during the hysterectomy. The claim was successfully compromised.
P v Choudhuri [2012]
Acting for the claimant who underwent a breast-enhancing injection of hyaluronic acid. She claimed she did not give informed consent due to a failure to inform of the risks of the procedure and the lack of any “cooling off” period. The claimant developed encapsulated cysts which required remedial surgery. The claim involved allegations of tampering with medical records and allegations amounting to fraudulent non-payment for the procedure. The claim was compromised 2 weeks before trial.
C v Harley Medical Group [2009]
Acting for the claimant who underwent a breast reduction procedure in the absence of a warning as to the risks of fat necrosis if the claimant did not lose weight. The procedure resulted in fat necrosis and infection which required 4 further operations to debride the wounds, close the wounds and cosmetically revise the scars. The claimant suffered pain, distress and anxiety.
B v Royal Bournemouth Hospital [2009]
An administrative failure led to a 6 month delay in the claimant undergoing a hysterectomy which resulted in an aggressive cancer significantly reducing the claimant’s 5 year survival rate. The defendant disputed causation and quantum before the claim was compromised.
A v Jersey [2007]
Acting for the infant claimant who was born 3 months after her father’s death from pituitary adenoma at the age of 29 years. The dependency claim on behalf of the child arose out of the negligence of an ophthalmologist who failed to diagnose the deceased’s condition. Very high value claim.
Personal Injury
Colin read Biochemistry and Physiology at University and then worked for a number of years in pharmaceuticals. His background in the life sciences and experience in industry gives him an invaluable understanding of the medical and commercial aspects of the claims he assists with. He specialises in personal injury, clinical negligence and fatal accident claims including those with multiple injuries and claims with experts from a number of disciplines. He receives regular instructions from his solicitors in the following areas:
Employers’ liability (workplace regulations including manual handling operations regulations)
Industrial injuries (including HAVS)
Defective machinery
Occupiers’ liability
Road traffic accidents
Clinical negligence (including cosmetic surgery, dental)
Ancillary matters including: Extension of time for issuing a claim form; Limitation; Contribution; Causation (including medical causation); Costs; Costs-only proceedings.
Colin is a member of the Personal Injuries Bar Association (PIBA) and the Professional Negligence Bar Association (PNBA)
PERSONAL INJURY NOTABLE CASES
Z v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority – Appeal [2014]
A harrowing case in which a young woman’s motherhood sparked a complete deterioration in her well-being due to the surfacing of her own serious and sustained sexual abuse by her own parents. The claimant was abused for 19½ years, including being raped on a nightly basis from the age of 8 years to 18 years. Her mother committed suicide shortly after she was charged. The claimant had to give evidence against her father in her father’s criminal trial. The claimant made an application to the Compensation Authority as a litigant in person and was awarded £22,000. The claimant then instructed solicitors to appeal the award and Colin was instructed to assist with the appeal. The CICA defended the appeal which raised issues including the correct level of injury (the tariff), the multiplier, discounts to be applied to the multiplier, the claimant’s future capacity for work, the claimant’s need for future treatment and the claimant’s care requirement. The appeal was overwhelmingly successful and the claimant’s compensation was increased to a figure just below £¼ million.
Various Claimants v Frimley Hall Hotel And Tylney Hall Hotel [2013 and ongoing]
Acting for various claimants who were poisoned by campylobacter when eating chicken liver pate. One series of claims involves a wedding celebration in which almost half of the guests were infected, including the bride and groom whose honeymoon was ruined. The bride’s symptoms will last many years as a result of her developing post-infectious irritable bowel syndrome. In the other series of claims the claimants were poisoned when celebrating Christmas and, again, some diners have significant ongoing symptoms.
T v Guildford Orthodontics [2013]
Acting for the 24 year old claimant dental nurse who fell onto both wrists, injuring the ligaments on her dominant side. She required surgical treatment but suffered surgical collapse. Her wrist was plated and showed disuse atrophy. The injury resulted in a permanent disability and restriction in function and pinch strength. A tactical decision was taken to resolve liability issues (including contributory negligence) before those related to quantum (due to the size of the quantum claim). The claim was successfully compromised for a significant figure.
S v AIG [2013]
A liability-admitted claim with a complex of issues in relation to quantum. The claimant had been made redundant 9 months before the accident and then begun a new business venture on a cash-in-hand basis in partnership with his father. There was a paucity of documentary evidence and a forensic accountant’s report which required critical analysis. Tactical advice was given in relation to the benefit of further medical evidence and the likely outcome of further medical opinion and further advice was given in relation to how the court was likely to approach the claimant’s loss of earnings claim. Ultimately the claim was successfully compromised.
P v Elior UK Ltd [2013]
The 16 year old claimant was injured when working in a summer job. She had been a gifted sportswoman with a bright and promising future in basketball and karate. The claimant’s shoulder was injured and she underwent several remedial surgical procedures. The injury was complicated by the claimant’s congenitally lax ligaments. All aspects of the claim were disputed. The claim included losses associated with the claimant’s future career as a professional sportswoman and coach and a loss of congenial employment. The claim was successfully compromised for a significant sum.
J v North Devon Council and Abacus Recruitment Limited [ 2013]
A low value claim but one involving issues of the applicability of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998. The claimant client severed a nerve in his hand and suffered scarring when directed by the council to collect recycling, including glass. His glove was perforated by broken glass. Neither defendant accepted that they had supplied the gloves to the claimant and both denied they had a duty under the regulations to provide suitable gloves – each blamed the other and they both blamed the claimant for the accident. The claim was compromised shortly before trial with both defendants contributing to the settlement.
G v O’Shea [2011]
Acting for the claimant who fell 18 feet from a ladder inside a lift shaft that was being constructed. He suffered a brain and orthopaedic injuries causing cognitive, psychiatric and physical symptoms. There were issues of contributory negligence, causation and quantum. Each side instructed 5 experts to deal with the myriad of injuries. Extensive past and future losses were claimed and the parties attended procedural hearings and a joint settlement meeting. The claim was successfully compromised.
H v Zmudka [2011]
Acting for the claimant who was injured in an accident which damaged her spine and caused psychiatric symptoms. The claim involved detailed analysis of video surveillance evidence in respect of the significance of which the experts disagreed. Significant damages were claimed and the claim was successfully compromised at a joint settlement meeting.
M v Bellemoor School [2011]
Acting for the 12 year old claimant student who was assaulted by a teacher while at school causing minor physical but significant psychological injury. He became isolated within his community and withdrew from religious and cultural activities. He became electively mute as a result of PTSD. There was a dispute as to causation and it was alleged that the claimant’s allegedly dysfunctional family had contributed to a large extent to his symptoms. Difficult claim to quantify given the effect on the claimant’s schooling.
D v Bunney [2010]
Acting for the passenger in a car who suffered serious injury when the driver lost control on black ice. The claimant suffered significant injuries to his chest, lungs and spine. He was kept in hospital for 17 days. There was a substantial dispute on liability. The claim was compromised shortly before trial.
Inquests (Personal Injury)
Colin McDevitt has appeared in a number of inquests, examples of which are:
A death in hospital which touched upon the prescription to the deceased of a drug called amiodarone, which is used for the treatment of irregular heartbeat. The Coroner gave a narrative verdict in which he made recommendations about the future use of the drug.
A death in hospital of an alcoholic homeless man who suffered seizures. There was an issue concerning whether the deceased had suffered a pseudo-seizure, whether his liver function tests were abnormal and whether or not he had been adequately supervised while in a private side room. The narrative verdict recorded that although the deceased had vomited, which caused a decrease in his potassium levels, the deceased refused a drip. The cause of death was recorded as Sudden Unexpected Death in Epilepsy.
A death at work where the deceased had driven a forklift truck while on the ground, using his hands on the foot pedals and steering by stretching upwards to the steering wheel. He was crushed by the forklift truck when he became trapped between it and pallets of stock in a warehouse. There were issues about training and engineering evidence which tended to show that the forklift truck could continue to be propelled forwards even when no pressure was applied to the accelerator.
Conor Mullan joined 3PB in November 2021 and has specialised in personal injury and clinical negligence claims for nearly 20 years. His practice focuses on personal injury, clinical negligence, inquests and health and safety with a background in serious criminal law. During which time he has frequently dealt with injuries up to and including those of the utmost severity.
His successful practice at the Bar of Northern Ireland since 2003 was extended to England and Wales following his call to the Bar in 2012; and Conor now enjoys a well-established, dual practice in both jurisdictions. His practice in Northern Ireland is predominately High Court civil law claims and appeals.
For a number of years Conor has been panel-approved counsel for the insurance sector, conducting cases for all the major insurers and their preferred defendant law firms.
Conor recently appeared in the Court of Appeal of Saint Helena, utilising his extensive background in serious criminal trials, to represent a senior medical practitioner against the Attorney General of Saint Helena. The case follows a complex criminal investigation on the island about potential criminal charges following treatment of his client's former patients. The appeal looked at the Caribbean island's Supreme Court ruling on the arrest and subsequent bail without charge of the accused. Civil proceedings relating to an injunction arising out of allegations of clinical negligence ran parallel to the appeal case (see under Clinical Negligence tab).
Conor has lectured on wide-ranging areas of personal injury issues including credit hire disputes, employers’ liability claims and litigation tactics as well as health and safety law.
Craig is the Head of 3PB’s Employment and Discrimination Law Team.
He practises exclusively in this area of law and is consistently ranked as a Leading Junior barrister in both the Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners directories, being variously described as: “A forceful and knowledgeable advocate, who is always well prepared and quick to put pressure on the other side…a good communicator and excellent with clients”, “Very knowledgeable”, “meticulous and thorough”, having “excellent attention to detail”, “a huge range of experience”, “a highly skilled advocate who places client care at the forefront of his work”, “Always thorough and well prepared, with a keen eye for detail”, “His advocacy is impressive, deftly executed and instils confidence in the client and, importantly, the Judge”, “organised and efficient”, “commercially minded”, and “great at building up strong client relationships and getting to know their business - perfect for repeat instructions”.
He is also an elected Board Member of Chambers’ national Policy Committee, an editorial Board Member of the Employment Lawyers Association (UK) Briefing magazine, a Member of the Institute of Directors, and a Member of the Non-Executive Directors’ Association.
Having developed a successful nationwide practice spanning over 20 years, he is highly experienced and acts predominantly for companies across the full range of employment-related claims brought in the Employment Tribunals, County Courts, and the High Court.
Reflective of his level of skill and experience in dealing with factually and legally complex disputes, Craig is regularly instructed to conduct multi-day whistleblowing and discrimination cases. He also has a particular academic and professional interest in employment status cases and cases involving trade unions (see below under ‘Articles’).
During his time in practice, Craig has acted for and against: myriad local authorities, technology companies; engineering companies; financial services companies; national newspapers; charities; schools; colleges; care homes; GP and dental practices; NHS Trusts; recruitment consultancies, insurance companies, supermarkets, and adult education providers. Consequently, he is very familiar with dealing with the Care Quality Commission, safeguarding issues, the Financial Conduct Authority, and all of the relevant professional, regulatory, and Ombudsman issues which arise from dealing with this type of litigation.
Over the last 15 years he has also developed a sub-specialism in transport work. Through his dealings with this type of work, he is very familiar with the specific policies, procedures, and contracts of employment that are sometimes unique to the transport industry. In particular, he is fully conversant with the commercial aspects of how London-based transport companies interact with and secure contracts with Transport for London (‘TfL’) and the standards which the companies must adhere to in order to retain such contracts. This can sometimes raise issues which require sensitive and careful handling. He has also been involved in litigation concerning Network Rail and international airlines.
He is frequently instructed by employers to provide strategic and policy advice, as well as advising them during the course of sometimes very factually and legally complex / sensitive grievance and disciplinary investigations and processes.
In recent years he has also developed a specialty in advising both employers and employees on the enforceability of and / or breaches of post-employment restrictive covenants, applying for and defending applications for injunctive relief in the High Court, and on the various common law and equitable remedies which might be available to a successful party following such applications and subsequent claims.
He regularly provides case law updates, lectures, seminars, mock tribunals and bespoke training to solicitors, employer clients (including Boards of Directors), and Human Resources professionals. Most recently, such training has included mental health issues arising in the context of disability discrimination claims, and also a webinar explaining the detail of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and its wider implications for employers and employees in the workplace. He is also an approved lecturer with ACAS and has given numerous lectures with employees of ACAS around the country to businesses and HR professionals on subjects ranging from misconduct dismissals, Tribunal procedure, TUPE, and most recently on flexible working applications in the context of hybrid working.
Craig has been appointed to the panel of barristers of the Employment Lawyers Appeals Advice Scheme (‘ELAAS’). ELAAS is a service offering pro bono employment law advice to appellants and respondents where there is a preliminary hearing in the Employment Appeal Tribunal with no previous legal representation on record.
Employment and Discrimination
Craig is the Head of 3PB’s Employment and Discrimination Law Team.
He practises exclusively in this area of law and is consistently ranked as a Leading Junior barrister in both the Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners directories, being variously described as: “A forceful and knowledgeable advocate, who is always well prepared and quick to put pressure on the other side…a good communicator and excellent with clients”, “Very knowledgeable”, “meticulous and thorough”, having “excellent attention to detail”, “a huge range of experience”, “a highly skilled advocate who places client care at the forefront of his work”, “Always thorough and well prepared, with a keen eye for detail”, “His advocacy is impressive, deftly executed and instils confidence in the client and, importantly, the Judge”, “organised and efficient”, “commercially minded”, and “great at building up strong client relationships and getting to know their business - perfect for repeat instructions”.
He is also an elected Board Member of Chambers’ national Policy Committee, an editorial Board Member of the Employment Lawyers Association (UK) Briefing magazine, a Member of the Institute of Directors, and a Member of the Non-Executive Directors’ Association.
Having developed a successful nationwide practice spanning over 20 years, he is highly experienced and acts predominantly for companies across the full range of employment-related claims brought in the Employment Tribunals, County Courts, and the High Court.
Reflective of his level of skill and experience in dealing with factually and legally complex disputes, Craig is regularly instructed to conduct multi-day whistleblowing and discrimination cases. He also has a particular academic and professional interest in employment status cases and cases involving trade unions (see below under ‘Articles’).
During his time in practice, Craig has acted for and against: myriad local authorities, technology companies; engineering companies; financial services companies; national newspapers; charities; schools; colleges; care homes; GP and dental practices; NHS Trusts; recruitment consultancies, insurance companies, supermarkets, and adult education providers. Consequently, he is very familiar with dealing with the Care Quality Commission, safeguarding issues, the Financial Conduct Authority, and all of the relevant professional, regulatory, and Ombudsman issues which arise from dealing with this type of litigation.
Over the last 15 years he has also developed a sub-specialism in transport work. Through his dealings with this type of work, he is very familiar with the specific policies, procedures, and contracts of employment that are sometimes unique to the transport industry. In particular, he is fully conversant with the commercial aspects of how London-based transport companies interact with and secure contracts with Transport for London (‘TfL’) and the standards which the companies must adhere to in order to retain such contracts. This can sometimes raise issues which require sensitive and careful handling. He has also been involved in litigation concerning Network Rail and international airlines.
He is frequently instructed by employers to provide strategic and policy advice, as well as advising them during the course of sometimes very factually and legally complex / sensitive grievance and disciplinary investigations and processes.
In recent years he has also developed a specialty in advising both employers and employees on the enforceability of and / or breaches of post-employment restrictive covenants, applying for and defending applications for injunctive relief in the High Court, and on the various common law and equitable remedies which might be available to a successful party following such applications and subsequent claims.
He regularly provides case law updates, lectures, seminars, mock tribunals and bespoke training to solicitors, employer clients (including Boards of Directors), and Human Resources professionals. Most recently, such training has included mental health issues arising in the context of disability discrimination claims, and also a webinar explaining the detail of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and its wider implications for employers and employees in the workplace. He is also an approved lecturer with ACAS and has given numerous lectures with employees of ACAS around the country to businesses and HR professionals on subjects ranging from misconduct dismissals, Tribunal procedure, TUPE, and most recently on flexible working applications in the context of hybrid working.
Craig has been appointed to the panel of barristers of the Employment Lawyers Appeals Advice Scheme (‘ELAAS’). ELAAS is a service offering pro bono employment law advice to appellants and respondents where there is a preliminary hearing in the Employment Appeal Tribunal with no previous legal representation on record.
A brief overview of his trial experience in the recent past is set out below:
Skarbek-Cieleck v Holly Rise Consultants Ltd t/a Bluebird Care (Case No: 2303648/2017) - Successfully representing the respondent homecare provider in claims made against it for direct race discrimination and breach of the working time regulations.
Mustafa v Metroline West Ltd (Case No: 3328088/2017) - Successfully representing the respondent bus company in claims made against it for detrimental treatment for trade union activity and unfair dismissal.
Thomas v Youth Hostel of England & Wales Ltd (Case No: 1403380/2018) - Successfully representing the respondent at a preliminary hearing dealing with the issue of employment status, at which it was held that the Claimant was self-employed.
Taylor v EDF Energy Ltd (Case No: 1403518/2018) - Successfully representing the respondent energy company at a preliminary hearing on its application to strike out the claimant’s claims for disability discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Brown & Others v (1) London General Transport Services Ltd (2) Blue Triangle Buses Ltd (3) East London Bus & Coach Company Ltd (Case No: 3310904/2014) - Successfully representing one of three respondent bus companies in claims brought by 55 bus drivers for unauthorised deductions from wages arising out of historic claims for meal allowances following multiple TUPE transfers. The trial lasted for 6 days and all claims were dismissed.
Anonymous v East London Bus & Coach Company Ltd (Case No: 3202012/2015) - Successfully representing the Respondent bus company, its Operations Director, and one of its Acting Supervisors in an 8 day trial involving complex claims of detriment because of making various protected public interest disclosures and claims for direct sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and unfair dismissal.
Spinelli v Menzies Aviation (UK) Ltd (Case No: 3200653/2016) - Successfully representing the Claimant in a claim for unfair dismissal against an aviation logistics company involving a breach of airport security. Following the successful conclusion of the case, the Claimant and her husband said of Mr Ludlow: “From the first conversation over the phone I found Mr Craig Ludlow to be very smart, knowledgeable and honest on the merit of the case. He worked very hard preparing for the case in a short period which happens to be a complicated and sensitive case. Craig was very meticulous in his work; his attention to details was brilliant which helped my case. Craig was outstanding in cross-examining the respondent’s witnesses. He was very persuasive in putting the important points across. My husband and I were very impressed by Craig’s professionalism that we decided after the hearing to instruct Craig on a direct access basis. Craig was a very smart negotiator prior to the remedies hearing. He was in constant contact with me despite his busy schedule. Craig always responded promptly to my emails and phone calls even during the weekend. His advice was very precious. Craig’s contribution, his professionalism and dedication makes the difference between a Barrister and an outstanding Barrister. We are so grateful to you and that would have been the case regardless of the outcome. I would highly recommend you to anybody looking for your services.”
Luke v Venson Automotive Solutions Ltd (Case No: 2301755/2016) - Successfully representing a Respondent fleet management company in a 4 day trial involving claims of detriment made by a male claimant for taking leave for family reasons and constructive unfair dismissal.
Shaikh v Tower Transit Operations Ltd (Case No: 2208392/2016) - Acting for the Respondent bus company at a preliminary hearing and securing deposit orders totalling £7,000 in respect of claims for: direct discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, and disability; discrimination arising from disability; indirect discrimination on the grounds of disability; failing to make reasonable adjustments on the grounds of disability; harassment on the grounds of all of the above protected characteristics; and victimisation.
Coffey v B M Pearson Ltd (Case No: 1400571/2016) - 10 day trial representing the Defendant dental practice in numerous historical whistleblowing claims and a claim for constructive unfair dismissal raising issues involving NHS England and the Care Quality Commission.
Omar v Tower Transit Operations Ltd (Case No: 3201534/2014) - Successfully representing a Respondent bus company in a 5 day trial involving claims for direct race discrimination, religious discrimination, and unfair dismissal. The judgment in the case records variously that: “We agree with Mr Ludlow for the Respondent that where the Claimant disputes the contents of the notes of meetings he does so selectively when it suits him or his case to do so…”; “We think there is some force in the suggestion put to the Claimant by Mr Ludlow that he was “making it up as he went along”…”; “Mr Ludlow correctly points out that the Claimant made no reference in this considered occurrence report (which the Claimant headed “Horrific Occurrence”) of (i) spitting; (ii) racial abuse; (iii) discrimination on grounds of race or religion; (iv) being accused of praying by Mr Asew or (v) any allegation that his Somali national origins or Muslim religion were relevant”; and “We think Mr Ludlow’s observations on behalf of the Respondent as to the Claimant’s credibility are well made”. Mr Ludlow recently secured a costs order for £12,616 against the Claimant, which was the full amount of the Respondent’s legal fees.
Taylor v (1) Endeavour Insurance Services (2) CGNMB LLP - Successfully representing the Claimant in a 3 day preliminary hearing involving TUPE issues and claims for direct sex discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Styles v London United Busways Ltd - Successfully representing the Respondent bus company in a 7 day trial involving numerous and wide ranging historical complaints of direct sex discrimination and harassment, as well as claims for unfair dismissal claim, race discrimination, direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, indirect discrimination on grounds of disability, and discrimination arising from disability.
Atanasiu v Personnel Selection Associates Ltd - Appearing for the Respondent recruitment agency and succeeding in an application to strike out a claim against them for alleged direct sex discrimination and sexual harassment by an employee of their client.
Chasha v Swarthmore Housing Society Ltd - 9 day trial acting for the Respondent care home involving claims of direct race discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Patel v East London Bus & Coach Company Ltd - 4 day trial acting for a Respondent bus company involving claims for direct race discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Anwar v Sir George Monoux College - Successfully representing the Respondent college in an 8 day trial involving claims of direct race discrimination, indirect race discrimination, and unfair dismissal.
Llewellyn-Jones v Cyient Europe Ltd - Successfully represented the Respondent in a 3 day trial involving a claim for constructive unfair dismissal arising out of a mobility clause in the Claimant’s contract of employment.
Denton v Renewable Energy Systems Ltd - Successfully representing the Respondent in a 3 day trial involving a claim for unfair dismissal arising out of a redundancy process.
Field v Bournemouth Transport Ltd - Successfully representing the Respondent bus company in a 2-day trial involving claims for unfair dismissal, age discrimination, and disability discrimination.
Osei-Agyeman v East London Bus & Coach Company Ltd - Successfully representing the Respondent bus company in a 3 day trial involving claims for direct race discrimination and unfair dismissal, in which the unsuccessful Claimant was ordered to pay £7,500 towards the Respondent’s costs on the basis that the complaints were misconceived and it was unreasonable for him to have continued to pursue his claims.
Miah v Docklands Buses Ltd - Successfully representing the Respondent bus company in a 2-day trial involving claims of unfair dismissal, trade union discrimination, unlawful deduction from wages, and breaches of the Working Time Regulations in respect of holidays.
Hamdoun v London General Transport Services Ltd - Successfully representing the Respondent bus company in a 5 day trial involving claims for direct race discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Looking ahead to 2019, Craig has already been instructed to conduct numerous multi-day trials, including:
Acting for a storage company in a 5 day race discrimination and unfair dismissal case.
Acting for a multi-national mobile telephone provider in a 5 day disability discrimination and unfair dismissal case.
Acting for a social media consultancy in a 5 day pregnancy and maternity discrimination, sex discrimination, and unfair dismissal case.
Acting for a bus company in a 6 day multiple and historic whistleblowing and unfair dismissal case.
Acting for a Trust in a 7 day trial involving whistleblowing detriment allegations and unfair dismissal, in a case in which Craig has already successfully had multiple detriment allegations and a failure to make reasonable adjustments claim dismissed on jurisdictional grounds at a preliminary hearing (Case No: 2602066/17).
Acting for the National Register of Public Service Interpreters in a 5 day trial involving claims of whistleblowing detriment and dismissal, health and safety whistleblowing and detriment, age discrimination, disability discrimination, harassment, and unfair dismissal.
Acting for a warehousing, distribution, transport, and logistics company in a 5 day trial involving claims of victimisation and unfair dismissal.
Daniel is a specialist Employment and Discrimination barrister. He represents individuals, businesses and other organisations in Tribunal, Court and Professional Regulatory/Disciplinary proceedings. He is ranked as a 'Leading Junior' Employment barrister in London and the Midlands by Legal 500 and serves on the Employment Law Bar Association (ELBA) management committee.
Daniel has particular expertise in the healthcare sector, having advised and represented professionals including doctors, dentists, nurses and midwives as well as NHS Trusts, Regulators and Care Homes.
Employment and Discrimination
Daniel has experience across the full spectrum of ET complaints but specialises in Equality Act 2010, whistleblowing and TUPE claims.
In the EAT, Daniel’s previous cases include appeals concerning: employment status, discrimination and victimisation, unfair dismissal, Regulation 14 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, costs, time limits and amendment, some examples of which are below.
Daniel has delivered training on topics including unfair dismissal and redundancy and, on behalf of ACAS, ‘TUPE in a day’ training to managers, company directors, HR professionals and others.
Daniel also has experience of defending employment claims in the civil courts, as well as representing both claimants and defendants in Goods and Services discrimination claims.
EAT cases
Daniel’s EAT cases include:
Field v Steve Pye and Co. (KL) Limited & Others [2022] EAT 68
Represented the Appellant in an appeal brought on various grounds including a challenge to the ET’s failure to apply the burden of proof in s.136 Equality Act 2010 correctly. The appeal was allowed and the case was remitted to the ET for a complete re-hearing before a different Judge.
Rainford v Dorset Aquatics Limited EA-2020-000123-BA
Represented the successful Respondent in an appeal brought by a company director and shareholder claiming to be an employee or worker of the Respondent company. The EAT upheld the ET’s conclusion that the Claimant was neither an employee nor a worker.
Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v Dearing & Others UKEAT/0344/16/LA
Represented three Claimants in an appeal concerning the law on victimisation (section 27 Equality Act 2010). The appeal was brought by the Respondent against three successful claims. The EAT dismissed the appeal in respect of one of the claims and remitted the other two claims back to the same ET.
Beaumont v Costco Wholesale UK Ltd UKEAT/0080/15/DA
Represented the Claimant in an appeal against the ET’s judgment dismissing his unfair dismissal claim. The EAT allowed the appeal and ordered a fresh hearing of the unfair dismissal claim before a differently constituted ET.
Articles
Daniel has had the following employment law articles published:
Overview, Employment law (2015) 6 UK Supreme Court Yearbook 370
Overview: Employment law (2015) 5 UK Supreme Court Annual Review 318
Overview: Employment law (2014) 3(1) UK Supreme Court Review (Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law) 272
Daniel Brown is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. Please contact Daniel for a copy of his privacy policy which sets out the basis upon which any personal data he may collect about you, or that is provided to him, will be processed by him. He will provide a copy of this policy to you within five working days of its request.
Public and Regulatory
Professional Regulatory/ Disciplinary proceedings
Daniel has advised and represented a wide range of healthcare professionals including doctors, dentists, nurses and midwives as well as NHS Trusts, Regulators and Care Homes in proceedings before the: General Medical Council/MPTS, General Dental Council, Health and Care Professions Council, Nursing and Midwifery Council, British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, the British Psychoanalytic Council and others.
Daniel has experience of cases involving allegations of misconduct, lack of competence/deficient professional performance, ill-health and criminal convictions/cautions and has handled numerous serious, lengthy and complex cases involving: patient deaths, serious harm, dishonesty, CQC inspections, multiple parties and contested expert evidence. In addition to substantive hearings, Daniel has appeared in many interim order applications, reviews, restoration applications, registration appeals and fraudulent entry hearings.
Daniel’s recent work also includes advising a healthcare regulator regarding amendments to its Fitness to Practise Procedure.
Daniel Brown is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. Please contact Daniel for a copy of his privacy policy which sets out the basis upon which any personal data he may collect about you, or that is provided to him, will be processed by him. He will provide a copy of this policy to you within five working days of its request.
Direct Access
Daniel Brown is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public and professional clients under the Direct Access (or Public Access) scheme.
Daniel Sawyer is a criminal law specialist who is instructed in the full range of criminal cases, including murder, violence, sexual offences and multi-handed conspiracies, as well as causing death by dangerous or careless driving. He has been instructed alone, as a led junior and as leading junior.
His cases often involve mobile phone and other location data evidence, as well as many different sources of evidence, where he is known for his ability to explain large amounts of evidence and technical matters in simple terms.
He is also regularly instructed in serious sexual offences, particularly with young or vulnerable witnesses.
Daniel has dealt with a range of regulatory offences, including planning enforcement (in the Crown Court and Court of Appeal), food hygiene and tachograph offences.
Daniel has extensive experience in dealing with expert witnesses and technical points of evidence. This includes: Drugs experts (police and defence) Mobile phone location evidence Computer evidence Medical and psychiatric evidence (including cross-examining psychiatrists as to a defendant’s capacity) Forensic experts, including DNA, fingerprints, footwear, fibres and glass fragments Accident reconstruction in fatal road traffic accidents.
Daniel often trains expert and professional witnesses, including:
Training and assessment of police drugs experts on behalf of Sussex and Hampshire Constabularies
Training of communications data analysts on behalf of Hampshire Constabulary, with particular emphasis on location data and attribution of mobile phones
Annual training at the University of Winchester for doctors, covering the court process and cross-examination.
Daniel has a strong background in the armed forces and is involved with a charity that provides rehabilitation for veterans with PTSD through riding and conservation. He has a particular interest in representing current and former members of HM Armed Forces.
Cases
R v SN: Murder of a 13 year-old girl, as well as raping her when she was 12. This case involved detailed forensic evidence and evidence of mobile phone location that was described as groundbreaking by the expert witness, including tracing the GPS location of a phone that had not been recovered.
R v DFC and others: prosecuting a 9 handed conspiracy to supply class A drugs (county lines), including arguments about child exploitation.
R v DM and others: prosecuting 12 defendants across 3 different indictments, all accused of travelling to Hampshire from London and stealing tools from vans, transporting the to London and selling them on. This case involved mobile phone location evidence, CCTV and ANPR evidence. The case resulted in lengthy sentences and over £300,000 in confiscated assets.
R v MS and another (ongoing): defending a father accused of shaking his 6 week old daughter, causing her serious injury. This case involves a wide range of medical expert evidence.
R v AS and others: leading junior for the prosecution in a 12 handed conspiracy to supply class A drugs (county lines).
R v JB: successful defence of a man accused of raping his ex-partner. He made a full confession in interview but later claimed that he only did so because the complainant threatened to withhold contact with their child.
R v DS: prosecuting causing death by careless driving. This case involved detailed accident reconstruction evidence from experts on both sides.
R v CR: successful defence of a foster parent accused of sexual assault on his 17 year old foster daughter, who had secretly recorded him apologising to her for doing so.
R v WG and CD: successful prosecution of two defendants charged with a series of armed robberies of small businesses. This case involved cell site and ANPR evidence and identification from clothing.
David Swinstead works exclusively as a legal assessor/adviser for five health regulators and for two accountancy bodies, including the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service, the General Dental Council, the General Chiropractic Council, the General Optical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the Association of Accounting Technicians and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy.
After having had a common law practice principally in the areas of personal injury, clinical negligence and criminal law and after having had some fifteen years as a legal assessor, he has developed considerable experience and expertise in professional regulatory law.
David is now a full time legal assessor/adviser, utilising the skills honed by previously practising at the Bar in these areas.
He presently acts for the following
Legal assessor - the Association of Accounting Technicians
Legal assessor - the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounting
Legal assessor - the General Chiropractic Council
Legal adviser - the General Dental Council
Legal assessor - the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service
Legal adviser - the General Optical Council
Legal assessor - the Nursing and Midwifery Council
Formerly
Legal assessor - the General Osteopathic Council
David's former Bar Practice included:
Personal Injury: Claimant and Defendant work including, in particular, accidents at work, road accidents and maritime accidents
Clinical Negligence: Claimant work covering a number of areas including orthopaedic, obstetric, vascular, respiratory, general practice and dental cases
Professional Negligence: Claimant work covering solicitors and surveyors negligence
Criminal: involving both Prosecution and Defence work; including murder / manslaughter cases, assaults, robbery and burglary cases, white-collar crime including frauds, thefts / dishonesty by professional advisers, employees and others in positions of trust
Appointments:
General Medical Council/Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service
Acted as a Legal Assessor since May 2002, and was formally appointed in October 2002. Formerly acted as Legal Assessor for the Professional Conduct Committee, the Committee on Professional Performance and the Interim Orders Committee. After the change in the legislation, acted as the Legal Assessor for the Fitness to Practise Panels (now Tribunals) with regard to conduct, health, registration and performance, and has also acted for the Interim Orders Panel/Tribunal regularly and the Investigation Committee on a number of occasions.
David has acted in a number of relatively high profile cases including
P (2002)
A case of conduct in which Queen’s Counsel appeared for both the GMC and the doctor and which involved complex issues of law and fact including matters concerning the sterilisation of young women with disabilities.
W (2003/4)
A performance case which lasted for 41 days where the doctor was unrepresented but was receiving outside legal advice and in which he raised countless matters of law, in particular, concerning the European Convention on Human Rights.
P (2005)
A high-profile case involving Queen’s Counsel on both sides where complex issues of law were argued and, during the hearing, counsel for the doctor sought and obtained a stay of the proceedings to seek judicial review of the decisions of the Panel. During the application for judicial review, the Learned Judge approved the advice that David had given to the Panel which it had, for good reasons, decided to reject; there was, in fact, in the end, no judicial review hearing and the matter did not proceed.
C (2006)
A high-profile case concerning matters involving the doctor’s fertility clinic, involving Queen’s Counsel on both sides in which a submission was made and upheld at the conclusion of the Council’s case that there was “no case to answer”.
R (2008/09)
Another 40-day performance case where the doctor parted company with two separate barristers instructed to represent her. She was then represented by her adopted son and then she represented herself; the case had a number of complex evidential and procedural issues to resolve.
S (2010)
Involved an unusual issue where the application by the defence was that the hearing be stayed on health grounds. Depending upon the decision of the Panel, there was also the possibility of an application for voluntary erasure. There was no precedent as to how such issues should be decided or the order in which they should be resolved. The advice David gave and the determinations in this case were used as precedents in the subsequent case involving the doctor in the “Baby P” case.
General Dental Council
Acted as a Legal Adviser (Assessor) since January 2004. David has acted for the Health Committee, the Professional Conduct Committee and the Interim Orders Committee.
David has acted in a number of relatively complex cases including
B (2008)
This was a case where the dentist and his counsel parted company. Unfortunately, the case had had to be adjourned for two months whilst the dentist was still giving evidence, and it was upon the hearing reconvening that this occurred. There were therefore a number of procedural and evidential issues that had to be resolved to allow the dentist to be released from his oath and to obtain alternative representation. When the case restarted with a new barrister representing him a number of the GDC witnesses had to be recalled to be further cross-examined before the dentist gave further evidence.
I (2010)
Another case where the dentist and his counsel parted company. In this case there were further complications because of an interim order imposed by the Committee itself, which prevented the dentist from working for a period which meant that he was unable to fund alternative counsel. In the end, this problem was resolved and the case restarted with his being represented and with most of the GDC’s witness being recalled. There were a number of evidential problems, in particular with regard to the large number of expert witnesses called, as to their standing and their evidence. This required a very detailed advice from David on the question of expert witnesses.
In both the case of the GMC/MPTS and the GDC, the names of the cases can be provided.
General Osteopathic Council
Acted as a Legal Assessor between 2004 and 2015 for the Investigation Committee and the Professional Conduct Committee.
General Chiropractic Council
Legal Assessor since 2006 and has acted for the Professional Conduct Committee.
General Optical Council
Legal Assessor since 2007 and has acted for the Fitness to Practise Committee.
Nursing and Midwifery Council
Appointed as a Legal Assessor in 2007. David has acted for the Conduct and Competence Committee, the Health Committee and the Investigation Committee when considering Interim Orders.
Association of Accounting Technicians
Legal Assessor for the Disciplinary Tribunal since 2009.
Chartered Institute and Public Finance and Accountancy
Legal Assessor for the Investigating Committee and the Disciplinary Committee since 2013.
David has also held the positions of:
Member of the Legal Services Funding Review Panel, 1997-2007
Consistory Examiner for the Diocese of Winchester, 1993-2003.
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 Whitfield Phillips is a door tenant at 3PB, and an experienced criminal law advocate who prosecutes Level 3 and 4 cases at Court Martial, both contested and plea. His main areas of practice are serious sexual assaults and wrongful death cases, focussing on expert evidence as to causation and or identity.
David has prosecuted a large number of rape cases, including allegations of historic sexual assault. He has also dealt with wrongful death cases involving issues of causation (manslaughter/murder) and has appeared in the Court of Appeal on numerous occasions, including in the cases of R v Squires, R v Twaite and R v Neill.
His practice also includes the prosecution of offences committed during military operations. This has also included arguing fitness to plead in R v Beddoes and resisting an appeal against conviction for murder in R v Blackman (a Marine Murder case).
His responsibilities include providing instruction to new prosecutors, with a particular focus on advocacy, serious sexual assault, and the obtaining and adducing expert evidence at trial. He advises on normal interlocutory or other applications such as abuse of process, and fitness to plead, and drafts charges and advice on evidence, and skeleton arguments.
CRIME
David is an experienced criminal law advocate who prosecutes Level 3 and 4 cases at Court Martial, both contested and plea. His main areas of practice are serious sexual assaults and wrongful death cases, focussing on expert evidence as to causation and or identity.
David has prosecuted a large number of rape cases, including allegations of historic sexual assault. He has also dealt with wrongful death cases involving issues of causation (manslaughter/murder) and has appeared in the Court of Appeal on numerous occasions, including in the cases of R v Squires, R v Twaite and R v Neill.
His practice also includes the prosecution of offences committed during military operations. This has also included arguing fitness to plead in R v Beddoes and resisting an appeal against conviction for murder in R v Blackman (a Marine Murder case).
His responsibilities include providing instruction to new prosecutors, with a particular focus on advocacy, serious sexual assault, and the obtaining and adducing expert evidence at trial. He advises on normal interlocutory or other applications such as abuse of process, and fitness to plead, and drafts charges and advice on evidence, and skeleton arguments.
Admitted as a Solicitor in England and Wales: 1999
Recent cases:
Graham Taylor v Phillip Ruddick (Minister for Immigration) [1999/2000]
Nisi application judicial review in High Court of Australia. This was an application in respect of a decision to deport a resident UK Citizen who had lived in outback Australia since age of 7 now aged 40. Federal Court jurisdiction restricted by statute. Obtained stay of proceedings in Federal Court in respect of deportation pending application to High Court. Nisi order obtained single Justice High Court for writs of prohibition, certiorari, mandamus and habeas corpus.
R v Beddoes [2013] CMAC
Fitness to plead application by defence. Accused charged with perverting course of justice on false rape allegation. Accused held fit to plead. Defence unsuccessfully appealed to Court of Appeal. Convicted.
R v Boal [2015]
This case involved an allegation of rape in marriage and domestic violence 15 years ago. The offending occurred in Germany. The case raised issues of consent within a marriage. In respect of the rape, the wife was asleep at the time it commenced. Conviction.
R v Elder [2012]
RAF Court martial with allegation of s.2 SOA sexual assault. Case required substantial s.41 argument as to complainant’s sexual behaviour. Conviction.
R v Graham [2014]
RAF Scout leader in West Berlin in 1983-87, sexually assaulting cubs and scouts. Pleaded to some but not others. Seven complainants at trial with another four complainants pleaded to. Case relied on successful bad character applications based on similar fact evidence. This was a
Court Martial with a civilian jury. After two week trial accused convicted.
R v Jenks [2014]
This case involved the rape of a female soldier in barracks, when both drunk. The case was complicated by the fragility of the complainant’s mental state. Having obtained a psychiatric report a successful application was made for a Ground rules Hearing under CPD 13. There was substantial pre trial argument in respect of bad character and s.41. This trial resulted in an acquittal.
R v Jones [2014]
Court Martial at Bulford. Case involved allegation of sexual assault while female soldier was drunk and asleep in bed. This case revolved around expert DNA evidence and its interpretation. Conviction.
R v Neil [2011] CMAC
Appeal against conviction for GBH in Germany. Court of Appeal judgement given by Hughes LJ. Appeal dealt with two issues, firstly identification evidence and secondly admissibility of German Civilian police evidence. Appeal rejected.
R v Rowe [2015]
Royal Marine Warrant Officer accused of stealing from USMC PX store in California, while on exercise. Defence application based on psych and medical evidence was that he was suffering from a state of non insane automatism, and dissociative states as a result of dehydration and immediate stress leading to extreme panic attack. Defence called a physiologist Phd to give opinion that accused was suffering from dehydration leading to non insane automatism. This opinion evidence struck out in re trial argument on basis that physiologist not qualified to make such a diagnosis. At trial Defence psychiatrist accepted that not a case of non insane automatism. Remaining issue was whether accused was in a dissociative state or rather was this a case of psychiatric malingering. Defence also argued pre trial that evidence collected by US police failed to comply with PACE. It was sufficient that US police complied with Miranda v State of Arizona [1966]. Conviction.
R v Sgt Blackman [2013] [2014] CMAC
Junior in murder trial to David Perry QC. Sgt convicted of murdering captive wounded Taliban. Appeared unled in Court of Appeal. Appeal against conviction rejected.
R v Sgt Rai [2012]
Ghurka Sergeant accused of sexually assaulting Nepalese/UK children. Appeared as junior to Christopher Parker QC (now HHJ). Trial conducted in UK and Brunei. Conviction.
R v Shaw [2014]
Attempted murder case. Soldier delivered severe kicking to head of another soldier in Cyprus when both in drink. Victim suffered severe brain damage. Only witness was accused’s wife. Accused and wife made admissions to Cypriot police. Investigated by Cypriot police under Judges Rules. Argument about causation and intent relied on forensic medical evidence. Significant pre trial argument about admissibility of Cypriot evidence, s78 applications to exclude. Argument about admissibility of expert evidence. Conviction.
R v Shezi [2012]
RAF court Martial. Accused recruited from Africa, raped a female airwoman while visiting another RAF station. Conviction.
R v Shuttlewood [2015]
Multiple rape allegation by older boy on young underage females in Germany. This was a case of grooming and the argument was that victims did not have the freedom to consent. This case had a civilian jury. Conviction.
R v Twaite [2010] CMAC
Responded to appeal challenging constitution of Court Martial with a bare majority verdict. Majority verdict upheld.
R v William Clark [2015]
Allegations of indecent assaults on two boys aged 9 and 13 in Germany in 1984 and 1987 while babysitting in West Berlin in 1984. A large part of the case revolved around the successful application to adduce similar fact evidence in this trial. Conviction. This case had a civilian jury.
Military
David's criminal law practice includes the prosecution of offences committed during military operations. This has also included arguing fitness to plead in R v Beddoes and resisting an appeal against conviction for murder in R v Blackman (a Marine Murder case).
David has been security cleared (DV’d) by the State enabling him to have access to classified and other sensitive material. Without such security clearance, the more serious and sensitive cases would be closed to an advocate.
David was admitted as a Solicitor in England and Wales in 1999.
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.
David Parratt KC (Scot) is a busy barrister, advocate and arbitrator. David has extensive court experience and regularly negotiates settlements in multi-million pounds claims. He is often involved in complex international commercial disputes.
David’s practice covers his key experience and interests in arbitration, construction & engineering claims, energy disputes (including oil/gas upstream claims), general commercial litigation and commercial contracts.
He is a practising barrister in England & Wales and was called in 2009 (Lincoln’s Inn). He is an non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates (Scottish Bar), having practiced from 1999 to 2020 - taking Silk in Scotland in 2017. He is also a non-practising member of the Northern Irish Bar, calling in 2016.
David holds the degrees of LLB(Hons) (University of Aberdeen) and PhD (University of Edinburgh). He also has Diplomas in Legal Practice (University of Aberdeen) and International Commercial Arbitration (Chartered Institute of Arbitrators).
He has acquired a huge amount of experience in arbitration, as Counsel in both international and domestic arbitrations (Scottish and English seats) and under various institutional rules (ICC; LCIA; LMAA; ADCAAC).
David is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb), holds Chartered Arbitrator Status and is on the panels of many worldwide arbitration institutions. He has held Higher Rights of Audience before the Dubai International Finance Centre (DIFC) and has appeared before the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. He is Honorary Professor of International Arbitration in the School of Law, University of Aberdeen. He is also an Accredited Mediator (CEDR) and has acted as counsel to mediations as well as having accepted appointments as mediator.
He was appointed as an ad hoc (part time) Advocate Depute (Crown Counsel) in 2012 which was renewed in 2017. In 2011, David was also appointed as Security Cleared Special Counsel.
Publications
The Development and Use of Written Pleadings in Scots Civil Procedure” (Stair Society, Vol. 48) (2007)
"The Minute Book of the Faculty of Advocates, Volume IV, 1783-1798", Stair Society (with A. Stewart Q.C. – Lord Stewart) (2008)
The Scottish Arbitration Handbook (Avizandum Publishing) (with Peter Foreman) (2011)
Chapter 16: "Law as a Profession: The Faculty of Advocates" in (ed.) Mark A. Mulhearn, Scottish Life and Society: A Compendium of Scottish Ethnology, Vol. 13: The Law (Birlinn, 2012) (with K. Campbell, Advocate) (2012)
Parratt, D.R., and Grahame, A., Scotland World Arbitration Reporter, 2nd Ed., (Juris Publishing, 2018)
David has also published over 15 articles in various publications including Scots Law Times, Journal of Psychiatry, Hume Papers on Public Policy, and Journal of Legal History in the fields of Scottish legal history, procedure, travel protection legislation and arbitration.
Neutrals - Arbitrators
Arbitration
Contractor v Sub-contractors (Seat, Abu Dhabi, ADCCAC) (2019) Arbitration in respect of development works in a large Infrastructure project. (Co-arbitrator).
X v Y (Scottish Seat, Ad hoc) Dispute in relation to the sums liable under a Full Repairing and Insuring Commercial Lease between two commercial entities based in Scotland. (2019) Arbitrator.
International Credit Card Company v. Debtor (English Seat, Ad hoc) Documents only arbitration in respect of debt. (2019) Arbitrator.
Litigation Funder v. Professional Body (Scottish Seat, Ad hoc) Dispute in relation to sums claimed under the Late Payments of Commercial Debt Regulations. (2019) Counsel.
A Scottish Company v US Oil Major (London Seat, LCIA) (2017-2018) £6m claim against an oil major in respect of outstanding invoices for hire of oil and gas equipment and claims in respect of infringement of IP Rights. Counsel
Contractors v Scottish Government in respect of M73 Motorway Spur Construction Dispute Adjudication (2018) Counsel
Queensferry Bridge Crossing Adjudication (2018) Counsel to Adjudicator
B Borough Council and HG Limited (London Seat) (2017) Arbitration under ICE Rules in respect of failure of design of coastal defences. Counsel to Arbitral Panel.
Challenge to a Decision on Jurisdiction on a point of law on the effect of section 10 of the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010. (2016) Dunfermline Sheriff Court Whether party had waived its contractual right to arbitration by participating in court proceedings. Counsel
Japanese Contractor v Turkish Sub-contractor (Seat, Geneva, ICC) 2013-2015 Arbitration in connection with a very large railway infrastructure project in Istanbul. Counsel.
Arbitration Application No. 2 of 2013 – Challenge to Decision of an Arbitrator under rules 68 (serious irregularity) and 69 (legal error appeal). Court of Session, Commercial Court. Counsel
Iranian JV Partner v US JV Partner (Seat, Dubai, DIFC) 2011-2013 Dispute between two JV partners following hostile takeover of shareholding in Iranian Company. Counsel
Windfarm Operator against Windfarm Off-Shore Installation Company. (Seat, London, Ad hoc) (2010) Claim by Windfarm operator in respect of professional negligence and defective cementing of turbine pylons in respect of an offshore windfarm. Counsel.
Arbitral Institutional Panels
Member of the ICC
Member of the LCIA
Panel Member of the CIArb (Scottish Branch) Panel of Arbitrators
Member of the Hong Kong Arbitration Panel (HKIAC)
Member of the Asian International Arbitration Panel (AIAC)
Member of the Cairo Arbitration Panel (CRCICA)
Member of the WIPO Panel (Geneva)
Member of the Dubai International Arbitration Centre List (DIAC)
Member of the CIArb London President’s Panel
Member of the Juris Roster of International Arbitrators
Commercial
David Parratt KC (Scot) has a comprehensive commercial practice, with a particular focus on complex commercial disputes, company law LLPs and joint ventures, international arbitration, and energy & utilities (including oil/gas upstream claims).
David appears as Counsel at all levels of the senior courts, especially the Commercial Court, as well as in both international and domestic arbitrations under various institutional rules (ICC; LCIA; LMAA; ADCAAC).
He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, holds Chartered Arbitrator status and is a panel member of the leading international arbitral institutions. He has been appointed as an arbitrator in both ad hoc and institutional arbitrations.
Ongoing cases
M. v. S (LCIA, 2020) - LCIA Arbitration c.£25m claim by shareholders against their JV partners in an electricity supply business. The Case required expert evidence on whether minority discounts were appropriate (DLOC DLOM) in the valuation and what the venture capital rates of return would have been in that valuation.
Microlise Limited v (1) James Kemball Limited (2) Uniserve Holdings Limited High Court (KBD) dispute between a Transport Logistics group of companies and the supplier of transport telemetry devices fitted into cabs of lorries raising several issues as to (i) contract formation; (ii) incorporation of terms; (iii) allegations of breach and misrepresentation; (iv) causation and quantification of loss. The Case also raised issues of what is necessary in terms of a clause to exclude the statutory implied terms of “fit for purpose” and “satisfactory quality” from the transactions. Leading Nicholas Kaplan. Awaiting Judgment
EFL v An Insurer - Ad Hoc Arbitration claim, acting for the Claimant against insurer under provisions of a BII Policy.
Woodstone Carpentry Limited v Crystal Engineering Limited - Ongoing dispute in connection with installation of FRA on Post Grenfell Tower Buildings in London Boroughs. (2022; High Court).
SE v IM - Advising Claimant following Notice of Continuance from Dubai Courts and whether to pursue claim for Share expropriation and fraud.
McAnally v St J - Advising claimant in respect of claims against Financial Advisers for Professional Negligence.
T. (Austria) v. A&B (Qatar) (LCIA, Seat London, 2019) - Retained as counsel for the Claimant in a Licence infringement case concerning IPR and Trademarks ($5m).
D v E (DIAC, LCIA, 2020) - Advising Dubai based companies in respect of ongoing obligations to Oil part Supply Agreements and on prospects regarding two separate arbitration clauses (£1m).
Recent cases
High Court (KBD) dispute involving the purchase of 1930s Italian Racing car at auction for the then record price for a car of its kind of c.£1,200,000. The case raised several issues including (i) precontractual representations and contractual warranties; (ii) provenance; and (iii) value. Settled on favourable grounds. Leading Nicholas Kaplan.
AFC v AI - High Court (Comm) dispute for claimant against BII insurer “at the premises” clauses – proceeding to trial. Settled.
LY v C - High Court (Comm) dispute acing for claimant against BII insurer “at the premises” clauses. Settled.
Broderick v Broderick [2022] EWHC Trial (settled midway) - Whether partnership-at-will in £5m dispute between world famous sculptor and other family members.
v. J (LMAA 2022) - Counsel advising on High Court challenge to LMAA Award for Chinese Charterers against Canadian Owners.
NHT v K (CIMAR 2022) - Advising in respect of a claim in arbitration for construction defects in a Housing Scheme.
Q. v G. (Irish Arbitration Act, 2022) - Arbitrator. Dispute between Irish Solicitors and a former client in relation to outstanding fees.
S. v N (LCIA London Seat, 2021) - Counsel in dispute between Aberdeen Oil parts manufacturer and US company granted IPR rights in respect of non-exploitation.
Dr T. v Medical Practice (English Seat, 2021) - Counsel advising in respect of arbitration arising from a medical partnership dispute among the partners.
Taxis v Council (Scottish Seat, 2021) - Arbitrator. Dispute between taxi company and Council in respect of Licensing.
MH v. C (LMAA Intermediate Procedure, 2020) - Counsel for Claimant in Dispute with Charterer following cancellation of Charter for COVID-19 and Application of Force Majeure. Settled £500k.
B v B (Seat London, 2020) - Advising in family business dispute as to Partnership-at-will (£10m).
L Limited (a Firm) v Council (ad hoc, Seat Edinburgh, 2020) - Appointed as Arbitrator in dispute as to under a Social Mobility Agreement between the parties. Settled.
WPT Partnership against Partners thereof (ad hoc, Seat London, 2019) - Instructed for Claimants in a Patent Partnership Dispute and advising in respect of ad hoc arbitration for purported termination of the Partnership (£4m). Settled
Z v. GSP (LCIA, Seat London, 2019) - Instructed for Claimants in a $5m claim and cross claim for a subcontractor in dispute with a Contractor in respect of the operation of a Platform off the coast of Greece. (settled)
Scotland’s Largest Litigation Funder v. Members of Faculty of Advocates (ad hoc, Seat Edinburgh) (2019): Instructed for the Claimants in connection with an arbitration for sums claimed under the Late Payments of Commercial Debts regulations. (Settled)
J v. T, C & A (ADCAAC, Seat Abu Dhabi) (2021 Award) - Appointed as co-arbitrator in connection with construction works on a major infrastructure project.
X v Y Domestic Arbitration (ad hoc, Seat Edinburgh) (2019) - Appointed as Arbitrator in a dispute in relation to the sums liable under a Full Repairing and Insuring Commercial Lease between two commercial entities based in Scotland. Award rendered.
International Credit Card Company v. Debtor (ad hoc, Seat London) (2019) - Appointed as the Arbitrator in a documents only arbitration. Award rendered.
OMS v US Oil Major (LCIA, Seat London) (2017-2018) - Represented a small two director company in a £6m claim against an oil major in respect of outstanding invoices for hire of oil and gas equipment; a claim under a Global Collaboration Agreement and multiple claims in respect of infringement of IP Rights. Successful.
B Borough Council v. HG Limited (ad hoc, Seat London) 2017 - Appointed as Counsel to the arbitration.
SYE v. M (ICC, Seat Geneva) 2013-2016 - Acted for Japanese Respondents with Defence and Counterclaim for $13.5m against Turkish Sub-Contractor Claims of $4.5m in respect of a very large railway infrastructure project in Istanbul.
H. v. X Corp. (DIAC, Seat Dubai) 2011-2013 - Dispute between Scandinavian JV interest and a US party. ($1.5m).
Construction and Engineering
David Parratt KC (Scot) is a specialist in construction, engineering, and energy disputes (including oil/gas upstream claims), with a particular focus on projects involving complex factual, technical, and contractual disputes. He has extensive experience in the TCC and the Commercial Court in the UK, and under various institutional rules (ICC; LCIA; LMAA; ADCAAC).
David is a member of the ICC, the LCIA, the CIArb (Scottish Branch) Panel of Arbitrators, the Hong Kong Arbitration Panel (HKIAC), member of the Asian International Arbitration Panel (AIAC), the Cairo Arbitration Panel (CRCICA), the WIPO Panel (Geneva), the Dubai International Arbitration Centre List (DIAC), the CIArb London President’s Panel and the Juris Roster of International Arbitrators.
Recent and Ongoing cases
M. v. S (IAC, 2022) - Counsel for Claimant in Electricity Supply Dispute and JVA, share valuation £100m.
NHT v K (CIMAR 2022) - Advising in respect of a claim in arbitration for construction defects in a Housing Scheme.
Arbitrator in dispute re professional fees relating to NEC3 terms and conditions (Northern Ireland, 2022)
Co Arbitrator re Abu Dhabi airport construction dispute (2022)
Woodstone Carpentry Limited v Crystal Engineering Limited - Ongoing dispute in connection with installation of FRA on Post Grenfell Tower Buildings in London Boroughs. (2022; High Court).
S. v N (LCIA London Seat, 2021) - Counsel in dispute between Aberdeen Oil parts manufacturer and US company granted IPR rights in respect of non-exploitation.
J v. T, C & A (ADCAAC, Seat Abu Dhabi) (2021 Award) - Appointed as co-arbitrator in connection with construction works on a major infrastructure project.
Scottish Ministers v Contractors re M74; M77 and M8 (large infrastructure project) (2020)
D v E (DIAC, LCIA, 2020) - Advising Dubai based companies in respect of ongoing obligations to Oil part Supply Agreements and on prospects regarding two separate arbitration clauses (£1m).
Advice on arbitration clause under Option W2 in NEC3 (2019)
Z v. GSP (LCIA, Seat London, 2019) - Instructed for Claimants in a $5m claim and cross claim for a subcontractor in dispute with a Contractor in respect of the operation of a Platform off the coast of Greece. (settled)
Advice in respect of Notice of Intention to Refer under cl 93 NEC3 (2018)
OMS v US Oil Major (LCIA, Seat London) (2017-2018) - Represented a small two director company in a £6m claim against an oil major in respect of outstanding invoices for hire of oil and gas equipment; a claim under a Global Collaboration Agreement and multiple claims in respect of infringement of IP Rights. Successful.
Advice to adjudicator re NEC3 on project Blackpool Pier (2017)
SYE v. M (ICC, Seat Geneva) 2013-2016 - Acted for Japanese Respondents with Defence and Counterclaim for $13.5m against Turkish Sub-Contractor Claims of $4.5m in respect of a very large railway infrastructure project in Istanbul.
Neutrals - Adjudicators
David Parratt KC (Scot) is a well known adjudicator and counsel to adjudicators in construction, engineering and energy disputes.
Adjudications
M73 Motorway Spur Construction Dispute Adjudication (2018) In this large and high profile adjudication he was retained by the Scottish Government in respect of a claim made by a JV of contractors.
Queensferry Bridge Crossing Adjudication (2018) In this large and high profile case he was retained by the Adjudicator as Counsel to the adjudication. David advised in respect of procedure and challenges to his jurisdiction.
Head of Chambers
David Berkley KC has been advising and representing clients in business disputes for more than 30 years and enjoys a substantial practice in London and across the UK. David has a busy practice assisting in the resolution of complex disputes in the fields of commercial litigation, banking disputes, and employment.
David became 3PB’s Head of Chambers in 2019 and is a senior member of 3PB’s Commercial and Chancery Groups. David is a qualified mediator (College of Law accredited) and is willing to act as arbitrator in commercial disputes. He is also a popular choice for direct access instructions.
David's legal expertise includes:
Business and Commercial
Property
Employment
Professional Negligence
Regulatory and Professional Ethics
Entertainment law.
He adopts a practical approach working closely with clients and their solicitors, and business clients direct.
David is also a frequent lecturer having conducted many seminars in-house at Herbert Smith Freehills, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and other leading City and UK regional law firms.
Outside the office, David was a founder, and remains a member, of the Executive Council of the Muslim Jewish Forum of Greater Manchester. He has an interest in academic and vocational training including a long association with Nottingham Law School and the National Institute for Trial Advocacy and was formerly an Honorary Teaching Fellow at Manchester Law School. He is currently acting as consulting editor for Halsbury’s Law.
Commercial
David Berkley KC’s practice covers commercial and commercial/chancery litigation, including banking and finance litigation. His practice focuses on complex disputes and major trial work and he regularly appears in the High Court and the Court of Appeal in contentious security and receivership issues; civil fraud trials; insolvency and company law.
He frequently advises in and acts on behalf of professional clients in disputes relating to partnerships; restrictive covenants; confidentiality and trade secrets, most notably within the professional practice of solicitors’ and accountants’.
Most recently, David has been recognised for his work in relation to advising and acting for businesses seeking redress for the mis-selling of Interest Rate Hedging Products via the FCA / FSA Review process and litigation in the High Court. He has extensive experience dealing with the subsequent professional negligence issues arising from such disputes; especially those relating to the provision of financial services.
Reported cases:
Courage Shipping Co v OCM Maritime Nile LLC [2022] EWCA Civ 1091
On the proper construction of a charterparty, the owners of two vessels had been entitled to repossess the vessels upon an event of default without giving notice to the charterers of the aggregate amount to be paid upon termination. Further, in the circumstances, the charterers were not entitled to relief from forfeiture.
Alta Trading UK Ltd (formerly Arcadia Petroleum Ltd) v Bosworth [2021] EWCA Civ 687
In claims brought against a de facto CEO and de facto CFO of companies in a group, a jurisdictional challenge brought by the Swiss-domiciled defendants was dismissed where it was found that they had a non-negligible influence over the companies so that they were not in a relationship of subordination and were accordingly not employees for the purposes of the Lugano Convention 2007 art.18(1). Therefore, art.20(1) did not operate to oust the jurisdiction of England and Wales.
Rockliffe Hall Ltd v Travelers Insurance Co Ltd [2021] EWHC 412 (Comm)
Business interruption cover provided by an insurer for loss resulting from an outbreak of "Infectious Disease" did not cover COVID-19 related losses. The policy had defined "Infectious Disease" by reference to a closed and exhaustive list of 34 diseases which did not include COVID-19. The listed disease, "Plague", referred to a specific disease rather than a more general term for any infectious disease with a high mortality rate, epidemic or pandemic, and so did not encompass COVID-19.
Alta Trading UK Ltd v Bosworth [2020] EWHC 2757 (Comm)
The claimants had a good arguable case that there was not a relationship of subordination, and therefore not an employment relationship, between a group of companies and their former chief executive and chief financial officers for the purposes of a challenge to the English court's jurisdiction.
Target Rich International Ltd v Forex Capital Markets Ltd [2020] EWHC 1544 (Comm)
Financial regulation; Banking and finance. Breach of contract; Conduct of business sourcebooks; Damages; Force majeure; Foreign exchange; Implied terms; Incorporation; Negligence; Rules
Bhattacharya v Omni Capital Partners Ltd [2020] EWHC 1644 (Ch)
A claim under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 Pt II s.28(7) for repayment of monies under a loan agreement was a claim for recovery of money arising only under that statute, and was accordingly subject to a six-year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980 s.9, despite a claim also being made for a declaration that the loan was unenforceable. The repayment claim was time barred under s.9 as the payments had been made more than six years before proceedings were issued.
Sharp v Blank [2019] EWHC 3096 (Ch)
The defendant directors of Lloyds TSB Group Plc were not in breach of duty in recommending that shareholders should approve the acquisition of HBOS Plc during the developing financial crisis in 2008; the circular sent to shareholders before they voted to approve the transaction should have disclosed the existence of certain funding arrangements made available to HBOS by Lloyds and the Bank of England but the failure to disclose those arrangements was not causative, since the shareholders would have approved the transaction if there had been a fair presentation of those arrangements in the circular.
Parmar and another v Barclays Bank plc [2018] EWHC 1027 (Ch)
Swap agreement – Interest rate swap agreement. Although the claimants had established that there had been breaches of certain of the Conduct of Business Sourcebook (COBS) rules, no loss had been sustained by them as a result. Therefore, the Chancery Division, dismissed the claimants' claim, under s 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, for damages for alleged breaches of the COBS rules.
Wardman and others v GSD Law Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 2144
Costs — Detailed assessment — Solicitor’s misconduct — Paying parties alleging that receiving parties’ legal representative had engaged in unreasonable or improper conduct during detailed assessment proceedings — District judge upholding allegations and disallowing costs after three-day hearing — Whether jurisdiction to disallow costs summary — Whether district judge should have declined to entertain allegations — Whether three-day hearing disproportionate — Whether guidance as to wasted costs procedure to be applied — CPRr 44.11
Bailey and another company v Barclays Bank plc [2014] EWHC 2882 (QB)
Practice – Striking out. The claimant, B, had arranged a loan with the defendant bank. He subsequently sought to transfer the loan from himself to a company that he controlled. B and the company brought proceedings against the bank for, among other things, misrepresentation. In the course of proceedings, the bank sought to strike out the claim, and the claimants sought permission to amend the particulars of claim. The Queen's Bench Division held that the application to amend would be dismissed, and judgment would be given for the bank.
Pourghazi v Kamyab [2014] Lexis Citation 155
Misrepresentation – Deceit. The claimant brought a claim against the defendant, alleging that he had been induced into lending him money in respect of the purchase of a leasehold penthouse in London and into signing a declaration of trust in respect of it, in circumstances where the defendant had not disclosed that a bank had appointed receivers in connection with the property. The Chancery Division set aside the declaration of trust, ruling that the misrepresentations alleged had been proved.
Lombard-Knight and another v Rainstorm Pictures Inc [2014] EWCA Civ 356
Arbitration – Award – Enforcement – Application to enforce award – Claimant successful in arbitration proceedings in California – Claimant obtaining enforcement order in High Court – Defendants applying to set aside order – Judge finding claimant failing to comply with procedural requirements for applying to enforce award – Judge finding defendants' submissions unsustainable – Judge making new enforcement order – Defendants appealing and claimant cross-appealing – Whether judge erring in finding procedural irregularity in claimant's application – Whether judge erring in finding defendants having had notice of arbitral proceedings – Arbitration Act 1996, s 102(1)(b).
Green and another v Royal Bank of Scotland [2013] EWCA Civ 1197
Bank – Duty of care. The claimants issued proceedings claiming that the defendant bank had 'mis-sold' them an interest rate swap by giving inadequate disclosure of break costs, contrary to its duty under the Code of Business Rules then in existence, and to warn that break costs could be substantial and to explain clearly and fairly the true potential magnitude of those costs. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, upheld a decision that the bank had not owed the claimants a common law duty of care which had involved taking reasonable care to ensure that they had understood the nature of the risks involved in entering into the swap transaction.
Ahmad v Secret Garden (Cheshire) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1005
Contract – Rectification – Written contract – Appellant lessor of property entering into tenancy with respondent company – Parties going through standard form of business lease (LS2), agreeing to amend it to reflect particular terms agreed – Parties signing written agreement for lease on those terms (Lease 1) – Parties subsequently signing lease in form LS2 not containing amendments shown in Lease 1 (Lease 2) – Respondent going into possession but having difficulties paying rent – Appellant taking proceedings for possession of property – Respondent contending Lease 2 ought to be rectified as not setting out full terms agreed by parties – Judge holding parties both mistaken as to effect of terms of Lease 2 and mistakenly believing would take effect in combination with Lease 1 – Judge holding Lease 2 accordingly being executed under mistake – Appellant appealing – Whether evidence from which judge finding common mistake meeting requirement for outward expression of accord – Whether judge ought to have exercised discretion to refuse to order rectification.
Re SED Essex Ltd Revenue and Customs Commissioners v SED Essex Ltd [2013] EWHC 1583 (Ch)
Company – Winding up – Fraudulent trading – Revenue and Customs Commissioners (the Revenue) seeking compulsory winding-up order regarding respondent company – Court appointing provisional liquidators – Company opposing winding-up order and seeking to discharge order appointing provisional liquidators – Whether winding-up order to continue – Whether provisional liquidators to remain appointed.
Rehman and another v Jones Lang Lasalle Ltd [2013] EWHC 1339 (QB)
Limitation of action – Accrual of cause of action. The claimants issued proceedings against the defendant for negligent property valuations. The judge dismissed the defendant's application for summary judgment or strike out of the claim. The defendant appealed on the basis that the claim was statute-barred. The Queen's Bench Division, in allowing the appeal, held that the claimants had acquired the requisite knowledge to issue proceedings and could not begin to justify the period of two years during which they apparently did nothing.
Connell Property Holdings Ltd and another v Mutch (trading as Southey Building Services) and another [2012] EWCA Civ 1589
Costs – Order for costs – Discretion – Second claimant succeeding partially in claim against defendant – Defendant succeeding on counterclaim – Judge setting off damages payable to defendant under counterclaim against damages awarded to second claimant – Claimant being overall successful party – Judge ordering defendant to pay second claimant's costs of claim and ordering second claimant to pay defendant's costs of counterclaim – Second claimant appealing – Second claimant submitting judge being required to order defendant to pay proportion of second claimant's overall costs – Whether judge erring – CPR Pt 44.
Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office v Backhouse [2012] EWCA Civ 1000
Sentence – Confiscation order – Receivership order – Defendant owning equal share in aircraft – Joint owner pleading guilty to laundering – Judge making confiscation order of joint owner's assets – Judge appointing enforcement receiver to take possession of and deal with assets of joint owner – Defendant agreeing to extinguish joint owner's liabilities in regard to aircraft – Receiver seeking order joint owner making tainted gift to defendant – Judge finding no commercial sense in joint owner giving up interest in aircraft – Judge making order against defendant – Defendant appealing – Whether judge erring – Criminal Justice Act 1988, ss 74, 102.
Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office v Johnson and another [2011] EWHC 1950 (Admin)
Sentence – Confiscation order – Proceeds of crime – Defendant pleading guilty to laundering £6.25 million – Judge making confiscation order for over £26 million – Judge appointing enforcement receiver to take possession of and deal with assets of defendant – Aircraft specifically excluded from list of assets receiver might sell – Respondent beneficially owning aircraft – Whether respondent having assets to which receiver entitled for satisfaction of confiscation order – Criminal Justice Act 1988, Pt VI.
Hooper and another v Oates and another [2010] EWCA Civ 1346
Contract – Repudiation – Rescission – Seller of property serving rescission notice in response to alleged breach of contract by defendant – Claimant erring in calculation of dates for service of notice – Notice being served early – Buyer contending early notice amounting to repudiatory breach – Judge finding sellers not repudiating contract – Whether judge erring.
Hameed v Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2010] EWHC 2009 (QB)
Employment – Wrongful dismissal – Declaration – Employee dismissed following investigation and disciplinary hearing into claimant's conduct – Employee bringing proceedings seeking declaration that purported dismissal in breach of her contract of employment – Whether employer in breach of its contractual obligations to employee.
Sternlight v Barclays Bank and other cases [2010] EWHC 1865 (QB)
Consumer credit – Agreement – Form and content of agreement – Term stating manner in which amount to be repaid – Regulated agreement – Claimants contending rate of interest set out in regulated agreements misstated with effect agreements 'irredeemably unenforceable' – Whether misstatement – Consumer Credit Act 1974, ss 61, 65, 127 – Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, SI 1983/1553, Sch 6, para 4.
Saddique v Sadiq and another Court of Appeal, Civil Division (judgment delivered extempore)
Practice – Striking out – Abuse of process – Claimant appointed as receiver of missing husband's assets – Claimant seeking to bring action in her name in respect of husbands assets – Defendant seeking to strike out claim as abuse of process and on ground that claimant as receiver having no authority to bring claim – Case struck out on ground that claimant lacking authority – Claimant appealing – Whether judge erring – Whether order entitling claimant to bring claim – Whether proceedings could have been saved – CPR 17.9.
Southern Pacific Personal Loans Ltd v Walker and another [2009] EWCA Civ 1218
Consumer credit – Agreement – Enforcement – Amount of credit – Interest on charge for credit – Parties entering into fixed sum credit agreement – Total amount financed comprising of loaned amount plus charge for credit stated in agreement to be 'broker administration fee' – Statutory meaning of 'credit' and 'charge for credit' – Calculation of amount of credit – Whether prohibition of interest on broker administration fee – Whether agreement between parties enforceable – Consumer Credit Act 1974, s 9.
David Beatson is a family barrister, who earlier was admitted as a solicitor in January 2017 after training as a family lawyer with a well-known Top 200 law firm in the South-West of England. David continues to specialise in family law and, specifically, the law in relation to children.
During his nearly 9 years with the law firm, David appeared almost daily in court representing parents, children, and other members of the family, in a vast number of diverse and seminal cases in both public and private law. David undertook the majority of his own advocacy during this time, developing a reputation within the legal community as an extremely proficient advocate with an in-depth knowledge of the law and procedure. He attended court on a regular basis across the South-West and further afield.
David was accredited by the Law Society in Children Law after a short period of time post-qualification, allowing him to represent children in court proceedings, evidencing his strong expertise in that area.
David joined 3PB in March 2023 and is now a member of chambers having completed a shortened six-month pupillage, after receiving dispensations from the Bar Standards Board in recognition of his experience and ability as an advocate.
Alongside his extensive technical experience, David brings the added advantage of having the insight and awareness of the challenges faced by solicitors, from his hands-on experience with the Legal Aid Agency, to the logistics of case and client management.
Outside of work, David has a keen interest in the outdoors, and can regularly be found trail running with his dog, as well as attending as many music events and rugby games as his work commitments allow.
Derek Pye is a Chartered arbitrator (since 1998); registered adjudicator; advocate; expert determiner and accredited mediator of the CIArb.
Derek’s main activity is as sole arbitrator or adjudicator and has produced some 100 arbitration awards and over 150 adjudicator’s decisions without ever being overturned.
He accepts appointments mainly in construction, engineering, general commercial disputes and aviation law related matters.
Derek is a multi-engine, instrument rated commercial pilot. He was consultant construction expert in the BBC third series of Rogue Traders and made personal television appearances in two of the programmes in the series.
CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING
Derek is a practising Barrister, Arbitrator, Adjudicator Mediator and Expert Witness as well as a Chartered Quantity Surveyor.
His career in the construction industry has spanned decades working for contracting and consultancy organisations in the UK and overseas including the USA, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Italy and in Saudi Arabia with French, Italian and Korean contractors.
Derek’s early experience in the architectural field included eight years spent in the planning, design and on and off-site supervision of major housing schemes. This was followed by a career move into quantity surveying, firstly in housing, but later, and more predominantly, into the industrial and commercial sectors.
His contracting experience with major UK and French international building and civil engineering companies was broad and he advised UK design and build contractors and specialist structural steelwork companies, on contracts with values in excess of £1,500 million.
Derek’s current consultancy experience involves the management and resolution of construction and engineering disputes by negotiation, mediation, conciliation, adjudication, litigation and arbitration, with disputed amounts in excess of £40 million.
Derek prepares Expert Reports on behalf of clients in contemplation of litigation and arbitration. He has acted as an expert witness in construction disputes on multi-million pound quantum matters and planning inquiries and been subject to cross-examination by Counsel in arbitration and the TCC.
Arbitration
Various appointments including Arbitrator in SGL Carbon Fibers Ltd v RBG Ltd [2012] CSOH 19
Expert Witness
Derek was instructed as an Expert on behalf of Motherwell Bridge in the TCC case of Motherwell Bridge Ltd v Micafil Vacuumtechnik. He was instructed on behalf of DEFRA in Ruttle Plant Ltd v DEFRA (SoSFE)
Adjudication
Derek has been appointed as Adjudicator to on a £3m dispute on a holiday centre complex concerning the supply and erection of modular units relating to alleged delays and consequent losses and damages.
MEDIATION
Derek is an accredited mediator of the CIArb.
Dorian specialises in all aspects of work involving familial and relationship breakdown.
In particular he is renowned for his representation of parties in cases of complexity with serious allegations of homicide, physical and sexual abuses, in High Court care proceedings.
Dorian is also well reputed for complex and high value financial remedy cases.
Until 2011 Dorian practiced out of chambers in London where he continues to conduct significant amounts of work.
Dorian has 20 years’ experience having practiced in criminal, civil and family law at the highest levels and in the most complex and demanding cases. Dorian’s extensive background and particular expertise is that of a forensic trial lawyer with a methodical approach to preparation, detail, and effective presentation of the key issues in any particular dispute.
Dorian combines the ability to offer sensitive sound practical advice backed up by detailed preparation and robust Court presentation in any dispute and is highly respected by both his opponents and the judiciary.
Family
Public Law Care and Adoption
Dorian is highly experienced in complex public law cases under the children and adoption legislation. Dorian thrives and excels were there are allegations of the death of a child (parent or carer), very serious non-accidental physical injury, sexual abuse and trafficking of children. Dorian has particularly concentrated his work in cases involving complex medical issues including FII.
Dorian is also very well renowned for cases where there are jurisdictional orders involving the inherent jurisdiction and wardship and where there are international cross-border jurisdictional issues.
Private Law Children and Domestic Abuse
Dorian has broad and extensive expertise in all aspects of private law children disputes. In particular he is reputed for his representation of children in such disputes. Dorian is particularly sought after for his advice and representation in cases involving international relocation and abduction of children.
Dorian offers the ability and duality to advise and represent parties on both the welfare and financial aspects of children cases.
Family Finance Team
Dorian is a specialist in Financial Remedy matters - his skills encompass driven and guided practical advice to problem solving and detailed preparation and cross-examination in all aspects of financial work.
Dorian has experience in conducting claims where there are assets of substance [up to £40 million], trust assets, business interests, intervening parties, cryptocurrency, a foreign or jurisdictional element, estates and also where there are aspects of conduct or asset dissipation raised before or within the proceedings. Dorian also conducts cases involving inheritance provision, TOLATA and Schedule 1 Children Act Claims.
Judicial Review
Dorian undertakes all aspects of judicial review work particularly in the field of children, families, and decisions by Local Authorities particularly regarding funding and involving policy considerations.
In particular Dorian has regularly challenged and advised Local Authorities in relation to decisions pertaining to special guardianship/residence allowances and funding decisions.
Dorian's experience and expertise extends to all forms of tribunal challenge including disciplinary decisions made by the police and other professional bodies.
Abuse Claims
Dorian has long acted for abuse complainants across the country. He covers all strategies of sexual abuse, neglect and death in cases including religious orders, in children’s homes and schools, in foster care, teachers, families, in sporting and voluntary and media organisations.
He has acted for vulnerable adults and children abused in long term care and for learning disabled children and young people, as well as in claims against local authorities for failing to remove children at risk.
Cases of Note and Interest:
P (A Child: Fair Hearing) [2023] EWCA Civ 215
BSA v NVT [2021] EWHC 2202 (Fam)
J&H&Ors [2022] EWHC 862 (Fam)
Z (A Child) (Surrogacy) [2022] EWFC 18
Re CD [2021] EWFC 112
J v J [MFPA - Interim Provision] [2021] EWFC 78
Re G (Abduction: Consent/Discretion) [2021] EWCA Civ 139
Z (INTERIM CARE ORDER) - [2020] EWCA Civ 1755
A London Borough -v- N [2020] EWHC 2857 (Fam)
BSA -and- NVT [2020] EWHC 2906 (Fam)
The Local Authority -V- Mother (1) Father (2) Lucy (By Her Children’s Guardian) And Belinda - [2020] EWHC 2801 (Fam)
Re Y (Children in Care: Change of Nationality) [2020] EWCA Civ 1038
C.E. AND N.E. - AND - Hampshire County Council [2020] IECA 201
GC v A County Council & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 848
Hampshire County Council v CE and NE [2020] IECA 100. Irish Court Of Appeal 9.4.20
KT v JB and WB (A Child) [2020] EWFC 14
Cases A, B and C (Adoption: Notification of Fathers and relatives) [2020] EWCA Civ 41
A Local Authority -and- M, F, P and T [2019] EWFC 33
Re S (No. 3) (Care Proceedings) (Article 56: Placement in the Republic of Ireland) [2019] EWFC 36
Hampshire County council v C.E. & anor [2019] IEHC 340
In re S (A Child) (No. 2) [2019] 1 WLR 5045
Hampshire County Council v CE and Others [2019] 1 FLR 636
Re S (Care proceedings: Article 15 Second transfer) [2018] EWHC 3054 (Fam) (29 October 2018)
H (Children) [2018] EWFC 61 (18 October 2018) ([2018] EWFC 61
Hampshire County Council v C.E. & Ors [2018] IECA 365
Hampshire County Council v C.E. and N.E. (Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matters of parental responsibility - International child abduction - Judgment) [2018] EUECJ C-325/18PPU & UK =[2018] WLR(D) 584CFA (Ireland) v F [2018] EWHC 939 (Fam) (12 April 2018) ([2018] EWHC 939 (Fam)
AK, Re Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 [2017] EWHC 1154 (Fam) (28 July 2017)
([2017] 4 WLR 169, [2017] EWHC 1154 (Fam), [2017] WLR(D) 617; From England and Wales High Court (Family Division)
N (Children: Welfare Decision), Re [2016] EWFC 44 (23 September 2016) ([2016] EWFC 44; From England and Wales Family Court
Local Authority X v HI & Ors [2016] EWHC 1123 (Fam) (12 May 2016) ([2016] EWHC 1123 (Fam), [2016] Fam Law 802, [2017] 1 FLR 1362; From England and Wales High Court (Family Division)
Re N (Children) SC [2016] UKSC 15F and J (Children) [2015] EWFC B231 (11 December 2015) ([2015] EWFC B231; From England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
N (Children : Adoption: Jurisdiction) [2015] EWCA Civ 1112 (02 November 2015) ([2015] EWCA Civ 1112, [2015] Fam Law 1444, [2015] WLR(D) 436, [2016] 1 All ER 1086, [2016] 1 FCR 217, [2016] 1 FLR 621, [2016] 2 WLR 713; From England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
F and J (Children) [2015] EWFC B231
E, A And L (Children) [2014] EWHC B22 (Fam) (13 June 2014) ([2014] EWHC B22 (Fam); From England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions
E, A And L (Children) [2014] EWHC B21 (Fam) (24 May 2013) ([2014] EWHC B21 (Fam); From England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions
London Borough of Lewisham v D & Ors [2010] EWHC 1239 (Fam) (29 March 2010) ([2010] EWHC 1239 (Fam), [2010] Fam Law 795, [2011] 1 FLR 908; From England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions
London Borough of Lewisham v D & Ors [2010] EWHC 1238 (Fam) (17 February 2010) ([2010] EWHC 1238 (Fam), [2010] Fam Law 794, [2011] 1 FLR 895; From England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions
H (Child), Re [2003] EWCA Civ 1629 (18 November 2003) ([2003] EWCA Civ 1629, [2004] 2 WLR 419, [2004] Fam 89; From England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
H (A Child), Re [2002] EWCA Civ 469 (8 March 2002) ([2002] EWCA Civ 469; From England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
Articles and Publications
“Pay day for the silent army of Special Guardians” - The Ramifications of the Decision in B v LB Lewisham - Family Law 2010
FDR Hearing Service
Dorian is available for private remote FDR hearings.
Property
Described as "A very well prepared and skilful advocate." Dorian has a varied property and chancery practice. He thrives and excels where there are challenging & technical issues and is highly experienced in complex cases.
His open approach gains favour from solicitors who appreciate easy access to him throughout the course of a case.
With over 35 years at the Bar, Dorian has built up extensive experience in many areas of property & chancery work including the following:
Landlord & Tenant
TOLATA
Wills, Probate & Estates
Land & Boundary disputes
Housing
Mortgages
Court of Protection
Dorian also specialises in professional negligence cases.
Dorian undertakes all aspects of judicial review work as well as having considerable expertise in cases involving the Court of Protection.
Clinical Negligence
Described as "A very well prepared and skilful advocate." Dorian represents clients from inquest stage through to trial taking an active role throughout. Dorian is highly experienced in complex cases. He thrives and excels where there are challenging & technical medical issues.
Dorian has an extremely approachable manner ensuring clients are quickly put at ease. His open approach gains favour from solicitors who appreciate easy access to him throughout the course of a case.
With over 35 years at the Bar, Dorian has built up extensive experience in many areas of clinical Negligence including the following:
Obstetrics and gynaecology
Oncology, delayed diagnosis
Accident and Emergency
ENT
General Surgery
Orthopaedic surgery
Anaesthetics
Cardiology
General practice
Nursing Care
Dental
Care of psychiatric patients
Dorian undertakes all aspects of judicial review work as well as having considerable expertise in cases involving the Court of Protection.
Personal Injury
Described as "A very well prepared and skilful advocate." Dorian represents clients from inquest stage through to trial taking an active role throughout. Dorian is highly experienced in complex cases. He thrives and excels where there are challenging & technical medical issues.
Dorian has an extremely approachable manner ensuring clients are quickly put at ease. His open approach gains favour from solicitors who appreciate easy access to him throughout the course of a case.
With over 35 years at the Bar, Dorian has built up extensive experience in many areas of Personal Injury:
Abuse Claims
Dorian has long acted for abuse complainants across the UK. He advises claimants who are bringing claims of sexual abuse, neglect and death in cases including religious orders, and abuse perpetrated in children’s homes and schools, in foster care, by teachers, within families, or in sporting and voluntary and media organisations.
He has acted for vulnerable adults and children abused in long term care and for learning disabled children and young people, as well as in claims against local authorities for failing to remove children at risk.
Dorian undertakes all aspects of judicial review work as well as having considerable expertise in cases involving the Court of Protection.
Court of Protection
Court of Protection and Social Care
Dorian has considerable expertise in cases involving the Court of Protection.
Dorian has acted in both welfare matters as well as all aspects of a patient’s property and affairs. Dorian recently lectured on aspects of “Forced Marriage” to the Court of Protection users group. Dorian's combined experience, knowledge and insight in welfare and finance matters in other fields makes him a considerable asset when it comes to issues surrounding vulnerable patients.
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.
Elaine Strachan is a family law specialist.
Elaine practises predominantly in financial claims on divorce. She also deals with property claims between unmarried partners and applications involving children for financial support under Schedule 1 Children Act 1989.
Her particular areas of expertise include third party claims, complex trust arrangements, assets located overseas and enforcement of orders.
Elaine routinely advises in areas such as nuptial agreements, trusts of land, insolvency and costs.
Elaine also undertakes private children work. Her cases often involve sensitive matters such as domestic abuse, sexual abuse and removal from the jurisdiction.
Whilst Elaine mostly represents parents, she regularly receives instructions to act on behalf of children through court appointed guardians (Cafcass and NYAS).
Elaine regularly provides lectures in all areas of family finance and she assists her Inn, the Middle Temple, in the education of student barristers.
With a wealth of experience, she is self-assured and calm, but firm in her style of representation.
Recent Cases of Interest:
Re B: October 2022
Successfully resisted an application to enforce the order for sale in a final order on the grounds that the consent order was not compliant with s24A MCA (although drafted in accordance with the President’s Precedents). Costs awarded in full.
Re C: May/September 2022
Represented father at a 3 day fact-finding and 1 day final hearing in a private children matter. Case involved allegations of domestic abuse, including marital rape, financial abuse and coercive and controlling behaviours. Allegations not proven. Unsupervised contact between father and child restored.
Re O: July/November 2022
Representing a Guardian who invited the court to implement a suspended, transfer of residence order from mother to father – but on a long-term, rather than a temporary basis. Judge at first instance made order in terms sought by Guardian. The appeal against the decision was dismissed by Mrs Justice Theis.
Private Remote FDR Hearings
Elaine is available for private remote FDR hearings.
Eleanor Marsh is a busy private law children and financial remedies (including TOLATA) barrister who joined 3PB in November 2022 from another well-known chambers in Birmingham, where she had completed her pupillage.
Eleanor is able to develop a strong rapport with clients by being empathetic and approachable; and is routinely described as "diligent", "professional", and "effective" counsel.
Eleanor is renowned as a formidable advocate in court; a skill she has developed since she completed a Stage at the European Court of Justice in the cabinet of Advocate General Eleanor Sharpston, conducting legal research in French. A multiple scholarship and awards-winner, Eleanor represented Lincoln’s Inn at the Imperial Open Debating Competition and was a finalist of the Sir Louis Gluckstein Advocacy Competition, Lincoln’s Inn.
During her university studies, Eleanor was a human rights volunteer with Projects Abroad leading numerous human rights sessions for marginalised communities and schoolchildren, often working with victims of domestic abuse and leading presentations on police corruption and child labour.
When Eleanor isn't busy working, she enjoys playing the cello, piano or euphonium alongside her husband and two-year-old, who enjoys playing the tambourine beside them!
Family law
Eleanor Marsh is an expert private law children and family finance barrister.
Private Law Children
Eleanor is regularly instructed on behalf of both parents and children (through their rule 16.4 Guardian) within private law proceedings on the full spectrum of hearings; from first hearings to fact-finding hearings, final contested hearings and appeals.
She prides herself on working closely with instructing solicitors for the lay client’s benefit, and always strive to achieve continuity of counsel throughout proceedings.
Eleanor regularly deals with matters involving serious allegations of domestic abuse, emotional and physical abuse of a child, and parental alienation; often requiring lengthy and complex fact-finds. For instance, she appeared in the High Court on behalf of a parent, where a party was appealing a Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order made by a Circuit Judge, following a 5-day fact-finding hearing.
In summary, Eleanor has been instructed to act in connection with, but not limited to, the following applications:
Contact disputes
Transfer of living arrangements
Applications to vary a Child Arrangements Order
Enforcement of contact orders
Female Genital Mutilation Protection Orders
Specific Issue Orders, including schooling
Declarations of Parentage
Special Guardianship
Appeals
Eleanor regularly represents clients seeking non-molestation orders and/or occupation orders, or opposing the same.
Recent cases include:
Griffiths v Griffiths – represented the child via their 16.4 Guardian at the permission to appeal hearing in relation to the mother’s appeal against an order for her to pay an equal share of the cost of the father’s contact centre contact despite significant findings of domestic abuse.
B v B – represented a parent in protracted proceedings involving allegations of sexual abuse against a child.
B v A – lengthy private law proceedings where the court changed the child’s residence as result of clear findings of parental alienation. There was extensive involvement from NYAS, and the child had Autism and significant health needs.
X v H – protracted private law proceedings involving a 16.4 Guardian including a lengthy fact-find hearing and the making of a Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order.
M v G – private law proceedings involving allegations of abuse against the children and their primary carer. Final orders made for indirect contact only.
S v W – private law proceedings in which the child had been retained following contact due to safeguarding concerns surrounding alcohol misuse of the other parent.
F v L – private law proceedings involving a 16.4 Guardian where delays in listing the final hearing had created a new status quo for the child.
Family Finance
Eleanor has a busy family finance practice, again appearing in the full spectrum of hearings, appearing on behalf of husbands, wives, and interveners in matrimonial finance cases. She has been instructed on cases involving valuable business assets and overseas properties as well as matters which have involved “add back” arguments and conduct allegations.
She is regularly representing clients at the full spectrum of hearings, these have included (but are not limited to):
First hearings
Interim hearings
Section 37 applications
FDR appointments
Contested final hearings
Appeals
She has been praised by solicitors for facilitating settlement at FDR when the client has been seemingly intractable; and regularly provides written advice on settlement. She is also known for her empathetic but clear advice; and regularly negotiates fair settlements for her clients, even where there are limited matrimonial assets to be divided.
Eleanor also enjoys advising on and appearing in TOLATA matters, both in Court and via written opinion. This has included appearing on behalf of a party on appeal following contested proceedings to determine the beneficial ownership of the former family home.
Recent cases include:
S v S – represented the respondent in proceedings involving a number of significant factual issues, including: the beneficial ownership of three separate properties, the length of the parties’ cohabitation, contributions arguments in relation to the purchase and running of the FMH, the veracity of significant liabilities, disputed business interests, and allegations of material non-disclosure.
B v S - represented the applicant in proceedings where an intervener asserted that they were the sole beneficial owner of the former family home.
B v B – represented the applicant in proceedings involving a family home within the jurisdiction and six other properties situated in India where family members had declined to intervene but brought separate court proceedings within India. As well as jurisdictional issues, there were also issues with disclosure and compliance with court orders, resulting in a significant “add back” argument being raised and litigation conduct.
D v D – represented the respondent in proceedings involving significant matrimonial assets, including a very successful and valuable business where the wife was seeking the transfer of one of the commercial premises to her sole name.
H v H – represented the respondent husband in proceedings where reckless / wanton expenditure had been accepted, but not to the extend sought by the applicant wife.
K v N – represented the wife on appeal in relation to the beneficial ownership of the FMH following a trial of preliminary issue hearing.
Elisabeth Hudson specialises in all aspects of family law. She carries out both private and publicly funded work. Elisabeth has particular experience in Children Act work, both public and private, and in Financial Remedy cases.
She is qualified to accept client instructions under the Public Access Scheme, and has been carrying out such work since 2013.
Elisabeth says “I understand that family matters can be highly charged and emotional, and I work hard on your behalf to ensure your voice is heard. I am friendly, and approachable, with your best interests at heart.”
“If a sensible out of Court settlement can be reached on your behalf, I will help you negotiate to achieve this goal. If this is not possible I will do my utmost to ensure a case is well prepared for Court, in order to obtain the best outcome possible.”
Elisabeth is based in the Hampshire/Oxfordshire/Berkshire areas, with offices in London, Bournemouth, Winchester, Oxford, Bristol and Birmingham. An initial consultation can be arranged at any of these centres.
Family
Elisabeth specialises in all aspects of family law. She carries out both private and publicly funded work. Elisabeth is experienced in Children Act work, both public and private, and has also acted in a number of cases brought under the Hague Convention involving the return of children to and from Australia, USA and Zimbabwe. She also deals with Financial Remedy cases and cases brought under TLATA 1996, the Inheritance Act 1975 and the Human Rights Act 1998.
Private Remote FDR Hearings
Elisabeth is available for private remote FDR hearings. For more information on private remote FDR hearings please click here.
Reported cases
Re M (Minors) (Residence Order: Jurisdiction) [1993] 1 F.L.R 495
Re S (Contact: Evidence) [1998] 1 F.L.R 798
Re W (Care proceedings: Witness anonymity) Court of Appeal [2003] 1 F.L.R 329
Re F (Shared residence order) Court of Appeal [2003] 2 F.L.R 397
P v South Gloucestershire Council Court of Appeal, The Times Law Reports, 1st February 2007
M (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ 1573
M (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 657 - Renewed application by father for permission to appeal finding that he had stabbed the children’s mother. Application allowed
Outside Interests
A keen horse rider competing under BS rules. From 2006 to date her horses have competed at the Horse of the Year Show, Royal Windsor Horse Show, at Hickstead, Olympia, and in Europe. Elisabeth enjoys playing the piano and breeds and shows a wide variety of livestock.
Other Information
Elisabeth is happy to travel to any of our centres. She is available to give informal updating lectures to solicitors by arrangement through her clerks.
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.
Hall of fame
Elizabeth McGrath KC (Liz) was called to the bar in 1987 and for over 20 years has practiced exclusively in the field of family law. Liz was appointed Queen's Counsel in 2014.
Liz appears regularly in complex high net worth financial remedy cases and has particular expertise in dealing with cases involving private limited companies, partnerships and extensive property and pension portfolios. Liz is often instructed in cases in which there are parallel private law children issues with particular emphasis on ‘residence’, ‘contact’, relocation, LGBT parenting and surrogacy.
Liz has extensive expertise in public law, acting for Local Authorities, parents and children in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. She has been instructed in a number of complex fact finding hearings involving allegations of sexual abuse and non-accidental injuries, and has appeared in a number of reported cases.
Liz’s vast experience across the field of private and public family law, and her down to earth, approachable manner, is known to inspire confidence in her instructing solicitors and enables her to establish a productive and easy rapport with lay clients. Her thorough approach to preparation means that she is quick to identify the crucial issues in complex cases.
Whilst Liz gives firm and fair advice with an eye to early resolution where possible, if proceedings require a judicial decision she has a reputation for concise, robust and effective advocacy.
Family
Liz was called to the bar in 1987 and for over 20 years has practiced exclusively in the field of family law. She appears frequently in complex and sensitive cases involving children (public and private) as well as cases within the financial remedies remit, dealing with issues involving substantial assets and often where the Court is faced with complex factual and expert evidence.
Liz has a proven ability to deal with high conflict issues in a calm and professional manner whilst devoting significant energy to her client’s case.
Liz is available for work internationally on all family law matters.
Reported Cases
A Local Authority -v- MM, NM, MC, CM and W, X , Y and Z (Children acting through their Guardian) [2020] EWFC 65
Re ABC (Children: Overlaying Child) [2020] EWFC [57]
B-T (A Child: Threshold Conditions) [2020] EWCA Civ 697
RE AA (Children) & 25 Ors [2019] EWFC 64
E (A Child) (Family Proceedings: Evidence), Re [2016] EWCA Civ 473; [2016] 4 W.L.R. 105
Stockport MBC v AM [2016] EWFC 12
A CC v AB [2015] EWFC 82
W (Children) (Adoption: Procedure: Conditions), Re [2015] EWCA Civ 403; [2016] 1 F.L.R. 454; [2015] 3 F.C.R. 99; [2015] Fam. Law 765
Coventry City Council v B [2012] EWHC 4014 (Fam); [2015] 1 F.L.R. 411; [2014] Fam. Law 954
E (A Child) (Wardship Order: Child in Voluntary Accommodation), Re [2012] EWCA Civ 1773; [2013] 2 F.L.R. 63; [2013] Fam. Law 399
K (A Child) (Post Adoption Placement Breakdown), Re [2012] EWHC 4148 (Fam); [2013] 1 F.L.R. 1; [2012] Fam. Law 1450
Coventry City Council v O [2011] EWCA Civ 729; [2012] Fam. 210; [2012] 3 W.L.R. 208; [2012] P.T.S.R. 835; [2011] 2 F.L.R. 936; [2011] 3 F.C.R. 38; [2012] B.L.G.R. 279; [2011]
Fam. Law 921; (2011) 108(27) L.S.G. 23; (2011) 161 N.L.J. 952; Times, July 1, 2011; Official Transcript
J (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Injuries), Re [2009] EWHC 1383 (Fam); [2009] 2 F.L.R. 99; [2009] Fam. Law 479
Private Law
Private Law Children and Domestic Abuse
Liz acts for parents and guardians (where appointed) in residence and contact cases of great sensitivity and often where the evidence of expert psychologists or psychiatrists aids the courts determination on welfare issues. She is a fierce advocate in cases involving allegations of sexual abuse and parental alienation. Her vast experience in this field extends to cases involving an international element where clients need to be given comprehensive advice on an urgent basis.
Liz has represented clients from a range of backgrounds, including those with learning difficulties, and her experience and maturity enable her to establish a rapport with the client to achieve the best outcome possible.
Care and Adoption
Public Law Care and Adoption
Liz acts for Local Authorities, parents, guardians and grandparents/other interested parties, in cases involving serious non accidental injury, sexual abuse, chronic neglect, death of the child and fabricated and induced illness (FII).
Liz is experienced in complex public law cases under the children and adoption legislation, in particular those involving complex medical issues; cases where placement of children outside the jurisdiction is proposed; cases where confidentiality and disclosure are an issue, including restraint of publication by the media and cases involving the use of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.
Finance
Liz acts for wives, husbands and intervenors in cases involving substantial assets and often where the Court is faced with complex factual and expert evidence. In recent years she has specialised in cases involving businesses where the Court has been required to consider forensic accounting evidence in order to value shareholdings and to assess liquidity. She has acted in a number of cases involving minority shareholdings where the issue of quasi partnership has arisen and where contribution arguments have featured. Liz has extensive experience of cases involving significant pension assets where the issue of pension sharing /offset has been the subject of expert actuarial evidence.
Her breadth of experience in the field of family finance enables her to give forthright views as to likely outcomes at an early stage in proceedings and in that way to ensure that financial dispute resolutions are as effective as they can be.
Liz believes that her expertise in private law children cases can be of significant benefit to those clients facing marital breakdown who need swift advice and able representation on both money and the arrangements for their children, who would prefer to obtain it from one source.
FDR Hearing Service
Liz is available for private remote FDR hearings.
Elizabeth Porteous is a barrister in 3PB's family team and is based in the Birmingham office. She joined 3PB in November 2022 from a rival Midlands set where she successfully completed her 12-month family pupillage.
Prior to pupillage, Elizabeth worked as a senior legal assistant at Herefordshire Council. Elizabeth worked on a large number of children public law cases at the local authority and already has built a good practice in care and adoption and more recently, private law children and financial remedies cases which she is also looking to develop.
A mooting competition finalist at University of the West of England (UWE) in Bristol, Elizabeth was appointed head of mooting. At the University of Bristol, she was part of the Human Rights Law Clinic where she undertook in-depth research into a variety of human rights issues, helping to influence ongoing litigation and policymaking. Whilst completing the BPTC at the University of Law in Birmingham, Elizabeth was Head of the Advocacy Committee where she had the responsibility of organising and running mooting competitions and workshops.
Elizabeth has volunteered for the charity "Support Through Court", helping litigants in person to issue or defend claims. This involved frequent representation for clients in remote hearings throughout the pandemic.
Outside work, Elizabeth enjoys going on long walks and paddle-boarding. She also loves to travel and to attend festivals.
Family law
Elizabeth Porteous completed her family law pupillage at another chambers in the Midlands and joined 3PB in November 2022 to further develop her skills and experience in public and private law children disputes and finance cases.
She has a busy public children caseload and is keen to develop her recent private law children work and financial remedies practice. She plans to conduct cases that include complex allegations requiring robust cross-examination and in-depth analysis.
Elizabeth is frequently commended by solicitors for her client care and her ability to rapidly build rapport in often very difficult and upsetting circumstances. She receives excellent feedback from clients for her approachability and ability to provide realistic but sensitive advice. Her approach to clients quickly puts them at ease and enables her to build relationships with opponents and colleagues efficiently.
After completing the BPTC, she worked as a paralegal in Herefordshire Council's Legal Department dealing exclusively with public law proceedings, giving her an insight into the complexities of local authority and social work processes. Elizabeth also volunteered with "Support Through Court" at Birmingham Family and County Court, assisting members of the public to fill in legal documents and prepare for court hearings. This experience taught her to communicate and adapt in circumstances when working with people who are often highly emotional and unsure of the family law litigation process.
Elizabeth Gooderham is a very experienced family law advocate who, after an early career at the bar undertaking both criminal and family law now specialises solely in all aspects of child-care law. She joined 3PB in August 2023 from a specialist family law chambers.
Elizabeth specialises in public and complex private law proceedings. Elizabeth is a thorough and detailed advocate with an ability to get to the heart of the matter. She has a sensitive and understanding approach when dealing with vulnerable clients, including those with learning difficulties and disabilities, mental health difficulties, young parents and competent children.
Elizabeth acts on behalf of local authorities, parents, children’s guardians, competent children and intervenors in a wide range of cases, including:
• Serious non-accidental injury
• Sexual abuse
• Concurrent criminal proceedings
• Chronic neglect
• Drug and alcohol abuse (including FDAC proceedings)
• Parents with mental health difficulties
• Adoption
• Special Guardianship
• Domestic Violence
• Child arrangements disputes
• Parental alienation
Outside of busy work commitments, Elizabeth has a recently acquired passion for horse-riding, something which she likes to do as often as she can, including competing in local events. She also h loves spending time walking her two dogs with her family. She also enjoys spending time with friends, travelling and running, having completed the London marathon in 2020 and 2021.
Family
Elizabeth Gooderham is a highly experienced senior family barrister who specialises in public and complex private law proceedings.
Notable Cases include:
Re W [2023]: Elizabeth represented a father in public law proceedings who had a negative parenting assessment. The care plan for the children was long term foster care. Elizabeth, through cross-examination challenged the author of the parenting assessment who conceded that there were flaws in her report and that there was a gap in the evidence which required further assessment. The court adjourned the final hearing for further assessment of the father to consider returning all of the children to his care.
Re W [2022]: Elizabeth represented a father in public law proceedings at fact-finding hearing and final hearing who was vulnerable and had mental health issues including severe anxiety. The parents were alleged to have caused significant injury to their baby including a multiple fractures and bruising. The father accepted he could not say he had not caused the injuries due to significant drug misuse at the time. The mother alleged the father alone had caused the injuries and that he had been controlling and coercive towards her. Elizabeth challenged the case of the mother and the judge concluded that not only did the mother remain in the pool of perpetrators but that she was the dominant individual within the relationship and father feared her reaction if her needs were not met.
Re P & L [2022]: Elizabeth represented the Local Authority at fact-finding hearing and final hearing in a High Court case where the mother was alleged of murdering one of the children. The case involved concurrent criminal proceedings in which the mother was convicted of manslaughter. The case also included multiple parties including two fathers and extended family members who were caring for the children.
Re D [2021]; Elizabeth represented a vulnerable young intervenor in private law proceedings in which the intervenor made allegations of sexual abuse against the father (her step-father). The court found all of the allegations made by the intervenor proved.
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.
Eloise is a personal injury barrister with a busy practice representing both Claimants and Defendants. She appears in court most days - covering trials, CCMCs and interim applications - in addition to maintaining her paperwork and advisory practice.
Eloise frequently acts for Defendants, at trial and in the earlier stages of litigation, in claims involving allegations of fundamental dishonesty. She has persuaded the court to make findings of fundamental dishonesty, including findings of ‘phantom’ occupancy and staged or fabricated accidents, on a number of occasions. Her cross-examination has been described by the judiciary as “detailed and strong forensic examination” and she is known for pursuing matters “assiduously”.
Eloise is also often instructed on behalf of Claimants in employers’ and public liability matters. She has a strong paperwork practice, advising and settling pleadings in matters worth over £100,000. Eloise is adept at handing high value claims involving multi-disciplinary expert evidence, and has advised in conference with both expert and client. Further, she is able to settle pleadings and schedules involving complex causation and quantum issues, and Ogden future loss calculations.
Eloise was recognised as a ‘Rising Star’ in the 2022 and 2023 editions of the Legal 500: Eloise is “excellent tactically with significant insight and experience to progress complex cases in fraught situations”, with an “excellent eye for detail” and “a real ability to grasp the key points of claim.”
Eloise’s experience covers a range of employers’ and public liability matters, in addition to claims arising out of road traffic accidents, including credit hire. Eloise is keen to expand her practice in the clinical negligence field, in both court and written work.
Outside of work, Eloise enjoys snowboarding, salsa and running.
Personal Injury
Eloise’s experience incorporates the following areas of law:
Employers’ liability
Occupiers’ liability
Public liability
Road traffic accidents
Credit hire
Holiday illness
Accidents abroad
Highways Act
Eloise Turnnidge accepts instructions for hearings and paperwork such as:
Trials
CCMCs
Interim applications, including:
Strike out and summary judgment
Expert evidence
Disclosure (including specific and non-party)
Procedural (Part 20, service, set aside judgment)
Limitation (section 33)
Drafting pleadings and interim applications
Advising on liability, causation, quantum and costs
Recent cases include:
S v S [2022] - Eloise obtained the dismissal of claims brought against her client’s insured driver, where there were significant concerns regarding causation of injury, balanced with liability issues on the Defendant’s side, with the Claimant’s primary case on liability aligning with the insured driver’s account.
Q v U and P [2022] - Eloise obtained a significantly reduced award in respect of a credit hire claim, persuading the judge to reduce the figure of approximately £12,000 to just £450.
N v S and H [2022] - Eloise acted for the successful Second Defendant in a strike out application, with issues engaging the principles in Cameron v Hussain [2019], defective service and other procedural issues. Eloise also assisted with the subsequent appeal, advising in respect of tactics and next steps, with the Claimant then abandoning his appeal.
B v H [2022] - Eloise acted for the Claimant from the outset of proceedings in this liability-disputed, multi-track (>£100,000) public liability claim with disputed, multi-disciplinary expert evidence. Eloise advised in conference, settled pleadings including the schedule of loss, and attended hearings through to PTR, advising on tactics and assisting in obtaining a substantial settlement for the client.
P and P v O [2022] - Eloise obtained settlement in terms that the Claimants do pay the Defendant’s costs, following her cross-examination of the Claimants and their subsequent drop hands offer.
R v I [2021] - Eloise acted for the Claimant in this RTA matter, where the Claimant sustained head injuries and psychological disorders. Her loss of earnings claim was complicated by the Covid-19 pandemic and pre-existing symptoms, however Eloise’s advice led to a substantial settlement without the need to issue proceedings.
K v U [2021] - Acting for the Defendant, Eloise obtained findings of fundamental dishonesty and phantom occupancy in this liability-disputed matter.
N and S v H [2021] - Eloise obtained findings of fundamental dishonesty in both claims in this matter, in which the Claimants alleged injuries arising out of an RTA, despite a lack of witness evidence for the Defendants.
C v K [2021] - Eloise secured a finding of fundamental dishonesty in this RTA matter in which the court accepted that the collision was caused by a ‘deliberate and calculated act of the Claimant’, with the judge also stating that she was unable to accept the Claimant had sustained any injury.
S v T [2020] - In this remote trial in which the Claimant was only able to connect via audio, Eloise acted for the Defendant and persuaded the judge to make a finding of fundamental dishonesty. The judge accepted that the Claimant had fabricated the accident.
S v E [2020] - In this claim worth approximately £50,000, arising out of an RTA for which liability was disputed, Eloise acted for the successful Defendant, securing dismissal of the claim on liability.
M v R [2020] - In this RTA matter, Eloise acted for the Defendant and obtained a finding of fundamental dishonesty, with the judge finding with ‘no hesitation’ that an alleged RTA had not taken place. Eloise highlighted inconsistencies in bank statements, odometer readings and the Claimant’s accounts surrounding the alleged injuries.
S v R [2020] - Eloise obtained a drop hands settlement in this credit hire matter, following her cross-examination of the Claimant at trial.
R v G [2019] - Eloise acted for the Defendant in this RTA matter, securing a strike out on the basis of principles set out in Cameron v Hussain [2019].
Clinical Negligence
Eloise Turnnidge is happy to accept instructions in the following clinical negligence specialisms:
Misdiagnosis
Delayed diagnosis
Negligent nursing care
Surgical negligence
Dental negligence
Cosmetic negligence
Emma is an experienced family law specialist who practises in all areas of public and private children law and has a developing practice in the Court of Protection. She is fearless in her representation both inside and outside court to achieve the best possible outcome for her clients.
Family
Care and Adoption
Emma has considerable experience of acting in cases involving allegations of all types of “significant harm.” She is instructed by parents, grandparents, local authorities and children’s guardians.
Emma is particularly sensitive to the needs of vulnerable clients and those with specific communication needs. She is particularly skilled at supporting clients through what are often highly emotive proceedings while offering robust and pragmatic advice
Private Law Children, Injunction and Domestic Abuse
Emma has extensive experience of dealing with the range of Children Act applications, including highly acrimonious and intractable disputes, special guardianship and relocation (internal and external) cases.
Emma represents both alleged victims and perpetrators of domestic violence in applications under the Family Law Act 1986.
Emma gives practical and realistic advice and will seek to resolve issues by consent if possible. When this cannot be achieved, she is a tenacious advocate who has a forensic approach to documentation. She is always thoroughly prepared and fully conversant with the relevant legal principles and case law.
Reported Cases
K (Forced Marriage Protection Orders, Abuse of process) 2021] EWFC B94
MB v PB [2022] EWCOP 14
Court of Protection
Emma has a developing practice in Court of Protection and Mental Health Law. She has a Post Graduate Diploma in Social Care Law and is a regular contributor to 3PB Oxford’s Quarterly CoP Breakfast Briefings. She has advised local authorities in respect of DoLS applications and issues of Ordinary Residence.
Emma Waldron practises exclusively in the fields of Education Law, Clinical Negligence and Court of Protection. She has a very busy practice and finds herself in Court or in Tribunal regularly in tandem with a busy paperwork practice. Emma’s practice has led her to deal with clients in the High Court, Upper Tribunal, County Court and First Tier Tribunal, most recently dealing with two appeals to the Upper Tribunal that were both successful.
Within Emma’s prolific Education practice, she has been instructed on a number of cases on the National Trial involving complex social and health care issues. As a former Teaching Assistant and Governor at a Maintained Special School for children with severe profound and multiple learning difficulties, Emma has a strong interest in dealing with cases within the SEN arena.
In a recent B, F and I appeal, Emma successfully negotiated a settlement at the door of the court which lead to a local authority naming a 38-week placement at a specialist Independent school.
Emma’s knowledge and experience within the care industry gives her a real sense of what good care is. She has regularly dealt with accidents and negligence in care homes. The service that Emma provides to her lay clients is second to none and has been proven when dealing with her many cases of a sensitive nature.
Education
Emma is regularly instructed on behalf of parents, young persons, independent schools, academies, charities, local authorities and universities advising on all aspects of Education Law.
Emma regularly works in the following areas of Education Law:
SEND
Disability Discrimination
Educational Negligence
Judicial Review
Complex admissions arrangements and appeals
Exclusions
Breach of Contract
Debt Recovery
Deprivation of Liberty (DOLS)
Academic Appeals and Fitness to Practice
Ofsted Appeals
Safeguarding
Within Emma’s practice, she has been instructed on a number of cases on the National Trial involving complex social and health care issues. In a recent B, F and I appeal, Emma successfully negotiated a settlement at the door of the court which lead to a local authority naming a 38-week placement at a specialist Independent school.
As a former Teaching Assistant and Governor at a Maintained Special School for children with severe profound and multiple learning difficulties, Emma has a strong interest in matters within the SEND field.
Emma also has extensive experience in providing training to Schools and Expert witnesses on Ofsted Appeals. In her practice, she has advised numerous clients on challenging Ofsted decisions. Most recently, she advised a nursery school manager whose provision was faced with imminent closure. The case comprised complex legal argument and the provision of sensitive advice to a client who was under a huge amount of pressure (her livelihood and future career prospects being at stake).
Latterly, Emma has been instructed by one of the most prestigious universities in the country to act on a Disability Discrimination claim. She has found that her commitment and passion for working with universities across the country to offer them clear and commercial advice has been very well received.
Emma has significant experience in dealing with Disability Discrimination claims both in the FTT and County Court and has recently held training sessions and lectures on this subject. Emma is passionate about passing on her vast knowledge and experience within this sector and openly attracts the opportunity to host training days and lectures to a number of our clients.
Mediation
Emma is an ADR Group Accredited Mediator.
Court of Protection (Family)
Emma's practice in the fields of Education Law and Personal Injury Law has, in recent years, led her to advise on matters of capacity and issues involving the Court of Protection.
She has a particularly strong interest in:
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding
Issues surrounding consent to medical treatment
Lasting Powers of Attorney
Deputyship.
Having previously worked in the care industry and in special schools, Emma has a unique insight into questions of care and capacity. She recently delivered a talk on the Care Act 2015 and its interplay with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
She is happy to take instructions from local authorities or individuals.
Recent cases:
Re MD: acting on behalf of the Official Solicitor in relation to an application to revoke an LPA and appoint a Welfare Deputy
Re ALS: acting on behalf of the Official Solicitor in respect of challenge to a standard authorisation which deprived P of his liberty
Re FL: acting on behalf of the Applicant who was seeking to oppose the registration of an LPA which had been purportedly obtained by duress
Re RB: judicial review proceedings, challenging a local authority's decision that the Applicant was not eligible for care and assistance under the Care Act 2014.
Public and Regulatory
Emma Waldron is an expert in all aspects of education law and in regulatory proceedings. Emma is regularly instructed on behalf of parents, young persons, independent schools, academies, charities, local authorities and universities advising on all aspects of education law.
As a former Teaching Assistant and Governor at a Maintained Special School for children with severe profound and multiple learning difficulties, Emma has a strong interest in matters within the SEND field.
Emma also has extensive experience in providing training to schools and expert witnesses on Ofsted Appeals and has advised numerous clients on challenging Ofsted decisions. For instance, in January 2023, she successfully acted for a registered childminder in getting their suspension lifted in an appeal against Ofsted.
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.
Emma is an experienced family law barrister, who advises and represents clients in a broad range of legal issues including matters concerning contact and living arrangements for children, prohibited steps orders, changes of name, parental responsibility and child abduction. She acts on behalf of clients in divorce proceedings and resolving finances following separation.
In addition, Emma frequently appears in care proceedings issued by the Local Authority and other related matters.
She is an elected committee member of the Bar Representation Committee of Lincoln’s Inn and has been appointed Representative of the Western Circuit for Lincoln’s Inn.
Emma recently took up a role as a Fee-Paid Judge of the First-tier Tribunal, assigned to the Health, Education and Social Care Chamber and in January 2022, she was appointed as a Recorder hearing family cases on the Western Circuit.
Family
Emma is an experienced family law barrister, who advises and represents clients in all aspects of family law with a particular emphasis on cases involving children.
Care and Adoption
Emma regularly appears in complex public children matters representing local authorities, children (through their Guardian), parents and extended family members, including grandparents.
Emma has a wealth of experience in cases at all court junctures from ICO/Case Management through to IRH, Fact Finding and Final Hearing. Such cases have involved:
Emergency contested hearings (Emergency Protection Orders and Interim Care Orders)
Applications for care orders
Placement applications and applications to revoke placement orders (adoption)
Separate fact find hearings
Composite fact find and welfare final hearings
Allegations of significant harm relating to non- accidental injuries; chronic neglect; sexual abuse (including rape and incest); death of a child, parent or extended family member, fabricated induced illness (FII) violence, threats to kill, domestic abuse, injunctions; drug and/or alcohol addiction and mental health difficulties
s38(6) applications including applications for residential assessment
Complex DNA evidence including in respect of monozygotic twins
Special Guardianship orders
Wardship and Inherent jurisdiction
Variety of experts including cross-examination
Jurisdictional issues.
Emma has worked with a broad spectrum of clients including those who have mental health, learning disability and resulting capacity issues which have on occasions necessitated instructions via the Official Solicitor. Emma has completed Vulnerable Witness Training.
Private Law Children, Injunction and Domestic Abuse
Emma regularly appears in private law proceedings concerning children as well as proceedings concerning applications for Injunctions and Occupation Orders. Emma represents parents, grandparents and children (through their appointed Guardian).
Emma has a wealth of experience in cases at all court junctures from First Appointment to Final Hearing. Such cases have involved:
Urgent contested hearings relating to interim living arrangements and contact arrangements
Applications for child arrangements orders including specific issue orders and prohibited steps orders
Applications for Non-molestation orders and Occupation Orders
Fact find hearings where domestic abuse is alleged
Complicating factors including drug and alcohol misuse, mental health difficulties and capacity issues
Removal from the jurisdiction (external relocation)
Internal relocation within the jurisdiction
Brussels II Revised and related transfer between Member States issues (Article 15)
Implacable hostility and parental alienation
Applications for expert assessments
Section 7 reports, section 37 reports and involvement of the Local Authority.
Finance
Emma also receives instructions to advise and/or represent in proceedings concerning financial remedy, divorce and claims under the Trusts of Land and Trustees Act 1996. She has experience of FDAs, FDRs and final hearings on financial remedy matters.
Notable cases:
Fact find hearing representing Intervenor facing allegations of inflicting multiple non-accidental injuries (fractures and bruising) to a 5-6month old baby. No findings made (2019).
Fact find hearing, led by Frances Judd QC regarding allegations of sexual abuse including rape, incest and physical abuse of children. Proceedings necessitated cross-examination of complainant children.
Emma appeared as Leading junior counsel for the children in a 10 day fact find concerning multiple serious injuries to very young siblings, complicated further by earlier findings relating to NAI to the older sibling being re-opened for fresh consideration. All findings sought proven.
Fact find hearing representing Mother, led by Elizabeth McGrath QC regarding allegations of potentially life threatening injuries to a 4 month old baby including subdural haemorrhages, hypoxic ischaemic injury to the brain, multiple retinal haemorrhages and bleeding in the spine. No findings of non-accidental injuries made. Exploration as to contribution of birth injuries and EDS Type III symptoms to the injuries sustained.
Fact Find hearing, led by Kate Branigan QC regarding allegations of non-accidental injuries to two young children concerning fractures, re-fractures, SPNBF and bruising. Symptomology and pain reaction explored with oral evidence from expert paediatrician and radiologist.
18 day Fact Find hearing in the High Court, led by Paul Storey QC regarding allegations of serious sexual abuse, incest and rape during which the complainant child gave evidence and was cross-examined. Client had a learning disability and Communicourt were engaged to interpret throughout. Complex DNA evidence in respect of monozygotic twins explored.
Family law barrister Emma Mabey joined 3PB in Bristol in February 2024, having moved down from London where she had been a member of a well known London chambers since October 2021, following completion of her pupillage with the set. She continues to have a national practice.
Emma enjoys a busy and varied public and private law family practice and is regularly instructed to represent parents and local authorities in fact find hearings, DOLs and final hearings. Her busy caseload is particularly focused on children and Emma now represents parties in increasingly complex cases. She is looking to represent children and joinder/intervenors more.
Prior to undertaking the BPTC, Emma spent 16 years in children and families social work, focusing upon child protection and public law proceedings. ���She held roles ranging from case holding social worker to head of service. Her responsibilities included being the local authority decision maker regarding the initiation of public law proceedings and the accommodation of children. Having spent a few years working with adults with significant learning disabilities, She is keen to use this understanding to develop her Court of Protection work.
Emma has undertaken extensive safeguarding training including ABE interviewing. She has also designed and delivered multi-agency safeguarding and permanency training; and is presently co-designing legal training for social workers. The training offer would be CPD accredited and delivered through a combination of an online platform and live training.
Family
Emma Mabey has built up a busy family law practice, focussing on children matters. Her previous experience in social work has furnished her with an insight into practice, systems and processes which is advantageous when representing any party.
Within Public Law proceedings, Emma frequently represent parents and local authorities at case management, DOLS and final hearings. Emma also has experience of representing parents and local authorities in applications to set aside adoption orders and discharge care orders. She has also represented the Metropolitan Police in a disclosure matter.
Within Private Law proceedings, Emma has experience of injunctive proceedings, fact find and final hearings. Emma has also been successful in obtaining a costs order for PHD and Fact Find Hearings, when allegations were successfully defended.
Emma has also represented a local authority at a SEN Tribunal and welcomes further instructions in this area.
Recent cases of note:
S v K [2022] fact find - private family: Emma represented a father who was defending the allegations of domestic abuse and sexual abuse of the child. No findings made against the father of domestic abuse or sexual abuse. Full costs awarded in the father’s favour for PTR and Fact Find.
Mr and Mrs A & a LA & others [2022]: Emma represented a father who sought leave to oppose an adoption order.
S v B [2021] fact find - private family: Emma represented a mother who had made extensive allegations of domestic abuse against her husband. All allegations proven; including of coercive and controlling behaviour.
Emma Shiels joined 3PB in September 2024 as a probationary tenant barrister from another well-known chambers on the Midlands Circuit. Emma's practice is primarily focused on property disputes, probate & estates and general commercial. She is frequently instructed in possession actions, housing disrepair matters and injunctions. Emma has an interest in Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act cases and offers experience of working on matters where equitable accounting arises within ToLATA proceedings.
Recently, Emma has successfully negotiated favourable outcomes for clients in a range of civil matters including; matters involving arguments on technical defects (leading to a successful outcome for her clients), mortgage possession claims and matters where there is a dispute surrounding a leasehold agreement. Emma has also represented landlords in the First Tier Tribunal, notably in an appeal against a civil penalty imposed under Section 249a of the Housing Act 1984. As well as general property matters, Emma has also experience in contentious probate matters, recently being involved in a matter listed in the High Court.
Emma coaches football at an elite level at Leicester City Football Club’s Academy and is a England Women’s Technical and Future Lionesses Coach. She is fast-developing a niche sports law practice. Using her experience as a player and coach and in dealing with the FA’s disciplinary panels, she is particularly focused in regulatory and disciplinary proceedings frameworks within football as well as other sports. Previously, Emma worked as a secondary school teacher specialising in both mathematics and law. She also has volunteered as an adviser at the Citizens Advice Bureau and the University of Law’s Legal Advice Centre, across a wide range of legal issues including housing matters, debt and family law. Emma has also volunteered as a tribunal advocate, appearing on behalf of clients in appeal hearings.
Emma is routinely praised for her advocacy skills and clear concise written work from lay and professional clients alike.
Outside of work and in-between practice and coaching football, Emma is learning Spanish and has recently taken up playing the piano - which she mostly enjoys !!
Emma accepts instructions in all areas of civil law with a particular interest in employment, property and housing, and personal injury.
Emma Greening joined 3PB in October 2023 following the successful completion of her pupillage with chambers. She is based in the Oxford office. Emma was called to the Bar in July 2022 having obtained a distinction in her BTC qualification. Emma graduated with a First Class law degree and on completion of her degree was awarded ‘Student of the Year’ for the highest academic achievement amongst her graduating class.
Outside of work, Emma is attempting to learn Italian and enjoys reading, keeping fit and travelling. A former personal trainer, Emma runs half-marathons and 10kms races when time allows.
Employment and Discrimination
Emma Greening has a busy employment practice acting for claimants and respondents in preliminary hearings, final hearings and judicial mediation, both in person and via CVP. She also regularly drafts pleadings and provides written advice.
Her recent work includes:
Successfully defending an application for strike out made in relation to time limits
Successfully challenging employment/worker status
Advising on whistleblowing
Drafting pleadings to establish principal/agent status
Emma has also advised/acted in claims involving:
Unfair dismissal (including automatic unfair dismissal and constructive unfair dismissal)
Discrimination (direct and indirect discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment)
Whistleblowing
Redundancy
Annual leave/holiday pay
Trade Union detriment
Unlawful deduction from wages
Breach of Contract
TUPE status
Personal injury
Emma Greening regularly appears in the County Court, representing both claimants and defendants in a range of personal injury matters.
Emma accepts instructions in the following areas of law:
Road traffic accident claims including trials where there have been allegations of fraud
Credit hire
Employers’ liability claims
Occupier’s liability claims.
Emma’s recent cases have involved:
Successfully establishing that a claim could not succeed against a passenger of a car that had rolled into a parked vehicle because no duty of care had been pleaded or established.
Preventing a claimant from relying on impecuniosity where the correct payslip information had not been provided resulting in a significantly reduced award in respect of a credit hire claim.
Obtaining a finding of split liability for the Defendant where video footage demonstrated that the Defendant was speeding.
Obtaining strike-out for Claimant’s failure to comply with court orders along with repayment of an interim payment plus interest in a case involving fundamental dishonesty.
Property and Estates
Emma Greening’s property practice focuses on the law of landlord and tenant and residential property. She accepts instructions in both the County Court and First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). Recent matters have included disputes arising from:
Nuisance
Trespass
Easements
Possession proceedings
Disrepair
Most recently Emma has advised and drafted pleadings in a variety of claims concerning nuisance, easements and disrepair, she also regularly appears in possession hearings and has experience dealing with applications to suspend warrants of possession.
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.
Faizul Azman is a commercial litigation and intellectual property barrister. He operates from 3PB's London office.
Faizul has an unconventional background for a barrister having served in the British Army and UK Civil Service prior to joining 3PB.
During his career as a civil servant, Faizul worked in several government departments including the Home Office and UK Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”).
During his time at the Home Office, Faizul worked on some of the most contentious areas of government immigration and asylum policy, led a team that managed all immigration statutory appeals in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, and as an Assistant Director, led on the Northern Ireland EU Exit Strategy relating to security and customs.
As a Senior Policy Advisor in the Copyright and Enforcement Directorate in the UKIPO, Faizul represented the UK at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights at the World Intellectual Property Organisation in Geneva, and frequently represented the UK in EU working groups in Brussels to negotiate the legal text of a Directive and Regulation which implemented the Marrakesh Treaty into both EU and UK law (the copyright disability exception in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988). Faizul also managed and developed the UK’s copyright exceptions policy, responded to copyright enquiries, engaged with a range of stakeholders, and drafted briefing packs to senior government ministers and officials.
Faizul has worked on some high-level matters with multiple demands and pressures in his previous careers, and as a barrister. This puts him in a unique position to not only advise on the law, but to also identify potential reputational risks and non-legal/commercial opportunities to best serve his clients. He can quickly grasp the interplay between national and international legal frameworks which adds a further layer of expertise to both domestic and international clients.
Faizul is also busy member of the Attorney Generals ‘Junior Scheme’ to the Crown and has been instructed on several high-profile matters.
Commercial
Faizul Azman is regularly instructed in a broad range of commercial law matters. He provides advice, drafts pleadings, and represents clients in litigation at both interlocutory and final hearings. Faizul’s commercial practice focusses on the following areas:
Breach of contract
Misrepresentation, undue influence & duress
Supply of goods and services
Director/Shareholder disputes
Professional liability
Intellectual Property
Non-Contentious – corporate governance structures
Faizul’s recent commercial work includes:
Successfully striking out a defence to a £90,000 claim
Drafting pleadings for force majeure/frustration of contract, and successfully obtaining a settlement worth 90% of the claim after a wedding was cancelled due to the pandemic
Advising on the merits of bringing a claim for breach of contract against an independent school when the Government closed schools because of the pandemic
Advising on the merits of bringing a claim for misrepresentation against a property developer
Advising on the merits of resisting an appeal where the court had made overlapping and contradictory Orders following an Order of Sale
Advising and drafting a defence following a claim for a right to reject a motorhome worth £50,000 under the Consumer Rights Act 2015
Advising on the merits of bringing a professional liability claim against a trade union on behalf of a university lecturer
Advising on the corporate governance structure of a public body
Intellectual Property
Faizul specialises in a broad range of intellectual property law including copyright and databases, trade marks, passing off, design rights, confidential information, domain names, and related areas of contract law, employment law and other commercial matters.Examples of Faizul’s recent work include:
Advising a software company which held government contracts on bringing an IP claim against a former employee when they provided a ‘replica’ computer program and database to a direct competitor. Faizul also advised the company’s legal team and senior counsel (KC) on IP matters and was instructed to make amendments to the pleadings on a claim already issued in the High Court relating to breaches of restrictive covenants against the former employee.
Advising a media company on whether there was any infringement of copyright in their films when a director of the company incorporated a competitor company and embedded hyperlinks of the films on his website, and whether there were any limitation issues.
Advising a national printing business on the merits of bringing a claim for passing off/domain squatting relating to the registration and maintenance of a domain name specifically used by a competitor to divert custom to their main trading website. Faizul drafted a Letter Before Claim which successfully resolved the domain name issue.
Advising and representing a music company in a claim for copyright infringement against a company who said they held a valid licence provided to them by another music company. The claim was successfully transferred from the Intellectual Property List to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC).
Advising a company on whether the Crown will have beneficial interest in their domain name and software development code if the company dissolved, and if the company dissolved, whether any rights could be re-acquired by a former company director without having to restore the company.
Advising and representing a defendant at a Case Management Conference in the IPEC relating to copyright infringement of films created in the course of employment and whether there was a valid assignment of copyright from the director to the defendant.
Drafting pleadings for Sky relating to copyright and trade mark infringement when a defendant reproduced and made available to the public Sky’s content/broadcast via an Illicit Internet Protocol Television streaming service, and breach of contract of a settlement agreement.
Advising a local business on the merits of resisting a trade mark Opposition in the UKIPO, whilst concurrently defending a potential claim for passing off in the High Court by a major media streaming service for character merchandising.
Advising and representing a large US cosmetic company in the UKIPO relating to a Revocation hearing regarding two trade marks.
Advising a film director on the merits of a claim when a film he directed was assigned to a third-party by a production company which formed part of a settlement agreement.
Drafting a Letter before Claim relating to infringement of marketing materials, a computer program and database.
Advising an author on the merits of a copyright infringement claim following a breach of contract, termination of the publishing agreement, drafting a Letter before Claim, and undertakings.
Advising on the risk of infringement using certain materials on social media.
Prior to joining Chambers, Faizul was a Senior Policy Advisor in the Copyright and Enforcement Directorate at the UKIPO where he managed and developed the UK’s copyright exceptions policy, responded to copyright enquiries, engaged with a range of stakeholders, and drafted briefing packs to senior government ministers and officials.
Whilst at the UKIPO, Faizul also represented the UK at the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights at the World Intellectual Property Organisation in Geneva, and frequently represented the UK in EU working groups in Brussels to negotiate the legal text of a Directive and Regulation which implemented the Marrakesh Treaty into both EU and UK law (the copyright disability exception in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988).
Faizul has previously held high level security clearance and has also advised the Ministry of Defence and other government departments on intellectual property matters.
Faizul has worked on some high-level matters with multiple demands and pressures in his previous careers, and as a barrister. This puts him in a unique position to not only advise on the law, but to also identify potential reputational risks and non-legal/commercial opportunities to best serve his clients. He can quickly grasp the interplay between national and international legal frameworks which adds a further layer of expertise to both domestic and international clients.
Direct Access
Faizul Azman is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public and professional clients under the Direct Access scheme.
Francisca da Costa is an experienced advocate who enjoys a good rapport with clients, colleagues, and the judiciary. Francisca practices criminal law, representing both the prosecution and the defence.
Francisca is compassionate and understanding, and is regularly instructed in sensitive cases involving vulnerable defendants and witnesses. She has earned a reputation for her careful and intuitive handling of clients with complex emotional and educational needs.
In the course of her career, Francisca has dealt with a wide range of criminal matters but has particular strength in sexual offences and violence. She tackles each case with the same level of care and determination, and strives to provide a prompt and thorough service to those instructing.
Francisca has delivered accredited numerous CPD lectures, and sings with the 3PB house band ‘Out of Office!‘
Crime
Francisca da Costa has practiced Criminal Law from the very start of her career. She has a strong grounding in defence work, but is a Grade 3 Prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service, and is a RASSO (rape and serious sexual offences) appointed advocate.
Francisca prosecutes and defends a broad range of criminal offences including: drug matters, theft, fraud, burglary, robbery, violence, firearms, offensive weapons, murder, manslaughter, kidnap, false imprisonment, and road traffic matters.
In recent years, Francisca has been regularly instructed in cases concerning rape and sexual offences. She has dealt with some particularly difficult cases involving historical allegations, multiple complainants, and pre-recorded cross examination of child and vulnerable witnesses (section 28 hearings). During the pandemic, Francisca was seconded to the RASSO team at the Crown Prosecution Service.
While she predominantly appears in the Crown Court, Francisca also works in the Magistrates' Court, the Court of Appeal, the Privy Council, Courts Martial, and specialist tribunals.
Cases of note
R v C: Francisca acted for the Appellant in an appeal against sentence for offences of rape, false imprisonment, and class A drug dealing. The Court of Appeal quashed a life sentence and replaced it with 10 years.
R v M: Francisca represented a non-English speaker in an emotionally charged male rape trial. The proceedings were conducted through a translator. The defendant was acquitted.
R v E & others: Francisca successfully prosecuted a complex multi defendant conspiracy to commit a number of burglaries.
R v J: Francisca represented a defendant charged with grievous bodily harm. The matter went to trial and the defence was mistaken ID. He was acquitted by the jury.
R v S: Francisca was led by Richard Onslow in a lengthy and complex prosecution concerning the supply of Class A drugs. The case resulted in convictions for all 4 defendants.
R v T: Francisca represented a vulnerable lady charged with historic sex offences upon several family members.
R v L: Francisca defended a teenager charged with sexually assaulting two children aged 8 and 9. The case involved cross examination of four children under the age of 10.
R v W: Francisca was led by Nigel Lickley KC in a murder trial. The defendant was acquitted of murder and sentenced for manslaughter which he accepted.
S v The Queen: Francisca was Junior Counsel for the Appellant in an appeal against conviction to the Privy Council. The Appellant had been convicted of murder in Jamaica and sentenced to 15 years hard labour.
Gabriel enjoys a varied practice, spanning Personal Injury, Public and Regulatory Law, and Regulatory Crime. Gabriel also accepts instructions in a wide range of other Civil, Property and Commercial matters, from mortgage possession claims and landlord and tenant disputes, to charging orders, orders for sale, bankruptcy and more.
Gabriel is most frequently instructed in personal injury and public and regulatory matters including professional disciplinary proceedings and police law. He has a depth of experience and his manner with professional and lay clients alike, has seen him grow relationships and build on regular, repeat instructions.
In his down time, Gabriel enjoys acting and singing and has appeared on stage and television. He plays the piano and the saxophone and is a member of the Middle Temple Revels, appearing in the annual comedy review in Middle Temple Hall for the past eight years, and in last year’s digitally streamed performance.
Personal Injury
Gabriel is instructed in a variety of Fast Track and Multi-Track Personal Injury matters, appearing in court regularly on behalf of both Claimants and Defendants.
Gabriel is most frequently instructed in cases involving Credit Hire, Fraud, Low Velocity Impact and Fundamental Dishonesty.
His practice also covers:
General RTA Matters
Occupiers’ Liability
Public Liability
Employers’ Liability
In addition to oral advocacy, Gabriel frequently advises on liability and quantum and is regularly instructed to draft pleadings and statements of case. His approach to both his advocacy and written work is diligent, passionate and meticulous.
Public and Regulatory
Gabriel enjoys a varied Regulatory practice and most frequently presents and defends in cases across a range of professional disciplinary settings.
Gabriel has extensive experience of proceedings before the NMC and has represented registrants in a range of complex cases, including those involving alleged abuse of patients.
He also regularly appears as a Case Presenter for the NMC across a range of Interim and Substantive Hearings.
Gabriel also has a wealth of experience in matters before the Farriers Registration Council in complex and lengthy cases, and also appears in matters before:
The General Dental Council
The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants
The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants
The United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy.
Additionally, Gabriel regularly appears in Regulatory Criminal matters relating to Environmental Protection Act Claims, Food Safety and Hygiene Regulations, Trading Standards Prosecutions and Prohibition Orders, as well as a range of other matters brought by and against Local Authorities.
Gabriel is also currently seconded to Blake Morgan LLP as a Case Manager in the investigation and preparation of cases for the NMC and HCPC.
Gabriel has a busy Public Law practice and has been instructed as Junior Counsel for Ofsted in the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse, over the past three years. He was actively involved in the Inquiry’s investigations into The Roman Catholic Church and Special and Residential Schools.
Gabriel is regularly instructed by the Police and numerous Local Authorities on matters including:
Domestic Violence Protection Orders
Public Law Education and School Attendance Order Breaches
Injunction Breaches
Applications arising from Anti-Social Behaviour Orders; and
Proceeds of Crime
Gabriel also has experience in Public Law Insolvency matters, having previously worked as in-house counsel at the Insolvency Service and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. During this time, Gabriel also had extensive experience of Proceeds of Crime and Confiscation proceedings.
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.
Gavin Hamilton brings his many years of experience of practice as a barrister and a sharp and critical focus to the analysis of legal problems within his areas of specialisation.
For his instructing solicitors, Gavin aims to provide an efficient and responsive service and to turn around work speedily, where circumstances require it and he has the capacity to commit to doing so.
For the lay client, Gavin always tries to see the client’s perspective on their particular problem, to explain legal issues clearly and to give realistic advice as to how best to resolve matters.
He also accepts instructions on a direct access basis.
Gavin principally practises from London, but he is always willing to travel to our five other centres or to clients for conferences. He undertakes work in any part of the country.
Gavin was head of the Property and Estates Group in chambers for several years and he now heads the Commercial Group.
Gavin's practice covers a wide area of civil litigation. He specialises in the following areas:
Professional negligence claims
Property litigation
Wills, probate and chancery disputes
Commercial litigation & arbitration, including sale of goods, insurance and partnership disputes
He is an experienced adviser and trial advocate.
Gavin is an Accredited Mediation Advocate.
Commercial
Professional Liability
Much of Gavin’s experience both at 4 New Square until 2004 and at 3PB since then has been in professional liability claims.
His main practice area comprises claims involving solicitors, but he also regularly deals with claims involving accountants, barristers, insurance brokers, financial services advisers, surveyors, valuers, architects and engineers.
Reported cases:
Feakins-v-Burstow [2005] EWHC 1931 (QB), [2006] PNLR 6 – damages claim against solicitors for mishandling earlier civil litigation involving live sheep exports, leading unusually to the re-opening of the appeal in the original case.
McGlinn-v-Waltham Contractors Ltd. [2007] EWHC 149 (TCC), 111 Con LR 1 – Gavin represented the architects in a claim brought by their client for damages for defective design and construction of a luxury house in Jersey.
Kandola-v-Mirza Solicitors LLP [2015] EWHC 460 (Ch), [2015] PNLR 15 – claim against conveyancing solicitors for not protecting the client from the insolvency of the seller.
Luffeorm Ltd.-v-Kitsons LLP [2015] EWHC B10 (QB), [2015] PNLR 30 – claim by purchaser of public house for damages against its solicitor arising out of the solicitor’s failure to advise client to seek a restrictive covenant from the seller.
Hughmans-v-Dunhill [2015] EWHC 716 (Ch), [2017] EWCA Civ 97 – acting for solicitors on claim for fees and defending counterclaim for alleged negligence in the conduct of matrimonial proceedings. A successful application for summary judgment was overturned on appeal.
Most of Gavin’s cases settle and usually at a mediation, at which he is frequently instructed to appear.
Recent cases:
Acting for claimant against his conveyancing solicitors on sale of property for their failure to protect him against fraud on part of buyer, as result of which much of the purchase price was returned to the buyer on a bogus undertaking
Claim against solicitors arising out of failure to advise sellers of development land as to the terms of the overage agreement and negligent drafting of the clauses
Acting for claimant against solicitors arising out of negligence in failing to advise in relation to partial surrender of commercial premises
Claim against solicitors for failure to advise client on specific risk in settling claim arising out of lease of leisure business
Several claims against solicitors for failing to advise joint purchasers as to the different methods of co-ownership of property resulting in loss to one of the owners on eventual sale
Claim for damages against solicitors for failing to arrange for execution of will within the time scale of the instructions
Claims by lenders against surveyors arising out of overvaluations of commercial and residential property
Claims by property owners against surveyors arising from negligent surveys of residential property
A claim by a commercial landlord against a surveyor acting under a rent review clause
A claim against a surveyor acting as an expert witness in a boundary dispute
Advising taxpayers on the recovery of tax paid unnecessarily, due to accountant's failure to advise
Acting for taxpayers and accountants in claims to recover penalties and interest due to delays in preparation and filing of accounts and tax returns
Acting for a company against its auditors for failing to identify thefts by an employee
Acting for accountants resisting a claim by taxpayer for tax paid because no claim made to foreign domicile
A claim against an architect for not providing proper advice about the absence of planning permission
Acting for an engineer who advised on piling works for a domestic project
Acting for an architect in the successful defence of a claim by developer concerning the restoration of a mediaeval timber-framed building
Acting for architects on claims brought by employers arising out of extensions to domestic and commercial premises
Defending an engineer in complex multi-party litigation about a landfill site
Defending ground investigation contractors on a claim by the developer for loss and expense arising out of delays to housing development.
Trading and business finance
Sale of goods and services
Gavin regularly advises businesses and consumers on contractual disputes concerning the sale and supply of goods and services. These include disputes about contractual interpretation and exclusion and indemnity clauses.
Guarantees, indemnities and bonds
Gavin was instructed for the defendant in Close Brothers Ltd.-v-Ridsdale [2012] EWHC 3090 (QB), [2012] All ER (D) 156 in claim arising out of a guarantee given in connection with a property development.
Insurance
Gavin has acted in fire claims against insurers, professional negligence claims against insurance brokers and has advised on policy and coverage points concerning non-disclosure and breach of warranty, particularly for professional liability policies and legal expenses insurance policies.
He acted for the insurers in Pine-v-DAS Legal Expenses Insurance Co. Ltd.-v-Pine [2011] EWHC 658 (QB), [2012] Lloyd’s Rep IR 346.
Partnership and business entities
Gavin advises on various types of disputes for partnerships including farmers, solicitors, doctors, dentists and orthodontists.
Reported cases include:
Travelnet & Tours Ltd.-v-Patel [2012] EWHC 1438 (QB) - where Gavin acted for a defendant who had set up a company with a similar name to the claimant.
Kyaw-v-Claasen [2015] EWHC 3337 (Ch) in which he was instructed in a dispute about an expenses-sharing agreement between dentists and successfully resisted an application for an injunction compelling the defendant to join in an application for a new lease of the surgery from which the parties operated.
Property and Estates
Gavin's property work covers many aspects of the law of real property, including:
Conveyancing
Land registration
Overage agreements
Adverse possession
Mortgages
Co-owners’ disputes
Commercial and residential landlord and tenant disputes
Boundaries
Easements
Restrictive covenants
Rights of way
Trespass and nuisance
Party wall disputes.
Reported cases include:
Rehman-v-Benfield [2006] EWCA Civ 1392, [2007] 2 P & CR 317 – successful appeal by freeholder against judgment against him in his absence based on prescription
Ijacic-v-Game Developments Ltd. (2009) (Land Registry Adjudicator) – successfully resisted claim by lender to a charge obtained by an imposter owner following identity theft on death of registered proprietor
Gordon-v-Elizabeth Court (Bournemouth) Ltd. [2012] EWHC 1333 (QB) – dispute about construction of lease in relation to parking arrangements in underground car park at block of flats
Chancery work covers principally:
· Wills and probate
· Inheritance Act claims
Wills and Probate
Gavin regularly advises on disputes concerning wills, including issues relating to their validity and due execution and the interpretation and effect of wills, the administration of estates and claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependants) Act 1975.
Recent cases:
A dispute within a farming family as to where the testator’s share of the farm should go, giving rise to issues of testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval and proprietary estoppel
Claims by estranged children against the estates of their parents under the 1975 Act
Disputes between siblings as to proper administration of the estate of their parents
Many cases involving claims to an interest in family property arising under proprietary estoppel and/or constructive trust
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.
Gemma practices in all aspects of general and regulatory crime, particularly across the Western Circuit.
She previously worked for the Crown Prosecution Service in-house, where she successfully completed pupillage. Gemma left the CPS in 2013 to come to the independent bar, where she has continued to prosecute for the CPS, HMRC, DWP. Despite her background being prosecution based, since joining 3PB in 2016 she has developed a busy and successful defence practice, with a particular emphasis on representing the most vulnerable in society.
Gemma is passionate about sport and has successfully built on her academic foundations from her LLM to develop her practice in this niche area.
Crime
Gemma has been practising in general crime across the Western Circuit since 2007 when she worked as an advocate for the CPS. She completed pupillage with the Crown Prosecution Service before leaving in 2013 to come to the independent bar where she now has a well-balanced mixed prosecution and defence practice.
Prior to qualification, Gemma worked for a Local Authority in child protection, and as such has a particularly good rapport with young and vulnerable people, which she uses to ensure witnesses give their best evidence, and to make them feel as comfortable as possible with the court process. Given the current emphasis on handling young and vulnerable witnesses these skills ensure Gemma is able to deal with the most sensitive of cases; she has successfully completed the vulnerable witness training programme and a significant proportion of her practice relates to defending the most vulnerable in society or prosecuting cases with very young witnesses.
Gemma has a deep understanding of criminal procedure and her practice encompasses the full range of offences with particular emphasis on complex drug conspiracies, serious sexual offences, dishonesty including fraud and money laundering, murder, serious violence and public order. Her practice has particular emphasis on cases with young or vulnerable witnesses or defendants, and she is regularly instructed to represent those with complex learning or mental health difficulties.
Gemma has experience of dealing with complex and sensitive disclosure issues including Public Interest Immunity, and is regularly instructed in cases involving Confiscation under the Proceeds of Crime Act. She has experience representing the police in civil proceedings in applications for Sexual Harm Prevention Orders and Sexual Risk Orders; she has trained ACPO on Domestic Violence Protection Orders and provided training to Local Authorities on Disclosure.
Recent Cases of Note: Drugs
R v Hibbert [2018] [2018] EWCA Crim 2047
Approved Prosecution Counsel for Operation Venetic (Encrochat Prosecutions) (ongoing) Operation Scowl- Southampton Crown Court and Operation Paperweight- Bournemouth Crown Court
Operation Highwood (2021) Portsmouth Crown Court- led by Jodie Mittell- 9 handed conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, county lines from London to Sussex. Main defendant unfit to plead, complex disclosure matters. National Press Report here.
Operation Origin (2019) Prosecution Counsel 10 defendant Class A drug conspiracy- county lines
R v H (2018) Southampton Crown Court. Conspiracy to supply Class A
R v G (2018) Southampton Crown Court. Taking Drugs into prison- community order imposed
Operation Operative (2017) - Multi-handed drugs conspiracy involving the supply of an estimated £4.5 million of import grade cocaine. Press Reports here
Operation Pretty (2016-2017)
Magic Network - prosecuting Counsel multi-handed conspiracy to supply Class A drugs and associated Money Laundering Offences
Kane Network - prosecuting Counsel supply Class A drugs
Scouse Network - Junior Prosecuting Counsel (led by Jodie Mittell) 8 handed conspiracy to supply Class A drugs and associated Money Laundering. Local Press Report for Op Pretty here
R v S (2017) Newport (IOW) Crown Court. 8 count indictment - conspiracy to supply drugs and possession with intent to supply at Bestival (Class A/B/C) Defence Counsel; suspended sentence
R v G & W (2017) Southampton Crown Court - Conspiracy to Supply Class B. Prosecuting Trial Counsel
R v N & P (2017) Swindon Crown Court - possession with intent to supply Class A/B/C. Prosecuting Trial Counsel
R v H & ors (2017) Southampton Crown Court - Conspiracy to Supply Class A. Prosecuting Counsel
R v R (2017) - Newport (IOW) Crown Court. Possession of Pyschoactive Substances at Bestival (new legislation) Defence Counsel
R v W & ors (2016) Bournemouth Crown Court: Prosecution Counsel in multi-handed cross-county Class A drug Supply case where significant custodial sentence handed down.
Fatal and non-fatal Violence/Public Order
R v Martin [2017] EWCA Crim 648- appeal against sentence to Court Martial Appeals Court
Murder/ Attempt Murder
R v BM [2021] representing 14-year-old charged with attempt murder
Operation Login [2019-2020] Junior counsel in high profile multi-handed complex murder, assisting and offender and conspiracy to supply Class A
Operation Rosette [2019] Winchester Crown Court. Junior counsel in murder committed by two brothers (led by Adam Feest QC). BBC report here
Operation Manner [2019] Bristol Crown Court junior counsel (led by Adam Feest QC) in hit and run manslaughter. Case involved complex disclosure exercise and lengthy abuse of process arguments. BBC report here
Operation River [2017] - Second led junior (led by Nigel Lickley QC and Jodie Mittell) in multi-handed murder and aggravated burglary following a botched burglary where victim shot. National press coverage here.
Non-Fatal Violence
Operation Swallowtail Hove Crown Court [2022] leading Thomas Acworth- Prosecution of 3 youths for s18 which left victim with life altering brain injuries. Press reports here
R v H [2021] Winchester Crown Court- false imprisonment, possession of a firearm with intent, threats to kill and robbery. Press report here
R v T [2022] Newport (IOW) Crown Court
R v S (2020) Southampton Crown Court- Wounding with intent x 2 (s.18 OAPA) Defence Trial Counsel for vulnerable Defendant suffering with severe bi-polar disorder. Local Press report here
R v L (2020) Southampton Crown Court- Defence Counsel for Defendant fit to plead but subject to Hospital Order with Restrictions for assault on worker at psychiatric unit where he resided
R v H (2020) Bournemouth Crown Court- Prosecution Counsel in arson where Defendant unfit and then fit to plead. Multiple previous offences for arson
R v G (2019) Southampton Crown Court. Defence Trial Counsel for allegation of wounding with intent. Acquitted after trial but guilty plea entered to s20 unlawful wounding. Sentence of 4 with extended licence years successfully appealed to Court of Appeal as manifestly excessive
R v D (2019) Portsmouth Crown Court. Defence Counsel for mother accused of false imprisonment, child cruelty and assault in relation to teenage son. Prosecution offered no evidence after submissions in relation to undermining unused material
R v H (2019) Portsmouth Crown Court- Defence Counsel for Defendant who was unfit to plead charged with intentionally/ recklessly endangering life through arson. As a result of psychiatric evidence obtained Crown accepted plea to simple arson
R v H (2019) Southampton Crown Court- Multiple Assaults on 3 year old child by father
R v R (2019) Southampton Crown Court- Child Cruelty. Defence Counsel in case involving allegations of child cruelty and assault by father and mother on two teenage daughters. Case required careful cross examination of girls, particularly given English was not their first language and one child had the assistance of an intermediary
R v C and H (2019) Southampton Crown Court: Prosecuting Counsel in multi-handed s.18 unlawful wounding case where victims sustained significant knife injuries including slash marks to the face. Local Press report here
R v G (2018) Bournemouth Crown Court. Defence Counsel in allegation of unlawful wounding with intent where Defendant had previously sustained Traumatic Brain Injury. CCTV showed Defendant snap pool cue in half and hit victim around the head. As a result of expert medical evidence obtained the Prosecution accepted a plea to a lesser offence and a suspended sentence was imposed
R v T (2018) Winchester Crown Court. Prosecuting Counsel in case involving allegations of domestic violence and coercive and controlling behaviour alleged against a serving police sergeant by a serving police constable. Sensitive and evidentially complex case. Local Press report here
R v W (2017) Southampton Crown Court: Child Cruelty and Assault - Allegation over sustained period of time. Involved cross examination of vulnerable complainant - Defence Trial Counsel Secured Acquittal
R v H (2017) Bournemouth Crown Court. Wounding with intent (s.18 OAPA) - Prosecuting Counsel where Defendant not fit to plead and s.41 restriction order under MHA imposed
R v G (2017) Bournemouth Crown Court - Arson and Aggravated Stalking (domestic violence) - Prosecuting Counsel
R v S & ors (2017) Southampton Crown Court - multi-handed affray in middle of Southampton City Centre during the middle of the day - Defence Counsel - suspended sentence imposed
R v B (2017) Salisbury Crown Court - Arson
R v W (2017) Salisbury Crown Court - GBH (vulnerable victim sustained broken jaw in several places) - Defendant received suspended sentence. Defence Counsel
R v B & ors (2017) Bournemouth Crown Court. Multi-handed affray involving attack on vulnerable persons with multiple weapons including stun-gun. Prosecuting Trial Counsel
R v M (2016) Child Cruelty and ABH - allegations of physical abuse against father by 6-year-old child - Case involved sensitive witness handling - Prosecuting Trial Counsel
R v S (2016) Portsmouth Crown Court - s.20 GBH where victim pushed down flight of stairs received considerable life altering injuries and in coma for several months. Prosecuting Counsel
R v S (2016) Winchester Crown Court. Wounding With Intent (s.18 OAPA) where victim repeatedly stabbed with various knives in his own home. Defence Trial Counsel
R v S (2015) Swindon Crown Court: serious assault involving concrete block repeatedly used to strike victim to the head- Defendant prosecuted twice for the same violent behaviour. Case raised issues of abuse of process, autrefois convict and judicial review
R v H [2015] Newport (IOW) Crown Court: prosecuting counsel in case of obstructing a coroner/perverting the course of justice and drugs supply where the Defendant had dumped and abandoned the body of his friend on the street following an overdose.
Dishonesty
R v H (2020) Southampton Crown Court. Defence Counsel in two handed Aggravated Burglary involving multiple weapons
R v C (2020) Southampton Crown Court. Defence Counsel in Robbery. Issues of Abuse of Process because of delay in bringing case raised- Defendant was 15 at time of alleged offence and an adult at date of charge. Prosecution Offered no evidence
R v W (2020) Southampton Crown Court. Defence Counsel in robbery of 83 year old pensioner. Local news report here
R v M and others (2020) Portsmouth Crown Court. Trial defence counsel in three handed multiple allegations of robbery. One count dismissed following successful half time submission
R v G and others (2019) Winchester Crown Court- 5 handed aggravated burglary involving firearm
R v G (2017) Southampton Crown Court. Series of knife-point robberies committed by 14 year old (vulnerable Defendant) Defence Counsel - non custodial sentence imposed
R v B & O (2017) Portsmouth Crown Court. Multiple Count Indictment series of machete point robberies on taxi drivers. Prosecuting Trial Counsel
R v I,M,G and ors (2016) Southampton Crown Court - 7 handed conspiracy to steal involving over £100,000 of undelivered good from delivery company. Prosecuting Counsel
R v D and ors (2016) Portsmouth Crown Court - conspiracy to possess Counterfeit currency – Defence Counsel- successful dismissal application
R v E & ors (2015) Dorchester Crown Court: multi-handed Aggravated Burglary involving Defendants breaking into address and assaulting occupants with a baseball bat causing significant injuries. Defendant received suspended sentence. Defence Counsel
R v G (2015) Salisbury Crown Court: Robbery. victim severely disabled with mental age of a 4 year old; required extremely careful cross examination. Defence counsel- defendant acquitted
R v W, S, M (2015) Southampton Crown Court: Prosecuting Counsel in multi-handed robbery of a victim who suffered from Asperger’s and who had been robbed/ beaten up whilst fleeing the scene of another robbery.
Sexual Offenses
Gemma's practice encompasses the full range of sexual offences. She is most often instructed in cases involving vulnerable witnesses or defendants; either because of age or mental health difficulties.
She has experience of representing the police in civil proceedings in applications for Sexual Harm Prevention orders and Sexual Risk Orders.
Recent cases of note
R v E (2022, ongoing) Bournemouth Crown Court, Prosecuting Counsel, multiple historic allegations of rape and sexual assault by cousin
R v B (2022, ongoing) Portsmouth Crown Court, Defence Counsel, allegation of stranger rape
R v C (2022) Southampton Youth Court, Defence Counsel representing 17-year-old charged with anal rape of 14-year-old girl. Sensitive cross examination
R v C (2022) Bournemouth Crown Court, Prosecuting Counsel, multiple rapes in context of domestic violence
R v H (2021) Portsmouth Crown Court, Defence Counsel, allegations of abuse by (then) 2-year-old against brother in early 1970s. Expert evidence in respect of memory formation
R v J (2021) Bristol Youth Court, defence counsel representing 16-year-old charged with inciting 10 year old sister into sexual activity. Sensitive cross examination via intermediary
R v F (2021) Southampton Crown Court, Defence Counsel, representing 17-year-old with mental health difficulties on charges of rape of a child under 12
R v C (2021) Southampton Crown Court, Defence Counsel, rape. Sentence referred to Court of Appeal by Attorney General but successfully defended and therefore not increased. Local Press Report here
R v A (2021) Bournemouth Crown Court, Prosecution Counsel, allegations of sexual assault by (then) 5-year-old against sister’ boyfriend in early 1990s
R v B (2020) Winchester Crown Court. Prosecution Trial Counsel- inciting a child into sexual activity. National Press coverage here
R v D (2019) Southampton Crown Court- instructed trial counsel for defendant with severe autism and not fit to plead in allegations of sexual assault made by sister. Case required sensitive handling of client
R v W (2019) Southampton Crown Court- instructed trial counsel for defendant with severe learning difficulties charged with sexual assault on a stranger
R v N (2019) Southampton Crown Court. Appeal against the making of a SHPO for a defendant with severe mental health and learning difficulties. SHPO had been made in lower court without any opportunity for the Defendant to be represented or participate in proceedings due to his mental health difficulties. The Order made was severely draconian, required him to notify the police in advance of any sexual activity and imposed a curfew that lasted for 4 years. Appeal against these terms successful. National Reporting here
R v R (2019) Southampton Crown Court. Prosecution Counsel- allegations of historic indecent assault and recent sexual assault by a grandfather in his granddaughters, one of whom aged 5 years old. National Reporting here
R v P (2019) Southampton Crown Court- Defence Counsel- attempted sexual communication with a child and inciting a child into sexual activity
R v K (2019) Winchester Crown Court. Junior Prosecution Counsel in multiple recent and historic rape and indecent assault allegations (led by Timothy Bradbury) in relation to the Defendant’s daughters, step-daughters and sister. Complex third party material and disclosure exercise and hostile witness. Local Reporting here
R v R (2019) Portsmouth Crown Court. Defence Counsel Allegation of domestic violence sexual assault. Prosecution Offered no evidence
R v O (2018) Portsmouth Crown Court. Prosecution Counsel in knifepoint rape. 18 year sentence imposed. Local news report here
R v E (2018) Portsmouth Crown Court. Allegations of attempted Rape and Sexual Assault by an uncle on his niece. Case stopped following successful submission of no case to answer
Operation Mespohere R v M (2018) Southampton Crown Court: 17 year old defendant charged with gang rape together with three others. Several counts dismissed at half time and acquittal secured
R v K (2018) Portsmouth Youth Court: 12 year old charged with inciting 5 year-old sibling into sexual activity. Prosecution offered no evidence following legal arguments on admissibility of evidence
R v W (2018) Bournemouth Crown Court: historic allegations of multiple rape and indecent assault by complainant’s father
R v H (2017) Southampton Crown Court: Historic allegations of indecent assault by grandfather on two granddaughters
R v T (2017) Portsmouth Crown Court: inciting a child into sexual activity. Instructed Defence Counsel
R v M (2017) Bournemouth Crown Court: Sexual Assault - Prosecuting Counsel
R v E (2017) Southampton Crown Court; Indecent Images - Defendant in possession of and distributing close to 1 million images across all categories - Defence Counsel - suspended sentence imposed
R v P (2015) Portsmouth Crown Court: Prosecuting Counsel in Sexual Assault where the complainant had learning difficulties and significant vulnerabilities.
Sports
Gemma has a developing practice in this niche area. She holds a Masters Degree with Distinction in Sports Law and Practice at De Montfort University, and is a member of the British Association of Sport and the Law. She therefore has a broad and deep understanding of sports regulation and ethical matters such as anti-doping. Gemma is regularly invited to contribute articles on sporting matters for LawinSport.
She has particular experience in disciplinary matters and has advised governing bodies; she has advised a local FA on diverse Equality Act matters, including ethics, safeguarding and transgender policy.
She has experience of anti-doping and has appeared before the UK national anti-doping Tribunal; she acted pro bono on behalf of an athlete in the first contested anti-doping case under the revised UK anti-doping rules from the 2015 WADA Code, as case which brought up interesting technical arguments relating to the retrospective applicability of the rules. More recently Gemma has advised in a case brought by the International Athletics Association
Gemma has appeared before the FA Disciplinary tribunal representing both player and club in relation to allegations of racist conduct; following a contested hearing both the sportsman and club were cleared of all alleged charges. She has also appeared before the Safeguarding Review Appeal Panel of the FA representing a young coach who was accused of purchasing alcohol for her players.
Gemma has acted on behalf of Football Law Associates in representing a young football fan accused of encroachment during a high profile game and successfully resisted an application for a banning order that would have prevented the young fan from attending any national or international matches.
Gemma has sat on the Appeal Tribunal for British Gymnastics and was a member of the Panel that heard the appeal against sanction by the Olympic Gymnast Louis Smith in 2016.
Gemma was recently instructed to represent a rugby club in the first disciplinary case brought by the RFU in respect of financial reporting regulations.
Gemma is keen to continue to develop her practice in all areas of sports law and accepts instructions across the board in regulatory and commercial cases.
Public and Regulatory
Trading Standards
Gemma has significant experience defending and prosecuting trading standards cases. Gemma enjoys the variety that comes with niche regulatory criminal matters, and accepts instructions across all areas of regulatory offences. Her meticulous and analytical approach provides a solid foundation for dealing with all complex and technical criminal offences alleged against individuals and corporate bodies. Her particular areas of expertise include:
Fraud
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations
Planning Prosecutions including Environmental, Town and Country Planning and Housing Act offences
Animal Welfare
Trademarks
Health and Safety including Fire Safety
Food Hygiene
Product Safety.
Recent Cases of Note:
R (Wealdan DC) v C [2020] Prosecution Counsel allegations of benefit fraud alleged against serving police officer
TM Eye Ltd v P [2020] Defence Counsel in private prosecution relating to breach of Trademarks
R (Dorset County Council) v Reynolds [2019] Prosecution Counsel in relation to breach of Environment Act
R (Devon County Council) v Haste [2019] Defence Counsel in Prosecution of farmer in respect of animal welfare legislation and fitness to travel regulations
R (Oxfordshire County Council) v Blake, Blake & Marques [2018] - Prosecution of farm shop owners for unlawful slaughter and failing to keep appropriate records of medicines administered to livestock. Local news report here
R (Oxfordshire County Council) v M, S & RAD Trading Ltd [2017] Oxford Crown Court - Led by Nigel Lickley QC in the prosecution of an owner of multiple Legal High shops for selling dangerous psychoactive substances. BBC report here
R (Oxfordshire County Council) v Toys of Wood Ltd [2017] - Product Safety - prosecution of online company selling dangerous toys for children
Dorset County Council v National Drainage Ltd, Elswood and Radcliffe [2017] Bournemouth Crown Court Prosecution of company and its Directors in relation to offences under CPUTRs for inflating prices and charging for unnecessary work at the homes of elderly complainants. Local press report here
Hart District Council v Farm Catering Ltd [2017] Winchester Crown Court - Acted for the appellant in appeal against sentence in relation to fines imposed for breach of food hygiene regulations
R (Hampshire County Council) v Connors [2016] Southampton Crown Court - Prosecution Counsel in ‘rogue trader’ ‘dodgy driveways’ case involving defendant targeting vulnerable consumer’s at their home addresses. Multiple offences of fraud and breach of consumer protection regulations on the indictment
R (Wiltshire County Council) v Ward [2015] Swindon Crown Court - Defence Counsel in ‘rouge trader’ ‘dodgy driveways’ case where the Defendant faced an indictment alleging fraud and breach of consumer protection regulations against vulnerable elderly victims- Defendant pleaded guilty to lesser offences upon advice and received a sentence that did not involve immediate imprisonment
R (Crawley Borough Council) v Wiltshire & Rowe [2015] Chichester Crown Court - Prosecution Counsel in breach of Tree Preservation Order prosecution, where numerous large trees were cut down by the owner’s and planning agents so as to facilitate large scale housing development which increased the value of the land by hundreds of thousands of pounds
R (West Sussex County Council) v Dixey, Future Homes Energy Ltd and Nationwide Renewables Ltd [2015] Lewes Crown Court Prosecution counsel in a nationwide fraud involving 100+ consumers, many of which were vulnerable. The case involved linked investigations between the police and the Trading Standards department, with 3 indictments spanning 30 counts of fraud and breach of consumer protection regulations and a Confiscation figure of three quarters of a million pound. Local press report here
R (Portsmouth City Council) v R [2014] Portsmouth Crown Court: Prosecuting Counsel in prosecution of unlicensed tattoo artist for tattooing a 13 year old; convicted of Assault occasioning Actual Bodily harm and sentenced to a suspended sentence; the case was widely reported in the press locally, nationally in the Mirror and internationally in the New York Daily News.
Gemma enjoys a varied civil practice, spanning Personal Injury, Clinical Negligence, Public and Regulatory and Commercial law. She has a busy advocacy and advisory practice, representing Claimants and Defendants.
Before coming to the Bar, Gemma spent ten years in Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service where she served overseas and, more recently, as the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s Legal Researcher. Gemma also spent two years working as the Business Manager to the CEO of Coutts Bank.
Given her background, Gemma has a particular interest in claims with an international dimension and is happy to travel on instruction. Gemma speaks Spanish and is learning French.
PERSONAL INJURY
Gemma Ralph has a busy personal injury practice. She advises and represents Claimants and Defendants in fast-track trials and multi-track matters and has experience of:
Employers’ liability
Occupiers’ liability
Public liability
RTA litigation including all aspects of credit hire
Trips and slips
Defective products
Athens Convention (cruise ship) claims
Sexual offences
Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority claims
Gemma has a particular interest in international personal injury claims and has been instructed on both accidents abroad and accidents in the UK involving international parties. She has recently advised the Secretary of State for Justice on an historical sexual abuse claim with an international dimension.
Gemma is adept at handling sensitive procedural and factual matters. She recently advised the Secretary of State for Justice on a discrimination claim by a transgender prisoner. Gemma also appeared for a high street retailer defending a product liability claim by a Claimant who had a general civil restraint order issued by the Royal Courts of Justice to stop them from bringing certain cases to court.
Examples of recent cases include:
F v M - Advised Claimant on quantum (six figure sum) and offers in relation to a claim for polytrauma injuries sustained in a severe RTA.
G v C (Admiralty Court) - Advised on liability, quantum and offers and drafted particulars of claim for a Claimant with limited mobility who was knocked to the floor whilst using rollator on a cruise ship in Spanish waters. Favourable settlement secured.
E v I - Advised Claimant on applicability of Athens Convention in Jersey (Channel Islands) to a RIB voyage between Bailiwick of Jersey and Bailiwick of Guernsey in which Claimant suffered unstable fracture to back resulting in chronic pain, kyphosis and risk of syringomyelia. Drafted particulars of claim and schedule of damages and advised on quantum, including provisional damages.
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE
Gemma Ralph has begun to receive instructions to advise in clinical negligence claims. She has experience acting for Claimants and NHS Trusts and is keen to develop her practise in this field.
Examples of recent cases include:
B v an NHS Trust - Advised Claimant on merits and on expert evidence in relation to a claim for myocardial infarction following treatment.
W v an NHS Trust - Advised Claimant on quantum and drafted schedule of damages in fatal accident claim.
D v a Local Health Board - Advised Defendant on expert evidence in relation to a claim by a prisoner for psychological and physical injury for alleged delay in treatment, failure to carry out medication review and failure to prescribe medication.
PUBLIC AND REGULATORY
Gemma Ralph is developing her clinical negligence practice and has experience acting for Claimants and Defendants.
Examples of recent cases include:
W v an NHS Trust - Advised Claimant on quantum and drafted schedule of damages in fatal accident claim, including accountancy (pension) evidence. Favourable settlement secured.
C v a GP and an NHS Trust - Advised Claimant on merits and on expert evidence in relation to a claim for complications following insertion of tension free vaginal tape.
B v an NHS Trust - Advised Claimant on merits and on expert evidence in relation to a claim for myocardial infarction following treatment.
D v a Local Health Board - Advised Defendant on expert evidence in relation to a claim by a prisoner for psychological and physical injury for alleged delay in treatment, failure to carry out medication review and failure to prescribe medication.
S v a Local Health Board - Advised Defendant on liability, merits, quantum and offers and drafted the Letter of Response in relation to a claim for failure to order an MRI scan where Claimant alleged they would not have undergone a knee arthroscopy had an MRI been ordered and were not advised of options.
P v an NHS Trust - Advised Claimant on liability, merits and further questions to an Expert in relation to a claim for the erroneous penetration of screws into the elbow joint and damage to the median nerve during an operation.
S-W v a University Health Board - Advised Defendant on liability, merits, quantum and offers and drafted the Letter of Response in relation to a claim for failure to appreciate aberrant biliary anatomy during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy and incorrect treatment as a result.
D v a University Health Board - Advised Defendant on liability, merits and drafted the Letter of Response and further questions to an Expert in relation to a claim for failure to diagnose and treat retinal vein occlusion.
W v a University Health Board - Advised Defendant on merits and quantum of secondary victim claim for parents of neonate who died following negligent treatment.
COMMERCIAL
Gemma Ralph has acted in a number of junior commercial matters including claims for breach of contract, rental arrears and possession and forfeiture of property.
Examples of recent cases include:
H v H and H (High Court) - Secured freezing order against family members where real risk of international dissipation of a Quistclose trust in the sum of £250,000.00 intended for the purchase of property.
C v G - Represented Defendant in claim for breach of contract (loan agreement) and separate claim for breach of contract by Executor. Claim dismissed.
FA Ltd v BR Ltd - Represented Claimant. Secured damages for breach of contract (equipment repair).
RS Ltd v AS - Represented Claimant. Secured forfeiture order for non-payment of service charge.
Public and Regulatory
Gemma Ralph is a member of the Attorney General’s Junior Junior Panel. She has twice been DV vetted and is keen to undertake all types of government legal work, and is particularly interested in work with an international element. Gemma has worked with most government departments including GLD and maintains a strong network of contacts.
Geraint Jones KC has a thriving commercial/chancery practice. His expertise includes:
Regulatory and professional negligence
Commercial disputes
General chancery work
Dispute Resolution/Arbitration/Mediation
Direct Access
In Silk he has been leading counsel in multi-million pound litigation, successfully defending allegations of commercial fraud arising from the collapse of the Versailles Group. He has been involved in long-running group litigation involving leaseholders in disputes with their landlord; a case of factual and substantial legal complexity.
As junior counsel, Geraint was longstanding "counsel of choice" for the Solicitors Indemnity Fund (Western region) and has extensive experience in professional negligence and disciplinary issues, especially relating to property conveyancing matters.
Recently he has been leading counsel in a series of judicial review cases against HMRC, successfully challenging its use (or misuse) of its statutory powers. He has also become an acknowledged leader in Proceeds of Crime Act challenges based upon article 1, first Protocol ECHR, lately overturning the long established rule of the common law that a Receiver can always recover his costs from assets subject to the receivership.
Geraint has extensive sports law experience and is an Arbitrator at the International Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland.
Geraint also has extensive experience of human rights and discrimination issues associated with his work in the Immigration Appeals Tribunal and The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.
Commercial
Geraint Jones KC is a leading Silk and specialist commercial law barrister with an emphasis on professional negligence, commercial litigation and fraud.
He enjoys a formidable reputation for his commercial litigation expertise and as a junior was the counsel of choice for the Solicitors Indemnity Fund.
Geraint also sits as a part-time Judge in the First-tier Tribunal Tax Chamber.
Professional Negligence
Geraint’s core area of practice is professional negligence claims with a particular expertise in claims arising from financial and property transactions against lawyers, conveyancers, surveyors and financial professionals such as accountants and auditors; financial advisers and insolvency practitioners. As junior counsel, Geraint was counsel of choice for the Solicitors Indemnity Fund.
He has extensive experience of lender claims and has been involved in long-running group litigation involving leaseholders in disputes with their landlord; a case of factual and substantial legal complexity.
Commercial Litigation
Geraint is very experienced in handling commercial disputes including fraud, for institutional clients, large and small businesses and individuals. His particular experience extends to:
– claims arising from loans, mortgages, charges and debentures
– freezing orders, asset recovery and enforcement of judgments
– fraud arising from the collapse of the Versailles Group.
– fixed charge receiverships
– insolvency, both individual and corporate, especially transaction avoidance
He also has experience of contentious and non-contentious company law matters, including minority shareholder claims and issues arising from articles of association and shareholder agreements. Clients include the likes of Sony UK, Texaco, Associated British Ports and AXA. He has also acted for numerous trade associations and large public sector organisations, including many lpocal authorities, such as The Environment Agency, DEFRA and Land Authority for Wales.
Recent cases include:
Elbrook Cash & Carry Ltd v H. M. R. C. [2017] UKUT 181 (TCC)
County Leasing Management Ltd v Hawkes [2016] BCC 102
Romasave (Property Services) Ltd v HMRC [2015] STC 1
Brendan Barnes (B.D.O.) v Eastenders plc v C.P.S. [2014] UKSC 26
Brendan Barnes (B.D.O.) v Eastenders plc v C.P.S. [2013] 1 WLR 1494
Eastenders plc v H.M.R.C. [2012] 1 WLR 1494 (statutory construction CEMA’79)
Eastenders Cash & Carry Ltd v H.M.R.C. (2011) UKFTT 25 (TC)
R v H.M.R.C. ex parte Eastenders Cash & Carry Ltd (2011) 1 WLR 488
Goldberg v Foster Squires [2010] EWHC 450 - partners liable for fraud of a partner
Carter v Cole (2009) 33 E.G. 66 (derogation from grant)
Greening & Sykes Ltd v Nelson & Hanley The Times 22/1/08 (status of intervening bare trustee)
Nelson v Clearsprings Management Ltd (2007) 1 WLR 962
Awoyomi v Radford (2007) EWHC 1671 (retrospectivity of Hall v Simons)
HSS Hire Services PLC v BMB Builders Merchants Ltd (2005) EWCA Civ 627 (costs to be reserved until damages assessed where there was a split trial and a payment in had been made)
Clowes Developments Ltd v Walters (2005) 17 EG 123 (adverse possession)
Mercantile & Credit plc v Marks (2005) Ch 81, (2004) 3 WLR 489 (sub-charges)
Richardson v Howie (2004) EWCA Civ 1127 (aggravated damages for assault abolished)
Alpha Lettings Ltd v Neptune Research & Development Inc (2003) EWCA Civ 704 (period of notice to terminate an exclusive distributorship agreement)
White v Chubb (2002) 1 P&CR Digest 22
UCB v Williams (2002) 2 P&CR Digest 33 (C/A : BCCI v Aboody not followed on causation in actual undue influence cases)
Havenledge v Graeme John & Ptnrs (2001) PNLR
Ford v GKR Construction (2000) 1 WLR 1097
Public and Regulatory
Recently, Geraint has been leading counsel in a series of judicial review cases against HMRC, successfully challenging its use (or misuse) of its statutory powers. He has also become an acknowledged leader in Proceeds of Crime Act challenges based upon article 1, first Protocol ECHR, lately overturning the long established rule of the common law that a Receiver can always recover his costs from assets subject to the receivership.
Geraint also has extensive experience of human rights and discrimination issues associated with his work in the Immigration Appeals Tribunal and The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal.
Recent cases:
Elbrook Cash & Carry Ltd v H. M. R. C. [2017] UKUT 181 (TCC)
County Leasing Management Ltd v Hawkes [2016] BCC 102
Romasave (Property Services) Ltd v HMRC [2015] STC 1
Brendan Barnes (B.D.O.) v Eastenders plc v C.P.S. [2014] UKSC 26
Brendan Barnes (B.D.O.) v Eastenders plc v C.P.S. [2013] 1 WLR 1494
Eastenders plc v H.M.R.C. [2012] 1 WLR 1494 (statutory construction CEMA’79)
Eastenders Cash & Carry Ltd v H.M.R.C. (2011) UKFTT 25 (TC).
R v H.M.R.C. ex parte Eastenders Cash & Carry Ltd (2011) 1 WLR 488
Goldberg v Foster Squires [2010] EWHC 450 - partners liable for fraud of a partner.
Carter v Cole (2009) 33 E.G. 66 (derogation from grant)
Greening & Sykes Ltd v Nelson & Hanley The Times 22/1/08 (status of intervening bare trustee)
Nelson v Clearsprings Management Ltd (2007) 1 WLR 962
Awoyomi v Radford (2007) EWHC 1671 (retrospectivity of Hall v Simons)
HSS Hire Services PLC v BMB Builders Merchants Ltd (2005) EWCA Civ 627 (costs to be reserved until damages assessed where there was a split trial and a payment in had been made)
Clowes Developments Ltd v Walters (2005) 17 EG 123 (adverse possession)
Mercantile & Credit plc v Marks (2005) Ch 81, (2004) 3 WLR 489 (sub-charges)
Richardson v Howie (2004) EWCA Civ 1127 (aggravated damages for assault abolished)
Alpha Lettings Ltd v Neptune Research & Development Inc (2003) EWCA Civ 704 (period of notice to terminate an exclusive distributorship agreement)
White v Chubb (2002) 1 P&CR Digest 22
UCB v Williams (2002) 2 P&CR Digest 33 (C/A : BCCI v Aboody not followed on causation in actual undue influence cases)
Havenledge v Graeme John & Ptnrs (2001) PNLR
Ford v GKR Construction (2000) 1 WLR 1097.
Experience:
Formerly junior counsel of choice for Solicitors’ Indemnity Fund for South Wales area (real property/conveyancing matters)
Advisory and advocacy work for The Environment Agency & Dept the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Advisory and advocacy work for Sony (U.K.) Ltd; Texaco plc; Associated British Ports; Templar Properties Ltd; Eagle Star (Axa); Land Authority for Wales
Advisory and advocacy work for numerous local authorities
Litigation relating to all aspects of real property disputes, mortgages and trusts
Advising upon & drafting standard contractual conditions for trade association members
Leading counsel in multi-million pound commercial fraud case arising from the collapse of the Versailles Group.
Property and Estates
Geraint Jones KC has pursued a substantial chancery, commercial and professional negligence practice over many years and has specialised in these fields for some 25 years or more.
In Silk he has been involved in long-running group litigation involving leaseholders in disputes with their landlord; a case of factual and substantial legal complexity.
As junior counsel, Geraint was counsel of choice for the Solicitors Indemnity Fund (western region) and has extensive experience in professional negligence issues, especially relating to property conveyancing matters.
Recent cases:
Elbrook Cash & Carry Ltd v H. M. R. C. [2017] UKUT 181 (TCC)
County Leasing Management Ltd v Hawkes [2016] BCC 102
Romasave (Property Services) Ltd v HMRC [2015] STC 1
Brendan Barnes (B.D.O.) v Eastenders plc v C.P.S. [2014] UKSC 26
Brendan Barnes (B.D.O.) v Eastenders plc v C.P.S. [2013] 1 WLR 1494
Eastenders plc v H.M.R.C. [2012] 1 WLR 1494 (statutory construction CEMA’79)
Eastenders Cash & Carry Ltd v H.M.R.C. (2011) UKFTT 25 (TC)
R v H.M.R.C. ex parte Eastenders Cash & Carry Ltd (2011) 1 WLR 488
Goldberg v Foster Squires [2010] EWHC 450 - partners liable for fraud of a partner
Carter v Cole (2009) 33 E.G. 66 (derogation from grant)
Greening & Sykes Ltd v Nelson & Hanley The Times 22/1/08 (status of intervening bare trustee)
Nelson v Clearsprings Management Ltd (2007) 1 WLR 962
Awoyomi v Radford (2007) EWHC 1671 (retrospectivity of Hall v Simons)
HSS Hire Services PLC v BMB Builders Merchants Ltd (2005) EWCA Civ 627 (costs to be reserved until damages assessed where there was a split trial and a payment in had been made)
Clowes Developments Ltd v Walters (2005) 17 EG 123 (adverse possession)
Mercantile & Credit plc v Marks (2005) Ch 81, (2004) 3 WLR 489 (sub-charges)
Richardson v Howie (2004) EWCA Civ 1127 (aggravated damages for assault abolished)
Alpha Lettings Ltd v Neptune Research & Development Inc (2003) EWCA Civ 704 (period of notice to terminate an exclusive distributorship agreement)
White v Chubb (2002) 1 P&CR Digest 22
UCB v Williams (2002) 2 P&CR Digest 33 (C/A : BCCI v Aboody not followed on causation in actual undue influence cases)
Havenledge v Graeme John & Ptnrs (2001) PNLR
Ford v GKR Construction (2000) 1 WLR 1097.
Experience:
Formerly junior counsel of choice for Solicitors’ Indemnity Fund for South Wales area (real property/conveyancing matters)
Advisory and advocacy work for The Environment Agency & Dept the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Advisory and advocacy work for Sony (U.K.) Ltd; Texaco plc; Associated British Ports;
Templar Properties Ltd ; Eagle Star (Axa) ; Land Authority for Wales
Advisory and advocacy work for numerous local authorities
Litigation relating to all aspects of real property disputes, mortgages and trusts
Advising upon & drafting standard contractual conditions for trade association members
Leading counsel in multi-million pound commercial fraud case arising from the collapse of the Versailles Group.
Sports
Geraint has extensive sports law experience and is an Arbitrator at the International Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland.
Gillian Campbell is a family law specialist. Her practice encompasses family finance (financial remedies, TLATA claims and Schedule 1 applications) and private children work.
She prides herself on offering both a practical and professional service to all clients.
FAMILY
Finance/Property team
Gillian is an experienced family law barrister who specialises in financial remedies work.
She has significant experience in matrimonial finance involving property disputes, pensions and business assets. Gillian provides advice and representation in financial remedies matters at all stages of the proceedings.
Gillian is experienced in dealing with concealment, inherited wealth, non-matrimonial property, applications for variation and enforcement and cases involving intervenors.
Gillian accepts instructions in all areas of family finance including financial remedy proceedings, maintenance, Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 and TLATA 1996 cases.
Private Remote FDR Hearings
Gillian is available for private remote FDR hearings. For more information on private remote FDR hearings please click here.
Private Law team
Gillian undertakes all private law proceedings including s.8 proceedings and leave to remove from the jurisdiction.
Her experience includes:
The full range of Children Act applications including child arrangement orders, shared residence orders and parental responsibility orders
Allegations of sexual and physical abuse of children
Alcohol and drug abuse by parents
Parents with learning difficulties and psychiatric problems
Domestic violence in both Children Act and injunction proceedings
Applications for non-molestation orders and occupations orders
Grace Nicholls is an employment specialist with a national practice in all areas of the field.
She has been ranked as a Rising Star in Legal 500 and Up and Coming Barrister in Chambers and Partners 2023.
Before coming to the Bar, she gained extensive experience in Employment Law working for almost two years in the London offices of a prestigious employment team and a second notable law firm. She worked within small teams with partners and senior associates servicing clients including FTSE 100 companies, hedge funds and international insurance companies.
Employment and Discrimination
Grace Nicholls acts for Claimants and Respondents and accepts instructions in all areas of employment law.
She has appeared in tribunals (at preliminary and final hearings) nationally involving issues such as unfair dismissal (including constructive unfair dismissal), TUPE claims (including failure to inform and consult), discrimination (including direct and indirect discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, harassment, victimisation and equal pay), unlawful deductions from wages, commission issues, redundancy, whistleblowing and substantive jurisdictional issues. Grace's practice also includes High Court injunctive work including issues concerning restrictive covenants.
She has been instructed by a wide range of clients, ranging from individuals to local authorities, recruitment agencies, and companies in the leisure, hospitality, tourism, retail and pharmaceutical industries. She also has experience acting for charitable organisations.
She has a busy practice drafting pleadings and providing written advice at various stages of litigation on a range of issues including advice on prospects and quantum. She also has experience drafting Notices of Appeal to the EAT.
Grace also has an appellate practice and enjoyed recent success in the Employment Appeals Tribunal.
Grace acted in cases involving the following allegations:
2022
K v GG and ors [2022]
Successfully represented the Respondent in a 4-day unfair dismissal claim
D v FC [2022]
Successfully represented the Respondent in a 4-day disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claim
C v AI [2022]
Successfully represented the Respondent in a 5-day unfair dismissal claim
O v NT [2022]
Successfully represented the Respondent in a 3-day whistleblowing, constructive dismissal and victimisation claim
J v NT [2022]
Successfully represented the Respondent in a 2-day unfair dismissal claim
N v WF [2022]
Successfully represented the Respondent in a 2-day race/religious belief discrimination claim
S v ML [2022]
Successfully represented the Claimant in a 3-day unfair dismissal/redundancy claim
W v FRC [2022]
Successfully represented the Claimant in a 3-day unfair dismissal/redundancy claim
2021
M and ors v WW and ors [2021]
Successfully represented the Respondent in a 2-day claim on employer identity
S v DL [2021]
Successfully represented the Respondent in a 4-day disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claim
L v ML [2021]
Successfully represented the Respondent in a 1-day unfair dismissal claim
L v SVM [2021]
Successfully represented the Claimant in a 2-day wrongful dismissal claim
P v AUL [2021]
Successfully represented the Respondent in a 3-day disability discrimination claim
H v WSM [2021]
Successfully represented the Respondent in a 1-day claim involving substantive time issues
S v KE [2021]
Successfully represented the Respondent in a 5-day constructive dismissal claim
F v SBM [2021]
Successfully represented the Respondent in a 3-day sex, race and sexual orientation discrimination claim
C v MC [2021]
Successfully represented the Respondent in a 1-day unfair dismissal claim
F v SS [2021]
Successfully represented the Claimant in a 1-day wrongful dismissal claim
A v A [2021]
Successfully represented the Respondent in a 6-day whistleblowing claim.
2020
H v ABS [2020]
Successfully represented the Respondent in an unfair dismissal claim
H v PCL [2020]
Successfully represented the Claimant in a health and safety dismissal and breach of contract claim
A v DL [2020]
Successfully represented the Respondent in an unfair dismissal claim
C v JT [2020]
Successfully represented the Respondent in a disability discrimination claim
M v SC [2020]
Successfully represented the Respondent in a whistleblowing and ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
Grace Holden specialises in employment, discrimination and personal injury disputes. She joined 3PB in June 2020 and is based in the Oxford centre.
Prior to being called to the Bar, Grace worked as a County Court Advocate and conducted over 450 civil hearings. She covered a range of procedural and substantive cases; from contractual disputes to personal injury matters.
Grace was called to the Bar in 2016 in the top 10 of her cohort, having achieved a grade of ‘Outstanding’. She was awarded a major scholarship and Duke of Edinburgh Entrance Award from Inner Temple. During her BPTC year, Grace was a member of the Inner Temple team who represented England at the International Telders Moot Court Competition in The Hague.
Grace is now a busy and successful employment and discrimination counsel, and has also built up a strong personal injury practice. She has further developed her experience of public law as counsel on the Government Legal department's junior junior scheme. Her instructions have included acting as the Junior Legal Adviser to the Independent Inquiry set up to review the circumstances surrounding the malpractice of surgeon Ian Paterson.
Employment and Discrimination
Grace Holden acts for both claimants and respondents in preliminary and final hearings in the Employment Tribunal, as well as drafting and advising on the full range of employment disputes and issues.
Grace is proactive is tactically managing cases from an early stage and she makes effective use of preliminary hearings. Her recent work in preliminary hearings includes:
Achieving strike out for unmeritorious discrimination claims.
Obtaining deposit orders for claims of whistleblowing.
Advising upon and successfully challenging disability status, thereby significantly reducing the listing of a finding hearing.
Being involved in case management of a multi-party matter, involving test cases.
Grace has represented both claimants and respondents in multi-day final hearings. Her recent work includes:
Successfully achieving a finding of unfair dismissal for two claimants in a complex 7-day hearing.
Successfully representing a respondent in a 2 day constructive unfair dismissal claim.
Successfully achieving dismissal of multiple allegations of race discrimination within 2 days of a hearing listed for 5 days.
Successfully defending claims of whistleblowing detriment in a 4 day hearing.
Successfully defending claims of unfair dismissal in multiple 2 day hearings.
Successfully defending claims of unfair dismissal and age discrimination in a 2 day hearing.
Successfully defending claims of race discrimination and disability discrimination in a 2 day hearing.
Successfully defending claims of race and religious discrimination in a 5 day hearing.
Representing a respondent in 5 day case, resulting in the successful dismissal of claims of race discrimination, disability discrimination and harassment.
Acting as junior counsel in the successful defence of an 8 day sex-related harassment and victimisation claim, which included drafting 7 supporting statements.
Grace also has experience of handling employment disputes in the County Court, and is familiar with the civil jurisdiction. Her work includes:
Advising on restrictive covenants.
Drafting pleadings and defences.
Representing parties in both contractual claims and discrimination claims in the County Court.
She recently drafted pleadings for and advised on a complex multi-party breach of contract claim, which resulted in a very favourable early settlement for the claimant.
Personal Injury
Grace Holden regularly appears in the County Court, representing both claimants and defendants in a range of personal injury matters. She has been noted by Circuit Judges for ‘cross-examining skilfully and submitting persuasively’ and putting ‘careful and considerate questions’.
Her work includes:
Trials in road traffic accident, occupier’s liability and employer’s liability cases.
CCMCs for a range of multi-track cases.
Interim applications; including strike-out, summary judgment and relief from sanctions.
Drafting pleadings for both claimants and defendants.
Advising on liability and quantum.
Appearing on behalf of interested parties in Coroner’s Inquests.
Undertaking work as part of public inquiries.
She has recently:
Represented a claimant in an assault at work case, achieving settlement by JSM for a sum worth in excess of £150,000.
Represented a claimant in a noise-induced hearing loss claim.
Drafted pleadings for a claimant in a public liability claim involving complex physical and psychological injuries.
Grace also has significant experience of handling fundamental dishonesty cases, representing both claimants and defendants. She has:
Achieved the withdrawal of claims on multiple occasions after her cross-examination of the claimant.
Achieved a finding of fundamental dishonesty against three claimants, held to be jointly liable for costs.
Negotiated the withdrawal of claims at the outset of the hearing on favourable terms.
Grace was previously instructed as the Junior Legal Adviser to the Independent Inquiry set up to review the circumstances surrounding the malpractice of surgeon Ian Paterson.
Graham Gilbert handles criminal and public regulatory cases, particularly sports law matters. He undertook pupillage at a leading criminal set of chambers in London prior to taking tenancy at 3PB.
Graham is able to easily and quickly establish a rapport with clients and delivers simple, effective oral and written advocacy that has earned him praise from the tribunals he appears in front of.
Crime
Graham defends and prosecutes across Southern England & Wales, including London. His cases have covered a wide range of criminal offences, including child cruelty, possession of indecent images, cannabis cultivation, burglary and arson. He has also appeared in numerous proceedings concerning the breach of court orders, as well as prosecuting for several regulatory bodies, including the RSPCA, DVLA and TfL. Graham also handles driving offences and POCA cases.
Recent Defence Work Includes:
R v James & Others
Secured the acquittal of a client initially charged with money laundering in 2017.
R v S
Appeared before the Court of Appeal representing three parties charged with offences under section 1 Knives Act 1997 (unlawful marketing of the items).
R v S
Representing defendant website business in Court of Appeal for an application under S.35/36 of Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996
R v W
Burglary matter at Bournemouth Crown Court.
R v Wi
Burglary matter dropped by the Crown after the service of DCS.
R v T
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
D v R
Appeal against conviction for one offence of harassment. Crown’s case dismissed at half-time.
R v M
Possession of a bladed article matter.
R v R
PWITS matter heard at Portsmouth Crown Court.
R v D
Successful application to dismiss an offensive weapon allegation.
R v Wt
Theft and s.47 offence in Newport (IOW).
R v C
Threats to kill.
R v M
Successfully resisted Crown’s application to adduce the complainant’s evidence as hearsay, resulting in the discontinuance of the s.47 charge.
R v S
Indecent images heard at Aylesbury Crown Court.
R v M
Money laundering offences.
R v J
Perverting the course of justice
R v T
Stalking.
R v L
Breach of Sexual Harm Prevention Order. Successful application to vacate a plea entered in the magistrates’ court.
R v T
Illegally subletting a council property. Client sentenced to a conditional discharge.
R v V
Breach of restraining order and disclosing private sexual images.
R v N
Sexual assault of a child.
Recent Prosecution Work Includes:
R v P
Possession of a disguised firearm.
R v E
Robbery.
R v A
Blade and burglary matter.
R v A
Controlling and coercive behaviour.
R v F
PWITS trial at Bournemouth Crown Court.
R v H
Sexual assault.
R v S
Sexually aggravated assault.
R v M
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
R v W
Harassment.
R v D
Stalking.
Motoring offences
Graham frequently handles motoring law offences, from first appearances through to trial and, if necessary, sentencing. His practice covers the full range of motoring matters, from dangerous driving through to documentary and lower level offences. He is adept at handling cases involving the intricacies of this area of law, and is a trusted advocate by lay and professional clients.
Examples of Graham’s recent cases involving such points of law include:
P v A
Failure to stop. Graham secured the acquittal of the client on the basis of case-law which held that, if the court was satisfied the defendant had not been aware of the alleged accident, they could not be guilty of failing to stop.
R v C
Dangerous driving offence sent to the Crown Court. However, the matter had to be withdrawn by the prosecution as notice had not been sent to the defendant within the time-limit required by statute, a point noted by Graham.
R v CB
inconsiderate driving. Successfully argued that the Crown had not established a case to answer resulting in that charge being dismissed at the close of the Crown's case.
Other examples of Graham’s work include:
P v Z
Careless driving. Despite the defendant driving an HGV at the time of the incident, Graham secured a favourable result that meant the driver kept his licence.
P v McL
Speeding and failure to nominate. After discussions with the Prosecution, the failure to nominate charge was dropped and the client admitted the speeding offence.
P v O
Using a mobile phone whilst driving and no insurance. Successful dismissal of both charges.
R v B-T
Successful exceptional hardship argument following a careless driving offence.
P v S
Speeding matter. Despite the client’s recorded speed being over 100mph, Graham was able to persuade the court to impose penalty points only, rather than a substantial period of disqualification.
P v P
Successfully ran a defence of no intention to drive to counter a charge of drunk in charge.
P v S
Two failure to nominate offences. Graham persuaded the court that it was within its powers to limit the number of points imposed due to the offences being committed within an extremely close time-frame, meaning that the client kept their licence.
P v W
Failure to nominate. Successful statutory defence of client who did not have control of the vehicle at the time of the underlying speeding offence and, as such, could not reasonably establish who the driver was.
P v F
Drink Driving. Successful special reasons argument resulting in no disqualification and a conditional discharge.
P v L
Failure to nominate.
P v B
Speeding offence.
Public and Regulatory
Graham’s advocacy skills, developed through his strong criminal law practice, transfer highly effectively to public regulatory work. He regularly appears in front of all manner of public and semi-public bodies, police forces and other such bodies, including the Nursing & Midwifery Council and the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. He has also appeared in the First Tier Property Tribunal
Recent cases
Taxation Disciplinary Board v Mr Imran Ashraf & Mr Hafiz Tayyab
Acted on behalf of the Taxation Disciplinary Board before the Appeal Tribunal in a case of collusion of student members of the Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) in a CIOT examination.
Trading Standards
R v M
Junior counsel for the first defendant in a trial involving multiple allegations of fraudulent trading by the client’s companies, as well as associated regulatory offences. Heard at Bournemouth Crown Court. For reporting of the original case: Daily Echo.
Consumer Protection
R v S
Appeared before the Court of Appeal representing three parties charged with offences under section 1 Knives Act 1997 (unlawful marketing of the items).
PCC v H
Appeared for defendant accused of various offences under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
Housing Matters
G & Ors v AB & Another
Appeared for the first respondent in an application for a rent repayment order. The applicants sought an order in the sum of nearly £40,000. This was reduced to approximately £6,000 after representations. Additionally, part of the applicant’s claim was struck out.
HCC v L
successfully resisted an application for a CBO brought by a local council against a tenant.
London Borough of Redbridge v C
HMO offences brought against the landlord of multiple properties.
Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council v M
Graham appeared for the defendant company in proceedings concerning offences under the Housing Act 2004. After representations, the Council dropped the case against the client.
Food Safety
Central Bedfordshire Council v Wang & Another
Graham appeared for the prosecuting council in a matter concerning a prosecution under the Food Safety Act 1990. Media coverage.
Worcester Regulatory Services v A
Represented the defendant in proceedings brought under the Food Safety & Hygiene Regulations 2013.
Health & Safety
DSFRS v S
Instructed for the defendant in a matter concerning a Fire Safety offence.
Central Bedfordshire Council v SoS
Assisted leading counsel for the prosecution in a prosecution arising from a fatal workplace accident. The prosecution involved unusual matters regarding jurisdiction as the parent charity was not based in the United Kingdom.
Police Matters
Graham regularly appears for police forces across the South East of England in applications for various injunctions and breaches of such. In particular, he frequently assists with shotgun appeals, Domestic Violence Protection Order, Football Banning Orders, Criminal Behaviour Orders, and Anti-Social Behaviour Order applications.
Education Offences
Graham regularly appears for Councils in prosecutions for offences committed under the Education Act 1996, including assisting Dorset County Council with its first ever prosecution for an offence under section 444(1A) of the 1996 Act.
Environmental Offences
V v LBW
Instructed in an appeal against a noise abatement notice served on a private landlord. The matter was resolved out of court, with the notice withdrawn.
BCBC v C
Appeared for the defendant in a prosecution brought under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990
BMGCC v Caerphilly County Borough Council
Appeal against a Noise Abatement Notice.
Dorset CC v K
Fly-tipping offences.
G v Hyde Housing Association
Statutory nuisance proceedings.
Test Valley Borough Council v W
Successful prosecution on behalf of the Council for breaches of a noise abatement order.
R v B
Appeared for the defendant in an allegation of an offence of nuisance.
Animal Offences
R v D
Prosecution under the Dangerous Dog legislation.
CPS v L
Dangerous Dog Destruction Order overturned on appeal after legal argument.
Dorset CC v G
Dog act offences successfully resolved out of court.
Devon CC v B
Animal transportation offences.
RSPCA v H
Appeared for the defendant in a case of animal cruelty.
RSPCA v G
Represented the RSPCA in an appeal against sentence at Swindon Crown Court.
Sports Law
R v WADA
Appeared for appellant in an appeal against the publication of a anti-doping rule violation.
BHA v Hayley Turner
Enquiry held on 14 December 2017 by the Independent Disciplinary Panel of the BHA as to whether Jockey Hayley Turner had broken the Rules of Racing on the grounds of bets placing. Graham Gilbert was Junior to Tim Naylor, the BHA’s Head of Regulation. To read more about the enquiry, click here. The case attracted press coverage in The Guardian, SBC News and the BBC among others.
BHA v Graham Gibbons
Enquiry concerning Jockey Graham Gibbons testing positive for a Banned Substance and attempting to present a sample which was not his own. To read more about this enquiry, please click here. The case attracted press coverage in The Racing Post, Sky Sports and the BBC among others.
BHA v Dale Swift
Enquiry relating to the Jockey Dale Swift and his testing positive for a Banned Substance. To read more about this enquiry, please click here. The case attracted press coverage in The Times and from the BBC among others.
Military/ Courts martial
Graham accepts instructions in military disciplinary proceedings. He has an ability to quickly and easily establish a rapport with serving personnel and assist them through the process. He is particularly adept at handling matters involving unusual or tricky issues. For example, he recently represented a Royal Marine charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Although the offence was admitted, the process was complicated by the serviceman's recent diagnosis and ongoing treatment for PTSD and other anxiety issues.
Similarly, Graham represented a RAF corporal charged with a domestic assault. Again, the offence was admitted, but any sanction higher than a fine would have resulted in serious career ramifications for the corporal. Graham was able to chart a course through the proceedings that resulted in the client receiving just a small fine.
Recent cases include:
MoJ v R
Appeared for a sailor charged with an offence under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, the underlying offence having occurred in Bahrain.
R v Stephen Aliwell
Guilty plea to assault, Aylesbury Mags.
R v Samuel Brown
Careless driving and failure to provide, s.36 appointment, Salisbury Mags.
R v Jonathan Lewis
S.47 assault.
Sports
Having gained a wealth of knowledge in other areas, Graham has most recently begun accepting instructions in sports law matters and has a keen interest in regulatory and disciplinary aspects of the area, both domestically and internationally.
He regularly prosecutes in prohibited substance matters for the British Horseracing Authority, as well as assisting with other disciplinary matters on the Authority's behalf.
Graham is fantastic with professional and lay clients and his hard working ethic and down to earth approach makes him one to watch.
Recent cases:
Successful FA appeal (October 20221) hearing on behalf of a talented 16 year old footballer, Nathan Hieatt, who in February 2020 was accused of spitting at a referee's foot and given a 5 year ban at the initial FA hearing. In spite of five witnesses from his team and his college tutor corroborating Nathan’s story, and with the referee having no independent witnesses despite asking the opponent team, the FA took it to a hearing at which the charge was found "proven" and duly applied the minimum sanction of a 5 year ban on playing and coaching football at any level. Nathan’s father, Matt Hieatt, crowdfunded to raise the legal fees for an appeal against the FA’s decision.
Enquiry heard by the British Horseracing Association's Disciplinary Panel on 5 October 2017 concerning Jockey Graham Gibbons testing positive for a Banned Substance and attempting to present a sample which was not his own. To read more about this enquiry, please click here. The case attracted press coverage in The Racing Post, Sky Sports and the BBC among others.
Enquiry heard by the British Horseracing Association's Disciplinary Panel on 28 September 2017 relating to the Jockey Dale Swift and his testing positive for a Banned Substance. To read more about this enquiry, please click here. The case attracted press coverage in The Times and from the BBC among others.
Enquiry heard by the British Horseracing Association's Disciplinary Panel on 10 August 2017 relating to Big Red, owned by Rebecca Bastiman, following her horse being administered a Prohibited Substance.
Enquiries heard by the British Horseracing Association's Disciplinary Panel on 3 August 2017 relating to Wotadoll and Links Drive Lady, both trained by Dean Ivory. The panel in Wotadoll considered the cross-contamination of the horse with Odesmethyltramadol, a metabolite of tramadol which had been prescribed to a stable lad following surgery. The stable lad had been urinating in Wotadoll’s stable, causing the cross-contamination. The hearing attracted significant press coverage in The Guardian, The Telegraph and The Racing Post as well as numerous calls to end the practice. The panel in Links Drive Lady concerned the cross-contamination of the horse with hayfever medicine, as a result of contacts between Links Drive Lady and his keepers, who were using hayfever medicine to alleviate their symptoms at the time.
Enquiry heard by the British Horseracing Association's Disciplinary Panel on 29 June 2017 relating to Woodacre, owned by Richard Whitaker, and the alleged use of phenylbutazone and oxyphenbutazone.
Enquiry heard by the British Horseracing Association's Disciplinary Panel on 22 June 2017 relating to Urban Storm, owned by Norman Thomas and the alleged use of omeprazole.
Enquiry heard by the British Horseracing Association's Disciplinary Panel on 25 May 2017, relating to Geordie des Champs, trained by Rebecca Curtis and the use of caffeine.
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.
Guy Opperman is a barrister who first became MP for Hexham on 6th May 2010 and continues as a Door Tenant at 3PB.
Guy won the 2007 Bar Pro Bono Award for his work with the Western Circuit Free Representation Unit and the Challenge to the closure of Marlborough Hospital, through the BAR Pro Bono Unit:. He was praised by the Chairman of the Judges, Lord Goldsmith QC, for “helping many ordinary people and making their lives better” and by the Chairman of the Bar Council, Geoffrey Vos QC for his “sustained and impressive” work.
Guy has a public law and common law practice. The bulk of his work has been in the fields of education law, professional and clinical negligence, regulatory and disciplinary proceedings, personal injury, judicial review and health and safety. He has considerable experience of complex and lengthy cases in all these fields, including in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
Major Reported Cases
Court of Appeal
R (Compton) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust [2008] EWCA Civ 749 and 2009 WLR
Leading test case on protective costs orders in judicial review claims, in which the Court of Appeal gave new guidance on the interpretation of the test of “general public importance”. Guy obtained two protective costs orders for Mrs Compton at first instance, see [2007] EWHC 2769 (Admin) (McCombe J) and [2008] EWHC 880 (Admin) (Holman J), both of which were upheld on appeal. He also obtained permission for Mrs Compton to judicially review the original decisions to close parts of Savernake Hospital in Wiltshire. The case was conducted entirely pro bono.
RCPO v Deprince [2007] EWCA Civ 512
Guy acted for an innocent wife in her claims for proprietary estoppel and constructive trust relating to the family home owned by husband and subject to confiscation order as the proceeds of crime, including arguments on prosecution delay and the Human Rights Act. Lord Justice Lloyd praised “... the clear and well-focussed way in which he advanced Mrs Deprince’s case in this court... she has been very ably represented on the appeal.”
C v (1) The Home Office (2) Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority [2004] EWCA Civ 234
Guy represented a 9 year old disabled girl in a human rights dispute arising out of her CICA claim; this case made new law on human rights and the costs of litigation in state tribunals.
Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2001] 1 WLR 2383
Guy successfully represented the appellant in a test case brought with the backing of the Automobile Association which established that her car had been wrongfully detained by the council’s wheel clampers, and which made new law on the assumption of risk.
Chalk v Devizes Reclamation Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ 849
Employer’s duty to provide a safe system of work; scope of requirement to provide advice and training where “one-off” incident caused injury to employee.
High Court: Personal Injury
Buckley & Others v (1) Yates Wine Lodges Ltd (2) Elite Security (North West) Ltd [2008] EWHC 1408 (QB)
Manchester High Court before Swift LJ; Guy appeared for seven claimants on the assessment of damages for serious psychiatric and physical injuries following an assault by bar doormen, in which the first claimant’s husband was killed. The case concerned the duty of care of those in authority for the acts of their agents. £470,000 was awarded, including over £380,000 for the first claimant’s Fatal Accidents Act claim.
High Court: Education
R (Griffiths) v Lewisham College [2007] EWHC 809 (Admin)
Guy represented a Further Education College in a judicial review of its disciplinary process, arising from the permanent exclusion of a student for alleged breach of a final learning contract.
High Court – Police claims
Hutchinson v (1) Metropolitan Police Commissioner (2) Morgan [2005] EWHC 1660 (QB)
Successful defence of a serving police officer in a seven-day trial of a civil action for assault and personal injury, in circumstances where the officer was facing claims from both the claimant and her own employer, the Metropolitan Police.
Servicemen Appeals
Secretary of State for Defence v Hornsby (2007)
Guy successfully resisted the Secretary of State’s appeal to the Pensions Appeal Commissioner in respect of the scope of the claimant’s pension entitlement for hearing loss caused by service in the Second World War.
Crime / copyright
R v Oliver (2006)
Prosecution of a former recording studio employee in a trial concerning the lost Beatles tapes from the 1969 “Get Back Sessions”.
Guy has done a great many criminal trials in the past, including numerous murder trials, although he does not do much criminal work now.
Personal details
Guy Opperman is a published writer and rides as an amateur steeplechase jockey. He rode a winner as recently as March 2009 on Sushi at Corbridge. In 2006 he ran the New York Marathon. He has been an adviser to senior Conservative Party figures for several years – particularly to the former Shadow Foreign Secretary, Michael Ancram QC MP – and ran for Parliament in 1997 and 2005 before being elected in 2010. He was re-elected to serve as MP for Hexham in 2017.
Publications
Guy is a frequent author for magazines and case reports in Clinical Risk – most recently in the September 2008 edition - and a frequent lecturer on behalf of AVMA.
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.
Hannah Bush was called to the Bar in 2007 and began practice in the Midlands in 2008. Hannah accepts instructions in all areas of family law. She has particular experience in dealing with vulnerable clients and cases involving domestic abuse.
In 2013, Hannah was awarded a Pegasus Scholarship and spent six months working in New Orleans with lawyers who represent clients on death row. This work developed Hannah’s skills set.
In 2014 Hannah took a teaching position on the Bar Professional Training Course. Hannah now combines teaching with practice at the bar. Hannah has much experience in teaching advocacy. She has also delivered advocacy training to junior practitioners in South Africa.
In May 2020, Hannah was appointed a Deputy District Judge and a part-time First Tier Tribunal judge after separate competitions.
Hannah has an approachable manner, giving practical advice to clients.
Public Law Care and Adoption
Hannah has experience at all stages of proceedings, from emergency applications, fact finding hearings through to final hearings. She has been instructed on behalf of local authorities, parents, children, interveners and other parties in public law matters. Hannah has been instructed on behalf of clients with cognitive impairment or capacity issues. In particular, Hannah has experience in cases involving:
Domestic violence
Substance abuse
Neglect and emotional harm
Non accidental injury
Sexual abuse
Discharge of contact/placement orders
Applications for contact post care order/placement order.
Issues over the designated local authority.
Hannah has experience dealing with applications regarding disclosure. She also has experience of applications under s17 Children Act 1989.
Private Law
Hannah has much experience dealing with child arrangement matters. She has acted for parents, grandparents, children and other family members. Hannah represents clients from first appointment to final hearing as well as fact finding hearings. Hannah has undertaken cases involving:
Intractable disputes between parents regarding where a child should live
Allegations of abuse (emotional / physical and sexual)
Cases with significant local authority involvement
Cases involving relocation (national and international)
Hannah has much experience in applications for non-molestation and occupation orders.
Family barrister Harriet Lavis joined 3PB (3 Paper Buildings) in October 2022 from a specialist family law chambers in the Southeast of England, where she has developed a broad family law practice focusing on private law children, family financial disputes and domestic violence and injunctions.
She read Law at Durham University, winning the Sidley Austin Equity Prize. Before transferring to the Bar, Harriet worked as a paralegal for Bevan Brittan, where she was seconded full-time to the Department of Health.
In her spare time Harriet enjoys yoga and singing.
Family
Private Law Children
Harriet Lavis already has a strong family law practice focused on private law children, family finance disputes, domestic violence and injunctions. She acts regularly for parents, other family members and Guardians in private law children disputes. She has particular experience with international relocation cases and has recently given a talk on the topic. She is regularly instructed on cases involving serious allegations of abuse, intractable hostility to contact, and matters in relation to jurisdiction. Many cases have involved disputes over a child’s residence. Harriet has been successful both in obtaining a transfer of residence in her client’s favour and successfully resisting such applications.
Harriet Lavis has represented a wide variety of clients at all stages of private law children disputes. She acts regularly for parents, other family members and Guardians. She has recently had experience of cases involving international relocation, serious allegations of abuse, intractable hostility to contact, and matters in relation to jurisdiction.
Many cases have involved disputes over a child’s residence. Harriet has been successful both in obtaining a transfer of residence in her client’s favour and successfully resisting such applications.
Family Finance
Her strong practice in financial remedy disputes has seen her work at all stages of disputes as well as taking cases from first appointment to final hearing. Harriet is mindful of the potential advantages to her clients in settling a case and gives clear advice on her client’s prospects where possible.
Recent cases have involved international property and assets, short marriages, third party interests, and allegations of non-disclosure. She also has considerable experience in cases involving domestic violence, representing clients from initial emergency applications through to final hearings. She has represented both applicants and respondents to domestic violence allegations. She has successfully obtained occupation orders for clients.
Harriet accepts work at all stages of financial remedy disputes. She has experience of taking a case from first appointment to final hearing. Harriet is mindful of the potential advantages to her clients in settling a case and gives clear advice on her client’s prospects where possible.
Recent cases have involved international property and assets, short marriages, third party interests, and allegations of non-disclosure.
Domestic Violence and Injunctions
Harriet has considerable experience in cases involving domestic violence, representing clients from initial emergency applications through to final hearings.
She has represented both applicants and respondents to domestic violence allegations and is able to apply this broad range of experience to give informed advice to her clients. She has successfully obtained occupation orders for clients.
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.
Henrietta���s practice is focused on Personal Injury, Clinical Negligence and RTA non PI matters including Credit Hire. She represents both claimants and defendants.
She has been instructed in multi-track and fast track claims. Henrietta frequently appears in court in a range of hearings including trials, CCMCs, applications, disposals and approval hearings. This has enabled her to hone her advocacy skills and expose her to the varying judicial attitudes across the country whilst managing an expanding advisory practice (in writing and in conference). She is also regularly instructed in cases in which alleged fundamental dishonesty and fraud are features.
Henrietta provides a comprehensive and prompt performance ensuring solicitors and lay clients receive an all round exemplary level of service. She is noted for her thorough and client focused approach to cases. In addition, she has the ability to balance sensitivity with the need to be robust in certain circumstances.
Outside of her practice, Henrietta is currently learning Hindi. She also enjoys running (having completed the London marathon for the Spinal Injuries Association and half marathons, including for the Royal British Legion).
Henrietta has more recently been involved in organising 3PB’s virtual quizzes in aid of the Child Brain Injury Trust and chambers’ participation in the London Legal Walks 19/20 to raise support for free legal advice charities in London and the South East.
Personal Injury
Henrietta acts for both claimants and defendants in Personal Injury matters. She appears in court on a daily basis. She has been instructed to attend an array of hearings (non-exhaustive list):
CMC
CCMC
Application for relief from sanctions
Application to rely on expert evidence
Application for strike out or summary judgment
Application to set aside default judgment
Stage 3 hearing
Infant and/or Protected Party approval hearing
Disposal
Trial (liability, causation and/or quantum)
In relation to trials, Henrietta largely appears in cases involving road traffic accidents. However, she is also instructed in cases concerning:
Employers’ liability
Occupiers’ liability
Public liability
Accidents abroad
Henrietta has successfully argued for and defended findings of fundamental dishonesty. When acting for defendants in such cases she undertakes robust and detailed cross-examination of claimants, with her attention to detail proving extremely useful.
In addition to oral advocacy, Henrietta can draft skeletons, pleadings and opinions (liability and/or quantum).
Prior to moving to the self-employed Bar Henrietta was in house counsel at a leading personal injury firm, which specialises in civil claims brought by serving and non-serving military personnel as well as claims brought under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS).
Her cases of interest include drafting Particulars of Claim in a multi-track case where the claimant suffers Non Freezing Cold Injuries, and appearing at an AFCS appeal securing an increased lump sum thereby triggering a guaranteed income payment.
Furthermore, Henrietta's previous experience includes being legal assistant to a personal injury QC for over 18 months (including during the trial of Nadarajah v Sotnick [2013] EWHC 3389 (QB)) and undertaking paralegal work for other senior members of the Bar who also specialise in the area.
Credit Hire
A significant degree of Henrietta's practice is Credit Hire.
Henrietta has been instructed in many credit hire hearings for both claimants and defendants, regularly appearing in cases involving the UK's largest car hire companies and insurers. She has the advantage of being able to help anticipate the submissions her opponents are likely to make given she acts for both sides.
She has substantial experience in addressing the common issues - enforceability, need, type, impecuniosity, duration and rate - and is very familiar with the key authorities in this area of law. Henrietta prides herself on her detailed approach.
She is also able to advise on tactics and settlement in these cases.
Clinical Negligence
Henrietta accepts instructions in all aspects of Clinical Negligence work (on a Conditional Fee basis where appropriate) including:
Delayed clinical diagnosis
Ophthalmic negligence
Negligent nursing care
Dental negligence
Cosmetic Negligence
Recent instructions included drafting Particulars of Claim, conducting conference and advising in a cosmetic negligence claim concerning rhinoplasty. Settlement was secured.
Holly is a based in 3PB’s Winchester office. She accepts instructions from across the Western Circuit in crime, courts martial and regulatory law.
Holly completed her pupillage with the CPS. Her first six included a month observing defence counsel at a Western Circuit set. She spent the majority of her second six prosecuting trials in the Magistrates’ Court and committals for sentence in the Crown Court. Holly prosecutes and defends multi-handed cases, cases involving vulnerable witnesses, special measures, interpreters and unrepresented defendants.
Before converting to law, Holly worked as a management consultant with regulated infrastructure businesses. After qualifying, Holly worked as a Screening Case Officer for the Nursing and Midwifery Council. These experiences gave her insight into the business context of regulation and professional discipline respectively. Holly is keen to develop her practice in these areas of law.
During her legal studies, Holly volunteered as an Appropriate Adult in police interviews, which enhanced her ability to communicate with vulnerable adults and youths. She also volunteered with Vocalise, teaching debating to prisoners in HMP Pentonville, and as an advocate with the Community Empowerment Network which involved representing children at risk of being permanently excluded from school.
Outside of work, Holly enjoys hiking and going to the beach.
Crime
Offences against the person
R v B (2024) – Crown Court: client acquitted of one charge of intentional strangulation.
R v C (2024) – Crown Court: client acquitted of one charge of 4 years of coercive and controlling behaviour and one charge of assault.
R v C and others (2024) – Crown Court: Disclosure junior in multi-handed murder and conspiracy to rob trial in which all defendants were convicted.
R v C (2024) – Crown Court: Successfully opposed a hearsay application by the prosecution which resulted in them offering no evidence on counts of coercive and controlling behaviour and assault.
R v O (2023) – Crown Court – Assault emergency worker: CPS discontinued case after Holly made submissions re realistic prospect of conviction.
R v C (2023) – Crown Court – Controlling and coercive behaviour and 2 x ABH: defended sentencing hearing. Despite placing C&C in the A1 category, the Court was persuaded to suspend D’s sentence based on credit and personal mitigation.
R v F (2023) - Magistrates’ Court – Domestic assault by beating and criminal damage: defended sentencing hearing. Persuaded court to not make a restraining order because it would have been a disproportionate frustration of D’s ability to see his child.
R v R (2023) – Magistrates’ Court – Common assault and criminal damage: defended trial. D acquitted of criminal damage.
R v A (2023) – Magistrates’ Court – Assault by beating and criminal damage: trial which the complainant did not support. Successfully applied for the 999 call to be admitted as res gestae evidence following a contested hearing.
R v A & A (2022) – Crown Court – ABH: prosecuted sentencing hearing in which the victim was knocked unconscious during an assault by two defendants. This case was covered in the media: Brothers kicked unconscious victim in the head during attack | Bournemouth Echo
Weapons
R v J (2023) – Crown Court – Threatening with an offensive weapon in private, assault by beating x 4 and criminal damage: prosecuted sentencing hearing using comparable guidelines for weapons offence.
R v P (2023) – Crown Court – Possession of offensive weapon x 2: prosecuted sentencing hearing for defendant who was walking around in public with a knife and an axe.
Motoring offences
R v L (2023) – Magistrates’ Court – Driving whilst using a mobile phone: CPS discontinued case after Holly made written submissions re realistic prospect of conviction.
R v D (2023) – Crown Court – Causing serious injury by dangerous driving: prosecuted sentencing hearing in case where victim had to have his leg amputated at the roadside following a collision. The case was covered in the media: Drink driver jailed for Bournemouth crash with motorcyclist | Bournemouth Echo
Dishonesty offences
R v P (2023) – Crown Court – Non-dwelling burglary: defended sentencing hearing. Holly persuaded the Court to suspend the sentence of imprisonment despite D’s record of 15+ non-dwelling burglaries.
R v G (2023) – Magistrates’ Court – Theft from a person: defended at trial. D acquitted.
R v D (2023) – Magistrates’ Court – Fraud: prosecuted a company director who faced charges of failing to pay a VAT security or cease trading.
Sexual offences
R v V (2023) – Crown Court – 2 x attempting to meet a child under 16, following sexual grooming: despite the custody threshold being crossed, Holly persuaded the court that a community order was appropriate.
R v B (2023) – Magistrates’ Court – Sexual assault x 3: D accused of sexually assaulting two 15-year-old girls. Persuaded the Court that the accounts of the complainants and other witnesses were inconsistent and D was acquitted of all charges.
R v P (2022) – Crown Court – Sexual assault, assault by beating and possession of a bladed article: prosecuted sentencing hearing in case in which the defendant had sexually assaulted a teenage girl and assaulted other children in the home.
Other criminal cases
R v H (2024) – Crown Court – production of cannabis: Holly persuaded the CPS that her client was a victim of trafficking and modern slavery and the case against him was dropped.
R v E & F (2023) – Magistrates’ Court – Hunting and night poaching: prosecuted a two-handed trial in which both defendants were convicted of multiple offences. Successfully opposed a half-time submission.
R v W (2022) – Magistrates’ Court – Malicious communications: successfully prosecuted a trial in which intoxication was raised by the defence.
R v P (2022) – Crown Court – Cultivation of Cannabis: prosecuted sentencing hearing for defendant who had 45 cannabis plants and 900g of dried cannabis bud in his home.
Ian Edge is a specialist in most legal matters concerning Islamic/Shari’a law and the laws of the Middle East. He acts as advocate in matters of commercial and private international law relating to the Middle East or Islamic law and is considered one of the leading experts on the civil and commercial laws of the Middle East (including the application of Islamic law).
His clients include governments, major corporations and banks as well as Royal and Ruling family members as well as the scions of the most well-known and leading families in the Middle East. Ian is the only non-UAE resident member of the DIFC Legislative Council which he has sat on since its inception. Ian was appointed to the International Committee of the Bar Council as the member with responsibility for the Middle East and Chairman of the IC’s Middle East Interest Group in which role he served for four years.
Ian has written publications on commercial law with particular reference to Middle East and Islamic Law and has a good working knowledge of French and of written Arabic.
Commercial
Ian gives advice on Islamic and Middle East law to English or foreign clients, particularly in the fields of civil and commercial law, banking law (especially Islamic banking and finance issues) and estate planning (including Shari’a compliant trusts which he has helped to develop and other succession issues).
He has acted as an expert witness on Islamic and Middle East laws in courts and tribunals throughout the world and his clients include UK and US governments and many of the governments, public authorities and major corporations of the Middle East with special reference to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf.
Examples of work
He recently advised Nissan in a major arbitration in Japan on the Saudi law of agency
He advised Victor Dahdaleh in the bribery action brought against him by the SFO on Bahraini law which subsequently saw Mr Dahdaleh acquitted
He advised on the creation of a Shari’a compliant investment fund for a high ranking Saudi investor
He advised the SFO on Saudi Arabian law in the British Aerospace bribery case
He advised the Foreign Office on Egyptian law in the case of Abu Hamza
He advised the Candy brothers on Qatari law in the claim concerning the Chelsea barracks
He advised the Kuwaiti Oil minister in the Gruppo Torras litigation
He assisted in the drafting of the Islamic Finance legislation for Malaysian offshore island of Labuan
He acted as the as the expert on Saudi Arabian law on behalf of Maan Al-Sanea in Saudi Arabia’s biggest insolvency in proceedings in New York, the Cayman Islands and London
He acts regularly as counsel and arbitrator in international commercial arbitrations involving Middle East and foreign legal matters
He was the main Counsel on behalf of the Angolan State Diamond Corporation in three related arbitrations in Lisbon, London and Rio de Janeiro that arose out of Angola’s termination of various diamond concessions with De Beers
He acted in Stockholm as an arbitrator in a dispute concerning a major agency contract between a Yemeni company and a major Chinese multinational
He acted in Paris as an arbitrator under the ICC rules concerning termination of a Syrian pharmaceutical contract with a global international
He was appointed Chairman of an arbitration panel on an issue concerning the selling and exporting of Iraqi oil.
Mediation
Ian is an Accredited Mediator.
Family
Ian regularly advises Middle East clients on all aspects of private international law, Islamic law and Middle East law as regards family, inheritance and property matters. He has advised members of the Royal Families of Bahrain, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan as well as many of the wealthiest families in the Middle East on all manner of matrimonial and succession problems.
He was the expert on Saudi law in the Supreme Court case of Re S
He was the expert for the applicant on Saudi law in the case of Harb v King Fahd
He was the only non-Saudi expert on Saudi inheritance and trust law in the case of Al-Hamrani which is the longest running case in Guernsey legal history
He drafted a bilateral treaty on child abduction between Egypt and the UK (which was never used).
Construction and Engineering
Civil Practitioner.
Ian regularly advises on construction projects in the Middle East and where Middle East laws are involved.
He advised and was advocate in an ICC arbitration in Paris involving the Great Man Made River project in Libya
He has advised as expert on various major construction projects in Qatar: one involving the University and another Gas storage
He has advised on oil pipeline disputes in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.
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.
James Davison specialises in construction, engineering and commercial matters as well as in the procurement and financial arrangements that fund and support projects.
As experienced counsel he seeks to match a robustly commercial approach with the rigorous demands of document-heavy construction and commercial trials.
James Davison has practical experience of leading disputes through adjudication, arbitration and mediation.
Before joining 3PB, James worked in-house in the construction and engineering sector, working for two of the leading construction consultancy companies in the UK (Arup and Cyril Sweett) and in railway engineering projects and procurement (Jubilee Line Extension Project).
He has worked on construction projects and disputes in the Netherlands, Denmark, Malta, Italy and the USA as well as numerous high profile UK projects.
He led the team that advised the Treasury’s Office for Government Commerce on how JCT 2005, NEC3 and PPC 2000 standard form contracts measured against the Government’s Achieving Excellence in Construction Agenda.
James' guide to the JCT’s 2005 Standard Form Construction Contracts was published by the RICS and he edited a chapter of Frances Forward’s book “NEC Contracts Compared and Contrasted” published by Thomas Telford.
James’ experience as company secretary of the Fibrowatt Group (one of the UK’s foremost renewable energy businesses at that time) gave him experience of working for an innovative, entrepreneurial company that operated in a highly regulated market.
He still advises on non-contentious/drafting matters, acts as adjudicator and is an accredited mediator.
Commercial
James Davison specialises in contract and commercial disputes, with a particular expertise with large construction and engineering matters and the commercial arrangements that fund and support them. He has gained from more than 10 years experience working in-house in the construction and engineering sector, working for two of the leading construction consultancy companies in the UK.
As experienced counsel he seeks to match a robustly commercial approach with the rigorous demands of document-heavy commercial and construction disputes.
James' guide to the JCT’s 2005 Standard Form Construction Contracts was published by the RICS.
He led the team that advised the Treasury’s Office for Government Commerce on how JCT 2005, NEC3 and PPC 2000 standard form contracts measured against the Government’s Achieving Excellence in Construction Agenda.
James’ experience as company secretary of one of the UK’s foremost renewable energy businesses gave him experience of working for an innovative, entrepreneurial company that operated in a highly regulated market. He has worked on construction projects in the Netherlands, Denmark, Malta, and the USA as well as numerous high profile UK projects.
James has practical experience of managing contentious matters through adjudication and mediation and advising upon the conduct of regulated procurement. He still advises on non-contentious/drafting matters.
James is an accredited mediator.
Energy & Utilities
James is regularly instructed by a number of utility (gas and electricity) companies in their actions involving commercial customers (unpaid debts) particularly including instances where injunctive relief is sought by debtors at short notice.
Prior to practising at the Bar, James gained practical first-hand experience as an in-house lawyer and company secretary of one of the UK’s foremost renewable energy businesses (the Fibrowatt Group) which at the time operated three power stations and was developing several projects in the EU and USA.
He subsequently worked for two leading project management and engineering consultancies (Cyril Sweett and Arup). During his time in-house he:
Advised the boards of directors on the legal and regulatory considerations of several companies operating electricity generating power stations
Negotiated and drafted wholesale electricity supply contracts with several utilities (including negotiation of commercial heads of terms, prices and pricing structures)
Took part in lobbying and consultation in respect of the impact of legislative change on small and renewable electricity generators during a period of major regulatory transition
Drafted submissions in the first (and successful) rounds of applications to OFGEM for certification of ROCs and CCL Certificates
Advised on transactions with the electricity markets in Europe (i.e. “export” of electricity through the interconnector of certified renewable energy)
Advised potential purchasers of electrical infrastructure as to impact of procurement regulation
Building on that experience, his recent instructions as counsel include:
Advising residents as to how to bring about the transfer of a local CHP plant to their ownership or control despite ongoing resistance from the property developer. This ultimately involved issuing injunctive proceedings
Advising a sub-contractor on a multiparty dispute concerning numerous aspects of the construction of a large power station in the UK with respect to claims and cross claims for and against the Sub-Sub Contractor and similarly with respect to the Main Contractor
Construction and Engineering
James Davison specialises in construction and engineering disputes and the commercial arrangements that fund and support them.
James frequently advises builders, developers and specialist sub contractors with disputes on NEC contracts, PPC 2000 and a whole host of various JCT contracts. He has built up real experience from many of adjudications and familiarity with ADR in construction and commercial disputes.
As counsel he seeks to match a robustly commercial approach with the rigorous demands of document-heavy commercial and construction disputes.
Key highlights
Successfully resisting c.£10M Adjudication claim against a Housing Association by its framework “partner” who provided planned and reactive maintenance for tens of thousands of properties. The action progressed with great intensity from a set of payment claims across two contracts to concurrent adjudication of the issues and, ultimately, after a successful defence, a clean break settlement
Counsel for a Steelwork Contractor in a 4 day Arbitration hearing with its Sub Contractor Employer
Trial Counsel for Main Contractor in a 6 day Multi Track Trial in Nottingham County Court issues included: formation of contract, scope of works, basis of price, final account
Trial Counsel for Employer in 4 day Multi Track Trial in Nottingham County Court issues included standard of works and final account - no common ground on an extensive Scott Schedule.
Junior Counsel to Mr David Berkley QC in a High Court Case (Chancery Division) concerning the financing of a renewable power plant (notable for early use of the disclosure protocol)
Advising unpaid environmental services Sub Contractor on HS2 to achieve a commercial outcome without litigating
Negotiation and drafting of contracts for prototyping and development of products for HS2
Advising Sub Contractor working on one of London’s largest and high profile property and infrastructure developments
Trial Counsel for Builders Merchant in a Multi Track Trial in Central London County Court over the execution of personal guarantees.
Adjudication Summary Judgment applications examples include:
Successfully enforcing an adjudicator’s decision in the High Court (TCC) against a local authority who claimed that the decision had been reached by an adjudicator acting under the wrong rules (Sprunt v. Camden [2011] EWHC 3191) before Mr Justice Akenhead QC
Enforcing an adjudciators decision following summary Judgment with an Order for Sale, stayed on terms before Mr Justice Edwards Stuart QC
Advising an M&E Sub-Contractor working on a large power station with respect to high value claims both up and down the supply chain
Assisting an Academy operating from premises constructed as part of the “Building Schools For The Future” initiative to hold its partners to account for the rectification of major and minor defects. That meant working with the Local Authority and Contractor to break deadlock and achieve a commercial outcome
Advising a Housing Association on the conclusion of its framework agreements following extensive change and dispute during the course of the framework
Multi Track trial in Bristol County Court successfully securing judgment for an unpaid Sub-Contractor
Steering a developer client through the successful conclusion of a multi-phase/multi-unit resi scheme avoiding both adjudication and litigation despite a near total lack of traction with the procedures in the JCT contract used
Representing a specialist M&E main contractor in adjudication proceedings brought by its specialist M&E Sub-Contractor concerning a very high profile retail development in the City of London
Representing a specialist fire stopping contractor in an action brought by its Sub-Contractor concerning works on a new tower in the City of London. The matter was successfully resolved through mediation
Junior in a matter with serial adjudications between a government agency based in Wales and its contractor who were attempting (but entirely failing) to use an NEC3 contract but left with an unresolved final account
Advising a Developer/Contractor based in Essex in a series of disputes with its regular sub contractor across a series of new build projects in several jurisdictions. The case was successfully settled at mediation
Advising a Herefordshire farmer in a case of contaminated feed caused by defective plant. Difficulties in establishing causation were overcome with an extensive Scott Schedule making reference to the expert vet’s evidence. The matter was successfully resolved in mediation
Frequent appearances representing clients chasing (or contesting) payment on commercial contracts and sale of goods/supply of services agreements
Frequently acted on matters where High Court Enforcement Officers conduct of enforcement has been challenged and have appeared in the High Court and County Court for officers in such cases and on interpleader matters.
Before entering private practice James worked in-house in the construction and engineering sector for two of the leading construction consultancy companies in the UK.
Whilst an associate at Arup he led the team that advised the Office for Government Commerce on how JCT 2005, NEC3 and PPC 2000 standard form contracts measured against the Government’s Achieving Excellence in Construction Agenda.
His experience as company secretary of one of the UK’s foremost renewable energy businesses gave him experience of working for an innovative, entrepreneurial company that operated in a highly regulated market.
He has worked on construction projects and developments around the world as well as numerous high profile UK projects. He is a member of the RICS’ ISURV editorial board for construction.
Whilst an Associate Director at Cyril Sweett he wrote “JCT 2005: What’s New” published by RICS with subsequent editions for the 2011 contracts being published online by the RICS.
He contributed a chapter to the ICE’s 2015 publication“NEC3 Compared and Contrasted” focusing on NEC consultancy contracts.
James is an accredited mediator and adjudicator and is a member of the Tecbar Adjudication Panel.
Mediation
James is an Accredited Mediator (London School of Psycotherapy and Counselling).
Prior to joining the Bar James was a senior solicitor at Ince & Co, where he undertook defendant PI work in the maritime and aviation sectors. Most of his work arose from maritime and offshore accidents, including catastrophic and fatal accidents occurring on board vessels and offshore installations. He also had an extensive practice dealing with the conflict of laws.
James has contributed to Griggs,Williams and Farr on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Accidents.
In addition, James has handled claims for the aviation market, which often involved multiple loss of life. He frequently has had to deal with issues of jurisdiction and conflict of laws.
James also practises general civil law, including contractual disputes, licensing and housing. He has conducted a number of inquests as a result of his personal injury and police law practise. He frequently undertakes credit hire work, and has sat as a mediator on a vast variety of disputes.
James is a qualified Direct Public Access barrister.
Personal Injury
James has practiced in personal injury since 1997. His experience includes serious road traffic accidents (often acting for motor manufacturers), employers' and occupiers' liability and fatal accident claims. He predominantly (but not exclusively) acts for defendants.
He has been involved in advising on criminal prosecutions arising from accidents and has developed a particular expertise in defending fraudulent and exaggerated claims, particularly those arising from road traffic accidents, in which he advises from an early stage. He has extensive experience in counterclaiming in the tort of deceit, and has successfully secured damages for insurer clients as a result. He frequently adopts tactics designed to defeat fraudulent claims without the need to go to a final trial.
James has also been extensively involved in litigation arising from maritime and offshore accidents, including catastrophic and fatal accidents occurring on board vessels and offshore installations. In addition, he has handled claims for the aviation market, which often involved multiple loss of life. He frequently has had to deal with issues of jurisdiction and conflict of laws.
James acts primarily for defendants, but does undertake a certain amount of CFA work.
Inquests (Personal Injury)
James has undertaken a large number of inquests on behalf of defendants, local authorities and police forces. These include:
Re Roger and Susan Goswell - representing Sussex Police in an inquest where Mrs Goswell reported her husband's intention to kill her and then himself, before very shortly doing so;
Re Mr Weston - representing the police in an inquest before a jury where a teenager chased by police ran over a wall with a high drop on the other side, and died as a result;
Re Jay Abatan - representing the police in an inquest where the deceased was killed in a fight outside a nightclub, amidst allegations of racism on the part of the aggressor and the police during the subsequent investigation;
Re Richard Copithorne - representing Sussex Police in an inquest before a jury where a vulnerable man with schizophrenia committed suicide following a sustained period of financial abuse and harassment by a person purporting to be his carer.
James can be instructed on a Direct Access basis.
Clinical Negligence
James has a wide clinical negligence practice, acting for both claimants and professionals. He is happy to accept instructions in the following clinical negligence specialisms (although not limited to):
Misdiagnosis
Delayed diagnosis
Surgical negligence
Failure to obtain informed consent
Unnecessary or inappropriate treatment
Public and Regulatory
Police Law
James undertakes a wide range of civil work on behalf of the police and various Local Authorities, including Judicial Review, applications arising from anti-social behaviour, Closure Orders, Proceeds of Crime, and, under the old legislation, Sexual Offences Prevention Orders, Risk of Sexual Harm Orders and Foreign Travel Orders (having undertaken a significant number of these rare applications). He also defends the police against allegations of misconduct and undertakes disciplinary work.
Since the commencement of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 James has secured the first injunction under the Act granted in Surrey and (separately) the first injunction to be applied for by Surrey Police. He has also been instructed in a number of closure orders and applications for protection from sexual harm and violence.
James has provided extensive training in the new legislation to local authorities, housing providers and police forces.
James can be instructed on a Direct Access basis.
Mediation
James is an Accredited Mediator.
Property and commercial barrister Jamie Johnston joined 3PB in April 2022, from a chambers in Newcastle. He is based in their Birmingham office but works across all 3PB locations. He practises in all aspects of property law and commercial disputes, as well as having a strong practice at sports disciplinary hearings. He has a busy practice in the High Court, County Court and tribunals. A recent reported case of Jamie’s was Elias v Blemain Finance [2021] EW Misc 15 (CC).
Before coming to the Bar, Jamie spent ten years' building up and then selling a national franchising company. This gives him a first-hand understanding of commercial realities and helped develop the robust negotiation skills which he brings to his legal practice.
When not working as a barrister, Jamie maintains his love of sport and continues to train and compete in duathlon events at a national and international level and running competitions in the UK for his age-group, and competed in both the World and European Championships in 2022.
Property and Estates
Jamie Johnston is a property barrister who combines real-world experience with deep legal knowledge and a forensic attention to detail. He appears frequently in the Business and Property Court, County Court and in the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). Jamie has a strong reputation for acting in cases concerning boundary disputes, restrictive covenant and proprietary estoppel.
Jamie has a strong personal interest in landlord and tenant work as he has managed a portfolio of residential property for several years. This experience informs his property practice in all aspects of commercial and residential landlord and tenant work. He recently delivered LexisNexis’ 2023 webinar on commercial rent arrear recoveries.
In the past few months, Jamie has:
Represented and advised both commercial and residential clients in several trespass and boundary disputes.
Advised in a variety of commercial lease issues including breaches of tenancy, forfeiture and service charge liabilities.
Contested a possession claim defended on grounds of proprietary estoppel.
Represented and advised in a number of cases concerning rights of way and breaches of restrictive covenants.
Advised on prospects of appeal to the Lands Tribunal.
Drafted pleadings in multiple commercial and residential landlords in possession claims.
Acted for several local authorities in the West Midlands and South West England in a range of property disputes.
Commercial
Jamie has an extensive commercial practice, his experience being forged as a managing director who grew, franchised, and then sold his company before coming to the Bar. Business clients appreciate his instinctive understanding of commercial pressures and realities when providing legal advice.
He is frequently instructed in wide range of contractual disputes across multiple sectors, from shareholders and directors’ duties to unpaid invoices and fees. Jamie works as an extension of the clients business to ensure the best outcome within the confines of the case. Regularly instructed to secure a wide range of injunctions, Jamie works to ensure the clients case is in the strongest position to succeed either through negotiations or the Court process.
Jamie also has a niche specialism in equine matters, specifically misrepresentation including where there are allegations of withholding information on temperament and declarable vices, and where there has been health information potentially missed in pre-sale veterinary inspections.
Recent work includes:
A five-day trial concerning the mis-selling of a dressage horse, which included allegations of sedation prior to purchase.
Resolving a claim for unpaid invoices through mediation.
Drafted pleadings, advised upon and ultimately recovered unpaid fees due to a consultant in a long-running dispute.
Advised in a case concerning negligent workmanship and unpaid invoices.
Professional Negligence
Jamie has experience of advising in a range of professional negligence claims, especially related to property. He has recently advised in:
A failure of a conveyancer to investigate the potential presence of a mineshaft in a property purchase.
Prospects of a claim against solicitors for failing to draft possession pleadings correctly.
A range of negligence claims concerning conveyancing errors and poor drafting of wills.
Acting where solicitors have acted in spite of a conflict of interest
Sports
Jamie Johnston brings extensive experience in elite sport to his sports law practice. He is a Disciplinary Chair for British Cycling and sits on the disciplinary panels for both UK Athletics and British Canoeing. He was also a legal adviser to the British Road Cycling Championships in 2018.
As an advocate and disciplinary panelist, Jamie has experience of a wide range of disciplinary matters in sports as diverse as golf, athletics, swimming and cycling. He has worked in cases involving allegations of discrimination & racism, accusations of/purported cheating, violent misconduct and technical code violations.
A former professional coach, Jamie has over 20 years’ experience working with athletes at every level, from grassroots to international and junior international competition. He has trained both able-bodied and para-sport athletes.
Jamie played national league hockey and now competes in duathlon competitions internationally as well as running races throughout the UK for his age-group.
His most sports regulatory work includes:
Successfully defending a golfer facing a suspension for alleged cheating.
Acting for a swimming club and its executive in disciplinary hearings alleging breaches of NGB regulations.
Chairing a disciplinary hearing for a major UK sports body considering alleged discrimination by a member.
A lengthy local government misconduct matter with consideration of the Localism Act 2011 and Nolan Principles
Adjudicating breaches of sporting regulations by elite athletes
Professional Discipline and Regulatory Law
Barrister Jamie Johnston represents local councillors in disciplinary procedures concerning serious allegations such as malfeasance, financial mismanagement or discrimination. He is familiar with the interplay and interpretation of the Localism Act 2011, Nolan Principles and principles of natural justice in investigations and hearings.
Jamie provides pragmatic guidance with robust representation at all stages of disciplinary proceedings. He is adept at identifying failings in the investigative process and advises clients how to challenge them. He is a forceful advocate throughout any disciplinary procedure, most notably in any final hearings.
Jane Foulser McFarlane is a door tenant at 3PB. She is a specialist personal injury barrister who advises both claimants and defendants in a broad range of issues including catastrophic injury, employer’s liability, occupiers and public liability, motorcycle accidents and highway claims.
Publications of note:
Mediation in Intellectual Property Law Disputes – Is Low Cost Dispute Resolution the Way Forward, Following the Findings of The Hargreaves Report –12/8/11
Bottom of The Class: What are the implications for Google’s online library? 07/05/10
For Richer or Poorer – To what extent are intellectual property rights matrimonial assets? 11/09/09
God & the Stormtroopers – Assessing how far toys can be used for role play without breaching copyright 10/07/09
Privacy’s death knell? Interim injunctions 10/08/07
In the Witches Domain – Internet domain names 12/10/07
Tarzan Yell Falls Flat – Sounds as Trademarks 07/12/07
Piracy’s Death Sentence – Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement 05/09/2008.
PERSONAL INJURY
Jane advises and represents both claimant and defendant clients on a broad range of issues including:
Catastrophic injury
Asbestosis/ industrial disease
Employer’s liability
Occupiers and public liability
Road traffic claims including motorcycle accidents
Highway claims
Jane has represented a number of clients in personal injury actions arising out of hit and run incidents and is known for being an approachable and pragmatic advocate.
Reported cases
Aquilina v Aquilina [2004] EWCA 504
David Lewin v Stephen Harvey [2010] Lawtel AM0201691 - Representing the Claimant, who was awarded £31,000 for the loss of taste and smell.
Family barrister Jane Withington (formerly Jane Hayward) joined 3PB in October 2023 and is based in the Birmingham office. Jane brings a wealth of experience to our team, having qualified as a solicitor in October 2006 and practised in family law ever since.
Jane was a solicitor for 17 years and was accredited as a member of the Law Society’s Children Panel in January 2014 representing a varied client base including parents, grandparents and other family members, Children’s Guardians, Gillick competent children, vulnerable persons including through the Official Solicitor as well as Local Authorities.
Jane's busy practice now focuses on Private Law Children and Public Law Care work, where she will represent both professional and lay clients. She has considerable experience in all matters involving disputes about children, including Care Proceedings involving the local authority and disputes around contact and where a child should live.
Jane is a very able advocate and attends court to undertake a variety of court hearings including more complex multi-day hearings and interim and final contested hearings as well as emergency hearings. Jane is highly motivated and strives to provide straightforward, honest and clear advice to clients and to ensure that they fully understand the legal process that they are involved in.
Family
Former family law solicitor-turned barrister Jane Withington (formerly Jane Hayward), who qualified as a solicitor in 2006, caseload focuses on Private Law Children and Public Law Care work, where she will represent all parties, including local authorities, parents, grandparents and children, among others.
Care and Adoption
Jane Withington has represented parents, children and local authorities in complex cases including non-accidental injury to children, physical violence, FGM, sexual abuse, and fabricated and induced illness.
Jane has represented parties in care proceedings involving:
Non-accidental injury and death of a child
Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE)
Child Criminal Exploitation
Parental drug and alcohol addiction
FGM
Honour based violence
Secure accommodation
Deprivation of Liberty
Adoption
Recovery Orders
Special Guardianship
Discharge of care orders and revocation of placement orders
Private Law Children
Jane Withington has represented children and parents in cases involving:
Domestic abuse
Physical harm
Rule 16.4 Guardian
Parental alienation
Special Guardianship
Specific Issue Orders
Prohibited Steps Orders
Child Arrangements Orders
Jennifer has a well-established practice, successfully representing clients in the field of professional discipline and regulatory law.
Focussing on defence, Jennifer has an excellent track record of positive outcomes in complex and sensitive cases.
Jennifer routinely defends clients before professional bodies including the Nursing & Midwifery Council, General Dental Council, General Pharmaceutical Council, Health and Care Professions Council, Ofsted, and the Teaching Regulation Agency. Representation of professionals is both at first instance and on appeal to the Care Standards Tribunal and High Court.
Jennifer’s practice includes representation in local level proceedings, CQC cases and Disclosure and Barring Service appeals; providing clients with continuity of representation in ancillary regulatory matters.
Jennifer has extensive experience in education law and is instructed to provide advice and representation in higher education, schools and special educational needs cases. Prior to joining the Bar Jennifer worked as an advocate at a solicitors’ firm dealing with a range of education law cases (schools and higher education) and associated employment issues. She represented teachers, students and parents at both internal and tribunal proceedings. Jennifer also worked as a legal assistant to a senior barrister, assisting with his public / education law practice spanning work before university disciplinary panels, in the county court, High Court, Court of Appeal, and special educational needs work in the First-tier and Upper tribunals.
Notable cases
NMV v Caroline Wellington & Others
NMC v Saidat Abbas
Public and Regulatory
Jennifer is a professional disciplinary and healthcare specialist. She regularly appears before the various disciplinary tribunals including the Nursing and Midwifery Council, General Dental Council, General Pharmaceutical Council, Health Care Professions Council and the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants.
As well as appearing in court Jennifer frequently delivers seminars, lectures and training within this specialist area. She has also taken part in stakeholder events and discussions in relation to proposed changes to the law in this area.
Jennifer’s practice includes representing clients in the following areas:
Misconduct and competence cases
Health cases
Registration appeals
Restoration appeals
Fraudulent/ incorrect entry appeals
Substantive order reviews
Interim order hearings
Application hearings
Inquests
Disclosure & Barring Service
Notable cases
GDC v RY - Jennifer represented a dentist facing charges including dishonesty related to plagiarism in a course connected to his dentistry practice. After hearing persuasive submissions by Jennifer, the panel imposed a caution order.
NMC v CW & Others - Jennifer represented one of six nurses in a high profile four-week hearing. In the years preceding the regulatory proceedings there had been an inquest and civil proceedings. This case involved the death of a patient after he had been admitted to a ward with what had been diagnosed as back pain. The nurse that Jennifer was representing faced five charges ranging from failing to check patient records and escalate his condition to inadequacies in the administration of medication. After hearing four weeks of evidence, Jennifer persuaded the panel to impose the least restrictive of sanctions solely based on public interest grounds.
FM v NMC - Jennifer successfully represented a nurse who had been refused re- registration due to alleged ongoing health concerns. After a one-day hearing and careful cross examination of the NMC’s expert witness, the nurse was restored to the register.
NMC v AL - Jennifer acted for a nurse in this dual handed case concerning multiple charges relating to alleged poor care of a patient’s catheter. Jennifer made successful submissions of no case to answer in relation to some of the charges and then successful submissions resulting in findings of no misconduct for the remainder of the charges.
NMC v SA - Jennifer defended a nurse in this high profile case involving a nurse working for an NHS Trust for over 17 years without a work permit. This case involved 12 charges, some of which alleged dishonesty regarding the non-disclosure of her work status and her interaction with colleagues.
The case, on the face of it, should have attracted a striking off order. However, Jennifer managed to persuade the panel to impose a 6 months suspension order.
NMC v ES - Jennifer represented a nurse in this technically complex case concerning a Cardiac Services Team Leader. Jennifer successfully made an application of no case to answer in relation to several charges including a “contribution to death” charge. After which the only charges that remained were the charges which had been admitted by the registrant. Jennifer then went on to make submissions resulting in findings of no misconduct for the remainder of the charges.
NMC v Yeboah - Jennifer represented a nurse charged with dishonesty and working excessive hours. Jennifer secured the least restrictive of sanctions, a caution order, after a 3-day hearing.
JS v NMC - Jennifer successfully represented a registrant who had been denied registration due to historic convictions, some of which included offences involving dishonesty.
Education
Prior to coming to the Bar Jennifer was the sole In House Advocate at a specialist education law solicitors firm. Jennifer continues to provide legal advice and representation in the entire spectrum of education law. Areas of practice include:-
Appeals to SEND tribunal
Discrimination
Claims in the FTT
Admissions and exclusions from schools
Independent Review Panels
Clerking at Independent Review Panel hearings and governing Body meetings
Claims against independent schools
Claims of educational negligence
Breach of contract and negligence
Judicial review
Student fitness to practise proceedings
Plagiarism
Termination of studies
Issues with PhDs studies/ supervision
Appeals to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator
Disciplinary and grievance procedures
Jennifer has also run education law seminars/training days and given presentations to Central Law Training (the UK’s leading provider of post qualification training and accreditation for professionals working in the legal sector), Education Law Association (ELAS), Independent Appeal Panels, barristers’ chambers and a youth project run by the Supreme Court “Big Voice London”.
Professional Discipline and Regulatory Law
Jennifer has a well-established practice, successfully representing clients in the field of professional discipline and regulatory law.
Focussing on defence, Jennifer has an excellent track record of positive outcomes in complex and sensitive cases.
Jennifer routinely defends clients before professional bodies including the Nursery & Midwifery Council, General Dental Council, General Pharmaceutical Council, Health and Care Professions Council, Ofsted, and the Teaching Regulation Agency. Representation of professionals is both at first instance and on appeal to the Care Standards Tribunal and High Court.
Jennifer’s practice includes representation in local level proceedings, CQC cases and Disclosure and Barring Service appeals; providing clients with continuity of representation in ancillary regulatory matters.
Jennifer joined 3PB in 2016 having established a successful Family and Court of Protection practice at a leading common law chambers. She continues to develop her practice, undertaking work primarily in the law relating to children and vulnerable adults.
She works principally in the field of public family law, representing parents, children and local authorities in complex care proceedings. She has experience of representing parents and children with mental health issues and learning difficulties. Her public law cases have covered areas such as neglect, sexual abuse, non-accidental injury, factitious illness, life limiting conditions and modern slavery.
Many of her public law proceedings include an international dimension.
Jennifer is also often instructed in private family matters. She has regular instructions in matters of international family law, including applications to remove children permanently from jurisdiction and also child abduction proceedings in the High Court.
She has developed a particular expertise in Special Guardianship Orders and recently led herself in the Court of Appeal: Re M (Special Guardianship Order: Leave To Apply To Discharge) [2021] EWCA Civ 442. This case has already been cited by the Court of Appeal in several other of its decisions relating to SGOs.
Jennifer has written several articles on developments in public law and advised the policy unit of a local authority on safeguarding issues arising from a child sexual exploitation scandal, including preparing for a Serious Case Review and a ‘stocktake’ review by central government of child sexual abuse. This was a two-year project which she undertook whilst also practicing at the Bar.
Family
Jennifer works principally in the field of public family law, representing parents, children and local authorities in complex care proceedings. She has experience of representing parents and children with mental health issues and learning difficulties. Her public law cases have covered areas such as neglect, domestic violence, substance abuse, sexual abuse, non-accidental injury, female genital mutilation, factitious illness and children with life limiting conditions.
Many of her public law proceedings include an international dimension. She also routinely advises local authorities on their duties to unaccompanied asylum seeking and refugee children.
Jennifer is often instructed in private family matters, some of which have included honour based violence and modern slavery. She has regular instructions in matters of international family law, including applications to remove children permanently from the jurisdiction, internal relocation, and child abduction proceedings in the High Court.
She also accepts instructions on Family Law Act matters.
Mediation
Jennifer is a family mediator (Resolution).
Articles
Talk about a Revolution: The Internet and Children Proceedings, Family Law Week 17.08.17
‘Archer v Titchener: What would a Family Court Decide?’ Family Law Week, 21.09.16
‘Duties of Local Authorities to Unaccompanied Migrant Children,’ Family Law Week, 01.09.16
‘Swings and Roundabouts’, NLJ 2015 13 Nov 2015
‘Reviewing Findings of Fact in Care Proceedings’, Family Law Week, 28.07.14
‘There’s No Place Like Home’, NLJ 11 Jul 2014
‘Children and Families Act 2014: A Guide for Public Children Lawyers’, Family Law Week, 17.04.14
Reported Cases
Great Ormond Street Hospital v A Local Authority & Ors 2022 EWHC 2596 Fam: End of life treatment for dying child who is already subject to care proceedings
Re M (Special Guardianship Order: Leave to Apply to Discharge) [2021] EWCA Civ 442
This case clarifies the test to be used when applying for leave to discharge a Special Guardianship Order. There are two stages to this test. First, there must be a significant change of circumstances. If this test is met, then the the court must evaluate the prospects of success of the application in the context of the effect on the child’s welfare of the application being heard or not heard. However the child’s welfare is not the paramount consideration. The degree of any change in circumstances is likely to linked to prospects of success. The greater the prospects of success, the more likely it is that leave will be granted.
Re T (Early permanence or kinship carers) [2017] EWFC B43
WSCC v H & Ors (Children) (Care proceedings: Brain Injury), Re [2015] EWHC 2439 (Fam) (led by Gemma Taylor)
Court of Protection
Jennifer practices in the Court of Protection on Healthcare and Welfare matters up to the High Court. She represents local authorities and P, through their litigation friend, and other family members.
Her cases have related to capacity, deprivation of liberty, and welfare (including residence and contact). Given her background in public law children, she has a particular expertise on transitional arrangements for 16-18 year olds, many of whom have been subject to care proceedings and are accommodated in local authority care.
She was recently involved in an end of life treatment case in the context of care proceedings: GOSH v A Local Authority & Ors [2022] EWHC 2596
Jennifer also advises local authorities on the question of ordinary residence for the purpose of assigning responsibility for the care of vulnerable adults and has published on this topic.
She was a member of the Court of Protection ad hoc rules committee and provided training on changes to the rules to local authorities and other solicitors.
Jim Hirschmann practices in health, social care, education and family law. He has a particular interest and expertise in public law challenges related to his core practice areas (see more details on his expertise in these areas below). Many of his cases involve acting for or against local authorities.
Jim is hardworking, thorough and adept at explaining complex law in straightforward terms. This is reflected in comments from solicitors such as "a huge thank you for everything you have done on this case which went far and beyond" and comments from judges about Jim’s advocacy as “helpful” and “extremely clear.”
Outside of busy work demands, Jim enjoys sport with a particular interest in rugby, running and squash. He likes travelling and has an armchair interest in philosophy.
Jim is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. Please contact him for a copy of his privacy notice which sets out the basis upon which any personal data he may collect about you, or that is provided to him, will be processed. He will provide a copy of this to you within two working days of receiving the request.
Administrative and Public Law
Judicial review
Jim Hirschmann has a very strong public law and education law practice. He is regularly instructed by claimants and defendants in judicial review claims.
His public law practice has seen him successfully challenge the decisions of local authorities relating to public child law, homelessness, education and other regulatory matters including licensing by Ofsted.
Public inquiries
Jim accepts instructions on behalf of public inquiries and core participants.
He has experience acting as a second junior counsel team member for a major public inquiry. This means he has familiarity with the Inquiries Act 2005, the Inquiry Rules 2006, rule 9 drafting and complex document management utilising relativity (including delivering training).
Recent notable cases
A v B - Jim drafted judicial review grounds concerning (1) a local authority’s failure to secure provision specified in an Education Health and Care Plan in breach of section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (2) a school’s failure to admit a pupil contrary to section 43 of the Children and Families Act 2014. The claim succeeded.
C v D - Jim successfully drafted grounds of appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 with the result that the local authority conceded the unsuitability of the property offered and made an offer afresh.
E v F - Jim drafted correspondence on behalf of his client following a local authority’s failure to offer proper support to a special guardian. It resulted in an extensive training package being offered to his client and reconsideration of the financial support due.
Court of Protection
Jim Hirschman accepts instructions in both health and welfare and property and affairs decisions. His experience in judicial review and family has contributed to making him a thoughtful and effective advocate who helps find acceptable solutions to parties’ strongly held but conflicting views.
Health and Welfare
Jim has experience in health and welfare matters. He has worked on cases concerning:
conflicting capacity evidence, including fluctuating capacity
forced marriage protection orders
capacity declarations and best interests decisions including issues relating to sexual relations, marriage, care, residence, medical treatment and alcohol consumption
where a young adult with significant health needs should be educated
He is regularly instructed by private individuals and local authorities.
Property and Affairs
In the property and affairs context, Jim has experience of cases involving:
conflicting capacity evidence
applications to appoint a deputy
disputes around enduring or lasting powers of attorney
matters complicated by the involvement of trusts, alleged dissipation of assets, extent of a deputy’s authority, disputed wills and complex business and land ownership arrangements
He has been instructed by private individuals, local authorities and by the Office of the Public Guardian.
Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court, or Safeguarding of Vulnerable Adults and Children
Jim has been regularly instructed in cases involving the inherent jurisdiction of the high court often related to issues of deprivation of liberty in cases involving a young person’s drug abuse, exploitation or involvement in organised crime.
With a Master of Laws (LLM) in public law, he is well placed to consider challenges against the decisions of local authorities (including judicial reviews and claims under the Human Rights Act 1998).
Medical Treatment
Jim is willing to accept instructions surrounding medical treatment. He has experience of best interests decision concerning addiction, rehabilitation and the way in which medication should be administered.
He is often instructed by local authorities.
Notable cases include:
A v Z - instructed by a local authority who sought a deprivation of liberty order. The case related to a young person who had run away from her care home and suffered significant harm after becoming involved with suspected members of a county lines network. The deprivation of liberty order was granted under the inherent jurisdiction of the high court.
B v C - represented a mother in a forced marriage protection case that raised issues of capacity to marry, capacity to consent to sexual relations and the jurisdiction of the family court.
E v F - acted for the Office of the Public Guardian in a matter concerning an invalid lasting power of attorney and cross-border assets. The registration of the lasting power of attorney was duly to be cancelled.
Education
Jim Hirschmann's education law practice, in the context of secondary schools, has seen him successfully represent children who were appealing the decision to exclude them from their school under the Education Act 2002. He also has experience acting in appeals in the SEND Tribunal, often relating to Education, Care and Health Plans. He is regularly instructed by claimants and defendants in judicial review claims against local authorities and schools.
In higher education, Jim has experience of advising students and universities on student disciplinaries, contractual disputes and governance (including of students’ unions). As a solicitors’ agent he regularly attended county court hearings (completing 188 hearings prior to pupillage) and was regularly concerned with applications to set aside default judgment, strike out and case management hearings. He is therefore well placed to assist clients in managing their case through the civil courts and tribunals.
In a regulatory context he has experience of considering challenges to licensing decisions made by Ofsted. His experience in public child family means he is experienced in working for and against local authorities.
Recent notable cases:
A v B - Jim successfully persuaded an independent review panel that the decision to permanently exclude a pupil, due to gang-related violence, should be reconsidered as the school had not done enough to explore options other than expulsion.
B v C - Jim represented an international university facing a six-figure claim for breach of a franchise agreement and through written negotiations improved his client’s position by over £100,000.
C v D - Jim represented a student challenging the decision to suspend him from his university and successfully mitigated the sanction imposed.
E v F - Jim represented an excluded child before a governors' review panel. The pupil had been permanently excluded for bringing a BB gun into school and discharging it. The case involved legal submissions in relation to a headteacher’s discretion to depart from the school’s policy. The governors ordered the pupil’s reinstatement.
Family
Jim Hirschmann's family law practice is focussed on child law. His work has a public emphasis. He also has experience in private child cases and of injunctive relief sought following allegations of domestic violence.
His family work is complemented by his expertise in judicial review, education law and the Court of Protection.
Care and adoption
Jim accepts instructions from local authorities, parents, wider relatives (including prospective guardians) and children who are involved in care proceedings. He has experience of cases involving non-accidental injury to the subject child. He is regularly instructed in cases involving the inherent jurisdiction of the high court often related to issues of forced marriage, deprivation of liberty and secure accommodation orders.
With a Master of Laws (LLM) in public law, he is well placed to consider challenges against the decisions of local authorities (including judicial reviews and claims under the Human Rights Act 1998).
Notable cases include:
B v F - acted for a local authority that sought authorisation for the deprivation of liberty in relation to a young person found in a property known for heavy drug usage, including heroin. The case involved circumstances where there was no suitable secure accommodation unit nor children’s home available. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court was invoked to protect the young person whilst attempts to secure a more suitable placement continued.
G v H - acted for the local authority in a five day fact-find hearing and up to final hearing. Significant findings were made against the parents in relation to serious non-accidental injuries suffered by the child including a lip laceration, left radial shaft fracture, an injury to the left femur and multiple bruises. The case involved consideration of ambiguous expert medical evidence. Adoption and placement orders were ultimately made.
F v M - acted for a local authority in a contested seven day final hearing involving allegations of corruption, drug abuse, domestic violence and peripheral serious organised crime. The local authority’s care plan was endorsed and the final order that they sought was made.
B v Y - instructed to act on behalf of a local authority who sought an emergency protection order. The case related to children who had been exposed to prolonged neglect. The order was granted.
Re FL (a Child): [2020] EWCA Civ 20 - as a pupil, assisted in the successful defence of a special guardianship order in favour of a maternal grandmother.
Private Law Children
Jim acts in private law applications representing clients in applications relating to arrangements for children under the Children Act 1989. He advises on residence, contact and other orders including, for example, orders relating to passports.
Jim has experience of all types of hearings, including fact finding hearings and multi-day final hearings. He is able to quickly appreciate the key issues and works closely with solicitors to ensure that cases are well prepared. His cases regularly concern allegations of serious domestic violence including of coercive and controlling behaviour.
Jim frequently acts for clients affected by domestic violence who are seeking or responding to an application for a non-molestation and/or occupation order under the Family Law Act 1996.
Notable cases include:
E v F - Successfully appealed against a case management decision of Magistrates who wrongly (1) refused to admit evidence of a non-party witness and (2) changed their order after giving judgment.
Joanna (Jo) Laxton is a specialist employment and discrimination barrister who completed her pupillage with 3PB and is based from their Winchester office. She transferred across to the Bar having worked as a solicitor for 22 years and specialised in employment law.
During her time as a solicitor, Jo worked extensively in-house, developing experience in all areas of employment law, as well as legal services delivery. She held senior positions with Transport for London, Sodexo, Pennon Group (South West Water) and Vodafone. As such she understands well the legal needs of both public and private sector employers.
Jo advised on all aspects of employment law, managing bulk tribunal litigation, discrimination issues, drafting employment contracts and policies, providing support and assistance on large scale redundancy exercises, and extensively advising on TUPE.
As well as specialising in employment law, Jo held senior posts such as General Counsel, Assistant General Counsel and Company Secretary. These roles allowed Jo to develop knowledge and understanding of wider matters such as internal matter management, and regulatory compliance.
She developed experience in handling very sensitive investigations and whistleblowing complaints, supporting enquiries undertaken by multi - disciplinary investigation teams.
Notably, Jo advised extensively on very high-profile collective employee relations, advising on the Golden Formula and associated injunctive proceedings, time off, and all aspects of labour law. She advised extensively on settlements, both individually and as part of a negotiating team resolving industrial disputes at ACAS. She is a practical and pragmatic negotiator.
In addition to advising and managing active matters, Jo provided extensive training on a range of employment matters to HR and ER. She has trained at Board level on Directors Duties and assisted procurement teams in their understanding of the employment and pensions issues which arise in commercial transactions.
Outside of work, Jo is a motorsport fan, and keen motorcyclist.
Employment and Discrimination
Jo Laxton was a highly experienced solicitor who has worked in senior legal roles, most recently as Lead Counsel (Employment) at Vodafone and previously South West Water, Head of Employment and Legal Compliance at Rotork Plc. She is no longer a practising solicitor, having elected to transfer across to the Bar and is now a practising barrister with 3PB.
Redundancy
She already has experience as an advocate, for example successfully representing a major motor car manufacturer in unfair dismissal/ collective redundancy proceedings. She also handled interim final hearings extensively in sex discrimination/equal pay proceedings (so called 'part time pensions' cases).
Having strong relationships with colleagues in HR and employee relations, Jo has enjoyed the opportunity of advising on both individual and collective redundancy, s188A obligations and selection criteria.
TUPE
Jo has supported procurement teams and HR in the progression of outsourcing/ insourcing activity, advising on the application of the TUPE regulations, consultation and measures, the provision of employee liability information, and changes to terms and conditions/ harmonisation.
Labour law
Jo has advised public sector and commercial entities on range of trade union issues, including industrial action, picketing, release and facility time, S.145B inducements and detriment generally. She also advised on the status of collective terms, assisted with the negotiation of collective agreements, and advised on compulsory recognition through the CAC.
Discrimination
Devising and supporting policy on equal opportunity and diversity has been a constant theme of Jo’s in-house work, and she has taken responsibility for advising and training on common workplace issues. She’s advised on the definition of disability and making reasonable adjustments. She has also handled sensitive race and sex discrimination matters, including the careful investigation of complaints, allegations of harassment, resolving workplace issues, dismissal, litigation and dispute resolution. She has provided training on unconscious bias, and harassment.
Service delivery
Jo’s previous work as a solicitor in house has allowed her to develop experience in legal services delivery, having held responsibility for bulk claim management and team management. She has undertaken panel firm reviews mainly for the provision of employment law services, and has devised tools designed to provide effective case management.
Jo Martin KC is a specialist crime and public/regulatory law barrister who was called to the Bar in 2005 having previously qualified as a solicitor in 1996. Prior to moving to Devon, she worked for both the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office in London and then became a Higher Court advocate, before joining Devon Chambers.
Since transferring to the Bar, Jo has developed a heavyweight practice both prosecuting and defending in all areas of criminal law. She joined 3PB in August 2019. She has a particular specialism in child cruelty cases, particularly those involving significant medical issues and linked family proceedings.
Prior to taking Silk, she was on the Specialist Regulatory Panel List B, prosecuting on behalf of both the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive.
Since becoming a Silk in 2018, Jo has prosecuted cases of murder, child cruelty, and a death on a construction site for the HSE and has been regularly instructed to prosecute cases of large and complex fraud, historic child abuse and rape and causing death by dangerous/careless driving.
Jo's defence practice mirrors that of her prosecution work. She is routinely instructed in large fraud, money laundering and trading standard cases, and the associated confiscation hearings as well as rapes and historic sex abuse cases. She is particularly known for the care with which she handles vulnerable and young defendants.
She is universally credited by those who instruct her for the care she takes in preparation, the confidence she instils in clients - whether the defendant or the police - and her jury friendly manner in court.
She is a founder member of the Western Circuit Women's Forum and a mentor of junior women barristers. She is also a trainer on the Western Circuit pupillage course and has also trained police officers, CPS and Local Authorities on confiscation and money laundering as well as training overseas.
Jo also does pro bono work on behalf of the charity, Advocate. Outside of work, her interests include running, triathlons, swimming in rivers, gardening and playing the guitar badly.
Articles/ Newsletters/ Seminars
Murder and a bit of Manslaughter - with Piers Norsworthy (2018). Presentation at Derriford Hospital
Child Cruelty:S5 Domestic Violence, Crime Victims Act 2004 and Joint Family/Crime Hearings (2016)
Expert Evidence - an Overview and What Next (2015)
Devon Chambers in the Supreme Court - Jo Martin & Russell James (Aug/Sept 2014)
Update on POCA (2014)
CRIME
Jo has a considerable and busy practice both prosecuting and defending in all areas of criminal law, a rape specialist with substantial caseload of large and complex fraud, historic child abuse and rape and causing death by dangerous/careless driving.
She has a particular specialism in child cruelty cases, particularly those involving significant medical issues and linked family proceedings. Jo was, prior to taking Silk, on the Specialist Regulatory Panel List B, prosecuting on behalf of both the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. Since becoming a Silk in 2018, Jo has prosecuted cases of murder, child cruelty, and a death on a construction site for the HSE.
Her defence practice mirrors that of her prosecution work. She is routinely instructed in large fraud, money laundering and trading standard cases, and the associated confiscation hearings as well as rapes and historic sex abuse cases. She is particularly known for the care with which she handles vulnerable and young defendants.
Reported Cases
Supreme Court
R-v-Harvey (Jack Frederick) Supreme Court [2015] UKSC 73; Court of Appeal: [2013] EWCA Crim 1104 (defending from the Crown Court to the Supreme Court). The point ultimately dealt with by the Supreme Court was whether VAT that had been paid to or accounted for to HMRC should be included (as the Crown contended) in the gross turnover figure of a company when assessing the level of confiscation to be paid. The Supreme Court held (in favour of the defence) that the VAT should be excluded.
Court of Appeal
R-v-Elliot Allen [2017] EWCA Crim 458 - successful appeal against sentence passed on a young driver who had pleaded guilty to death by dangerous driving. The sentence was reduced significantly from 2 years 6 months to 12 months.
R-v-Michael Wilkes [2017] EWCA Crim 577 - successful defence against appeal by the Attorney General that the sentence of 6 years and 8 months for an elderly defendant who had pleaded guilty to attempted murder was unduly lenient.
R-v-Worth [2014] EWCA Crim 435 - successful appeal against sentence in relation to money laundering. The judge had erroneously sentenced on the basis of a total amount greater that the amount on the indictment.
R-v-C (Sandy) [2013] EWCA Crim 1815 - appeal against the sentence imposed in relation to a historic sex abuse and in particular whether the court should take into account other sentences that post dated the offending. Appeal dismissed.
AG's Reference no 125 of 2010 (R-v-Draper) [2011] EWCA 640 - defence of appeal by the Attorney General to increase the sentence of a young man who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter of his 4 month old baby. The Court increased the sentence from 3 years 6 months to 5 years.
R-v-Burridge [2010] EWCA Crim 2847 - prosecution junior in response to 4 day appeal against conviction. The defendant had been convicted of murder of his baby who had the classic triad of injuries and rib fractures of different ages. The issue on appeal revolved around 'fresh evidence' relating to the age of the rib fractures. The court ultimately concluded that the conviction for murder was unsafe (and submitted a conviction for manslaughter)
Recent Notable Cases
Murder
R-v-LG (2019) - Truro Crown Court. Convicted of murder of partner by a single stab wound. Issues involved a factual dispute about whether the victim had stabbed himself and, if the defendant had stabbed him, whether she had done so in either self defence or through loss of control.
R-v-PR (2018) - Truro Crown Court. Unusual case involving a failed suicide pact. The defendant’s plea to manslaughter was accepted by the Crown after evidence obtained from South Africa.
R-v-D (2019) - Truro Crown Court. Leading Rupert Taylor. Defendant in 70’s charged with murder of 81 year old partner. Following the obtaining of psychiatric evidence is became clear that the defendant had an undiagnosed and unusual form of dementia (Lewy Body). Prosecution accepted plea to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility following psychiatric reports. Sentence under MHA.
R-v-S (2018) - Truro Crown Court. Leading Emily Cook. Defendant charged with murder of young baby with medical signs of being shaken. Prosecution accept plea to manslaughter. Defendant sentenced to 5 years.
R-v-L (2018) - Truro Crown Court - led by Anna Vigars QC. A ‘body less’ murder prosecution involving considerable evidence relating to ‘proof of life’. Defence was that the victim was still alive. Defendant convicted after 3 week trial
R-v-B (2017) - Exeter Crown Court - led by Kate Brunner QC. Defendant had put a potato into the gas flue of his neighbour. Crown accepted plea to unlawful act manslaughter. Defendant received 2 years 8 months which was not overturned on appeal.
Fraud
R-v-M and others (Operation Fardel) (2017-9) - Harrow Crown Court - leading junior (with Julia Cox) Instructed by CPS South West Complex Casework unit - prosecuting 6 defendants for laundering in the region of £2 million through 'harvested' bank accounts and through the Post Office. The underlying crime was 'phishing fraud': fraudsters got victims to transfer their savings by pretending they were calling from the bank. All 6 defendants pleaded guilty after the case was fully opened to the jury. The sentences imposed ranged from 6 years imprisonment to 12 months suspended. Following contested hearing, confiscation orders in the sum of £1.5 million.
R-v-M (2018) - Truro Crown Court - large DWP fraud with loss to the public purse of some £1.5 million. D constantly changed names, addresses and gave false details about disabilities over an 18 year period to make false applications in his own name and in the names of other people. The defendant pleaded guilty shortly before trial. Sentenced to 3 ½ years.
R-v-S and others (2016) - Truro Crown Court - 6 handed high value 'boiler room' fraud involving the sale of 'rare earth metals' to victims. The REM's, like other so called 'investment opportunities' such as carbon credits, were worthless. The main defendant pleaded guilty, and the financier was found guilty after trial. The victims were all financially compensated following confiscation proceedings.
Child Cruelty
R-v-C (2019) - Plymouth Crown Court. Led Sally Daulton. Re-trial following hung jury in 2018. Allegation that mother had deliberately smothered her baby in hospital and given her cocodamol. Issue required complex medical evidence about whether the child’s cessation of breathing had been due to mother’s actions or natural causes. Jury acquitted D.
R-v- V and W (2018) - Plymouth Crown Court. Led Sally Daulton. Both parents prosecuted in relation to life changing injuries to 4 month old baby. Charges included s18 GBH and a joint charge of failing to protect the baby. The presentation of the case required detailed analysis of phone records and timings of various injuries to enable the jury to decide which parent had caused the significant injuries. The three week trial ended in conviction of the mother.
R-v-W (2017) - child cruelty case in which defendant was one ot two possible suspects for injuries to child. Defendant acquitted after trial.
R-v-J (2016) - Plymouth Crown Court - mother had poisoned her child with tramadol. Involved complex medical issues regarding poisoning and breast feeding. Pleaded guilty shortly before trial.
Violence
R-v-F (2017) - Plymouth Crown Court - attacked husband's new partner by pouring boiling water ver her. Issues of intent and the ability to form intent. Convicted after trial.
R-v-M and K (2017) - Bristol Crown Court - attempted murder/s18 of two victims with weapons. Defendants claimed acting in self defence. Convicted after trial.
Death by Dangerous Driving
R-v-S (2017) - drove mini too fast in Cornish lanes on Boxing Day and killed female passenger in head on collision with another car.
Fraud
R-v-N - (2018) - Exeter Crown Court - prosecuted for obtaining a mortgage from RBS by signing his wife’s signature 10 years ago. Defence case that the RBS bank manager had been aware and agreed to him signing his wife’s name. Jury acquitted.
R-v-L (2016) - Truro Crown Court - prosecuted for mortgage and expenses fraud. Judge stopped the case at half time, following legal submissions.
R-v-P (2015) - Truro Crown Court - leading junior (leading Sarah Vince) in 10 week HMRC fraud trial with over 40,000 pages of evidence. The accountant defendant had submitted returns for clients to HMRC which were false. Convicted after trial.
R-v-D (2015) - Taunton Crown Court - prosecution of former police officer for fraud. Judge stopped the case at half time following legal submissions.
Sexual offences
R-v-S (2017) - Woolwich Crown Court - historic sex abuse on step daughter and rape of ex partner. Jury acquitted defendant of rape and hung on child sex abuse. Second jury convicted of child sex abuse.
R-v-M (2017) - Truro Crown Court - allegations of touching step child. Racial overtones during trial. Defendant acquitted.
R-v-L (2017) - Truro Crown Court - child abuse from over 30 years before. Allegations had been raised before and not prosecuted. Defendant acquitted after trial.
R-v-F (2017) - Plymouth Crown Court - Royal Marine acquitted of rape of partner.
R-v-D (2016) - Truro Crown Court - former communications officer of the Bishop of Truro for historic sexual abuse. Convicted after trial.
R-v-K (2013) - Truro Crown Court - leading junior (leading Julia Cox) - historic child abuse, prosecuted as a satanic sex ring. Defendant convicted after trial.
PUBLIC AND REGULATORY
Jo is a well known prosecutor on the Western Circuit for both the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive and was, prior to taking Silk, on the Specialist Regulatory Panel List B.
Notable cases
HSE -v- JB Ltd (2019) - Cardiff Crown Court - prosecution of company following death of a young worker on a building site. Prosecution take difficult decision to offer no evidence in relation to health and safety breaches as part of continuous review of the evidence following submissions by the defence.
HSE-v-SWH (2017) - Exeter Crown Court - prosecution of company for health and safety breaches following death of a worker whilst fixing potholes in a dual carriageway. Company pleased guilty and fines.
HSE-v-MJL (2017) - Truro Crown Court - prosecution following serious injury of worker after dumper truck overturned on building site.
R-v-B and others (2014) - Truro Crown Court - leading junior (with Judith Constable) - instructed by the Environment Agency to prosecute 10 defendants for waste and water discharge offences. Some pleaded guilty prior to trial, others pleaded guilty following opening and view.
HSE -v- JB Ltd (2019) - Cardiff Crown Court - prosecution of company following death of a young worker on a building site. Prosecution take difficult decision to offer no evidence in relation to health and safety breaches as part of continuous review of the evidence following submissions by the defence.
HSE-v-SWH (2017) - Exeter Crown Court - prosecution of company for health and safety breaches following death of a worker whilst fixing potholes in a dual carriageway. Company pleased guilty and fines.
HSE-v-MJL (2017) - Truro Crown Court - prosecution following serious injury of worker after dumper truck overturned on building site.
R-v-M (2016) - Truro Crown Court - scaffolder prosecuted following death of fellow workman for breaches of Health and Safety regulations. Plead guilty after Goodyear indication.
R-v-D (2016) - Truro Crown Court - HR director prosecuted for neglect of elderly patients. Case stopped by the judge at half time following submission.
R-v-B and others (2014) - Truro Crown Court - leading junior (with Judith Constable) - instructed by the Environment Agency to prosecute 10 defendants for waste and water discharge offences. Some pleaded guilty prior to trial, others pleaded guilty following opening and view.
Jodie Mittell is a highly regarded criminal specialist practising on the Western Circuit. Jodie’s attention to detail and her meticulous approach to preparation are the key to her thriving practice.
She is instructed in the most complex of criminal cases. She has considerable experience in matters involving serious violence including murder, manslaughter and attempted murder. She often conducts trials involving serious sexual offences including cases involving multiple and/or vulnerable complainants. She is regularly instructed as a leading junior in extensive drugs conspiracy allegations. Jodie’s experience is derived from her extensive history of instructions as a led junior particularly in cases involving murder, animal rights extremism and intelligence led drug investigations.
Crime
Jodie Mittell is a highly regarded criminal specialist practising on the Western Circuit. She is instructed in the most complex of criminal cases. She has considerable experience particularly in cases involving drugs, extremism and serious violence/murder. Jodie is often instructed in challenging multi-handed cases. Jodie’s attention to detail and her meticulous approach to preparation are the key to her thriving criminal practice.
Her practice includes the full spectrum of criminal offences including murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, rape and other sexual offences, offences of fraud and dishonesty and cases involving the supply of drugs. She has been involved in a number of complicated multi-handed conspiracy allegations including cases involving the smuggling of drugs and mobile telephones into prison and serious public disorder.
Jodie is also experienced in matters involving confiscation and proceeds of crime and other ancillary orders including criminal behaviour orders, serious crime prevention orders and sexual harm prevention orders.
Jodie has represented prisoners at parole board hearings including applications for release on behalf of prisoners serving life sentences. Jodie has also represented prisoners at prison adjudications.
Jodie accepts instructions on Courts Martial cases and has conducted matters involving both criminal allegations (including ABH and Sexual Assault) and service offences (Desertion and AWOL).
Jodie was appointed in January 2017 as a Deputy District Judge (Magistrates’ Court). She has been a level 4 CPS and specialist rape prosecutor since 2016 and is accredited by the Bar Standards Board to act directly on behalf of individuals and organisations under the Public Access Scheme. Jodie is an Advocacy Trainer for the Western Circuit (pupil training), a Vulnerable Witness Advocacy Facilitator (training established practitioners) and a Pupil Supervisor. She is also the Circuit Junior on the Westen Circuit.
Recent Cases of Note
Murder/Manslaughter/Attempted Murder
R v Brandford (2021)
Murder case also involving the disclosure of private and sexual photographs and videos. Portsmouth Crown Court (led by Sarah Jones QC)
R v Perry (2020)
Allegation of murder but the prosecution accepted a plea to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Winchester Crown Court (led by Katy Thorne QC)
R v Cooper & Cooper (2019)
Murder involving stabbing and joint enterprise. Winchester Crown Court (led by James Newton-Price QC)
R v Yethman-Spaine & others (2018-2019)
Attempted murder allegation involving a stabbing in a park in the context of a county lines drugs case. Winchester Crown Court (acting alone)
R v Smith & others (2018)
Attempted murder case involving drug related shooting. Identification issues at trial involving complex legal arguments. Winchester Crown Court (led by Adam Feest QC)
R v Downton & Baccus (2017-2018)
Aggravated burglary when homeowner was killed using a shotgun. Joint enterprise murder trial. Winchester Crown Court (led by Nigel Lickley QC)
R v Arthur (2017)
Murder case involving multiple stabbing. Salisbury Crown Court (led by Nigel Lickley QC)
R v Jarosz (2017)
Attempted murder case arising from a deliberate car crash on the day the defendant’s wife had committed suicide. Bournemouth Crown Court (led by Adam Feest QC)
R v Darvill (2016)
Initially indicted as murder – deceased stabbed twice – plea accepted to manslaughter. Winchester Crown Court (led by Adam Feest QC). Instructed to settle appeal against sentence documents alone
Arson
R v S (2019)
Arson allegation relating to a cigarette being discarded and causing a hotel fire. Successful representations relating to causation resulted in prosecution offering no evidence. IOW Crown Court
R v Scott (2017)
Arson committed in a hospital. Southampton Crown Court
R v S (2017)
Arson allegation relating to a house fire at the house of a councillor in New Milton. Successful opposition to bad character argument. Southampton Crown Court
Other Violence/Public Order
R v Riddell (2021)
S18 allegation concerning a serious assault on a family member – offender has complex mental health difficulties. Portsmouth Crown Court.
R v Grantham (2020)
Attempted murder allegation arising from an incident where the defendant slashed the throat of his landlord with a cut-throat razor; acceptable plea to s18. Guildford Crown Court.
R v Swalli & another (2020)
S18 allegations after three victims were stabbed following a family dispute. Southampton Crown Court.
R v N (2020)
S18 allegation involving multiple stab wounds – acquittal on grounds of self-defence. Portsmouth Crown Court.
R v Foster (2018)
Administering a noxious substance – prison offending involving the deliberate throwing of excrement. Newport (IOW) Crown Court.
R v Bridgman & others (2018)
Gang beating involving baseball bats and other weapons after the victim was caught stealing. Winchester Crown Court.
R v L (2018)
Allegation of s20 against a youth involving a partial amputation – injury caused whilst youth in detention. Reading Crown Court.
R v Brown (2017)
Grievous bodily harm with intent (s18) arising from stamping, kicking and the use of a broken bottle. Newport (IOW) Crown Court.
R v Carrington (2017)
Case involving second bladed article offence and a series of public order/criminal damage incidents. Winchester Crown Court.
R v Worthington (2017)
Wounding with intent (s18) allegation against a husband who stabbed his wife of 33 years. Salisbury Crown Court.
R v Cross & Others (2016)
Seven-handed affray allegation involving street-fighting between family members with catapults and spades being wielded as weapons. Southampton Crown Court
R v Barnett & Another (2016)
Serious ABH allegations by elderly mother and father against their two daughters with suggestions that the attack was pre-planned and prolonged. Portsmouth Crown Court.
R v B & Others (2016)
Youth of good character jointly charged with wounding with intent (s18) involving an alleged drug-related stabbing of another youth. Southampton Crown Court.
R v B & Others (2016)
Kidnapping involving eight defendants. Bournemouth Crown Court.
R v H (2015)
Wounding with intent (s18) where part of the complainant’s ear was bitten off. Bournemouth Crown Court.
R v Tucker (2015)
Wounding with intent (s18) involving a knifing incident. Winchester Crown Court.
R v T (2015)
Stalking and perverting the course of justice. Southampton Crown Court.
R v Santos-Luis (2015)
Grievous bodily harm (s20) involving an attack against ex-soldier suffering with PTSD. Dorchester Crown Court.
R v Coltart & Others (2014)
Affray – attack and threats in street involving use of baseball bats near to a school. Dorchester Crown Court.
Operation Virgo (2011)
Conspiracy to commit criminal damage – animal rights activists who undertook a series of criminal damage attacks against Barclays Bank and other companies linked to Huntingdon Life Sciences. Winchester Crown Court.
Drugs
Operation Highwood (2021)
Conspiracy to supply crack cocaine and heroin through county lines from London to Sussex (9 defendants charged). Leading Gemma White. Portsmouth Crown Court
R v Sumboo & Others (2020-2021)
Conspiracy to supply crack cocaine and heroin through county lines from London to Portsmouth. Portsmouth Crown Court.
R v Cousins (2018)
Being concerned in the supply of class A drugs. Case based on extensive surveillance evidence. Bournemouth Crown Court.
R v Mucmataj & Others (2017)
Conspiracy to supply high purity cocaine involving Albanian gang operating in Southampton. Southampton Crown Court.
Operation Pretty (2016-2017)
Conspiracy to supply crack cocaine and heroin – undercover police operation in Southampton targeting commercial class A drug networks. “Scouse” drug line operating from Liverpool (leading Gemma White). “Beer” drug line operating from London including youth defendants. Southampton Crown Court
R v Fisher (2016)
Supply of crack cocaine and heroin to undercover officers during test-purchase operation. Dorchester Crown Court.
R v H & Others (2016)
Possession with intent to supply and being concerned in supply of mephedrone. Southampton Crown Court.
R v S (2016)
Possession with intent to supply cannabis. Salisbury Crown Court.
R v S & Others (2015)
Possession with intent to supply cocaine and production of cannabis. Newport (IOW) Crown Court.
Operation Mohican (2015)
Conspiracy to supply crack cocaine and heroin – conspiracy involving supply of drugs in Southampton by a network based in London. Southampton Crown Court (led by Adam Feest QC).
R v Hallam & Others (2015)
Conspiracy to supply crack cocaine and heroin. Minimum sentence for third drug offence. Winchester Crown Court.
R v Xavier & Another (2015)
Conspiracy to supply crack cocaine and heroin. Portsmouth Crown Court.
Operation Kennedy (2014)
Conspiracy to supply cocaine – middle market conspiracy to supply in excess of £600,000 worth of cocaine. Portsmouth Crown Court.
Sexual Offences
R v M (2020)
Youth rape allegation. Poole Youth Court and Bournemouth Crown Court.
R v B (2019)
Allegation of sexual assault on a senior officer. CCTV evidence and three eyewitnesses. Bulford Courts Martial.
R v G (2019)
Offences involving contacting children on the internet. Defendant unfit so hearing pursuant to s4A Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964. Abuse of process argument, admissibility argument in relation to interviews. Winchester Crown Court.
R v Hedges (2019)
Rape of ex-partners and historic sexual abuse of children and further offences involving seeking to arrange sex on the internet. Under cover police operation. Portsmouth Crown Court.
R v Ray (2019)
Historic abuse of family members. Bournemouth Crown Court.
R v H (2019)
Rape of an escort in a hotel room. Bournemouth Crown Court.
R v F (2018)
Allegations of inappropriate sexual touching by father towards his daughter’s teenage friends. Portsmouth Crown Court.
R v Jones (2018)
Historic abuse of family member. Portsmouth Crown Court.
R v E (2018)
Attempted rape allegation involving allegation against family member following alcohol consumption. Portsmouth Crown Court.
R v M (2018)
Allegation of rape by neighbour in home following consensual sex. Successful opposition to bad character argument. Winchester Crown Court.
R v Hajhashem (2017)
Marital rape case. Southampton Crown Court. Successful appeal against sentence.
R v Everett (2017)
Historic sexual allegations against an adult known through a church choir. Bournemouth Crown Court.
R v Marques & others (2016)
Gang rape case. Portsmouth Crown Court.
R v W (2016)
Historic sexual allegations by eight complainants against a former superintendent of a children’s home. Winchester Crown Court.
R v D (2016)
Indecent images – allegations against 79-year old defendant relating to images found on his computer. Issues of remote access. Winchester Crown Court.
R v T (2016)
Sexual assault – allegations against mother’s previous partner. Bournemouth Crown Court.
R v C (2015)
Sexual assault – historical allegations against mother’s previous partner involving a complainant recalling an event when she was only 5 years old. Bournemouth Crown Court.
R v S (2015)
Attempted rape – allegations by ex-partner who was suffering with mental health difficulties. Southampton Crown Court.
R v E (2015)
Sexual assault – allegations against a friend of the family. Expedited trial due to age of child making the complaint. Southampton Crown Court
R v Sansom (2015)
Multiple counts of rape and assault by penetration. Dangerous offender provisions. Bournemouth Crown Court.
R v R (2014)
Sexual assault by penetration – allegations by a step-daughter of sexual assault including penetration involving delicate cross-examination of the complainant, particularly since she had been the victim of abuse before at the hands of others. Dorchester Crown Court.
Dishonesty/Fraud
Operation Flex (2020)
Conspiracy to steal mobile phones from numerous shops across a wide geographical location involving a loss of around £90,000. Salisbury Crown Court.
Operation Groot (2019)
Burglaries – investigation into numerous dwelling burglaries. Southampton Crown Court.
Operation Homily (2017-2018)
Conspiracy to blackmail – final prosecution involving animal rights extremism and the use of incendiary devices after lengthy process of extradition from The Netherlands. Winchester Crown Court (led by Michael Bowes QC and leading Berenice Mulvanny)
R v Horwood (2016)
Robbery – axe point robbery at a betting shop by masked men. Bournemouth Crown Court.
R v Brown (2016)
Fraud (by false representation) – cheques obtained from elderly victim. Bournemouth Crown Court.
R v Goodman (2016)
Fraud (by abuse of position) – accounts manager paying herself overtime and using company funds (in excess of £60,000). Southampton Crown Court.
R v P & Others (2016)
Conspiracy to steal – organised shoplifting in conjunction with employee of shop. Portsmouth Crown Court.
Operation Cordon (2016)
Conspiracy to steal/burglaries/thefts/handling stolen goods – a number of cases involving more than 18 defendants arising out of an operation using undercover officers to detect offences involving stolen goods. Southampton Crown Court.
R v Wilson (2015)
Theft (breach of trust) – private carer stealing from 94 year old whilst she was in a care home. Winchester Crown Court.
R v Milton (2015)
Theft (breach of trust) – charity manager stealing a cash donation. Winchester Crown Court.
R v Rogers (2015)
Fraud - £1.6m VAT fraud and evasion of income tax. Southampton Crown Court.
Operation Exist (2015)
Conspiracy to handle stolen goods – stolen motorbikes and construction equipment. Winchester Crown Court.
R v Murray (2015)
Aggravated burglary – further prosecution linked to R v Flaherty & Others. Southampton Crown Court.
R v Barney (2014)
Burglary – deliberate targeting of a number of elderly victims in distraction burglaries. Bournemouth Crown Court.
Operation Homily (2014)
Conspiracy to blackmail - continuing conspiracy to blackmail following on from Operations Achilles and Aries. Winchester Crown Court (led by Michael Bowes QC).
R v Harris (2014)
Fraud – use of stolen credit cards to book holidays abroad. Southampton Crown Court.
R v Flaherty & Others (2013)
Aggravated burglary – attack by masked men who made threats and assaulted a man in his home using a knife and a crowbar and then stole his Rolex watch. Southampton Crown Court.
R v G (2013)
Theft (breach of trust) – allegations of theft by a carer involving sensitive cross-examination of a 92 year old complainant. Bournemouth Crown Court.
Operation Cardew (2009)
Conspiracy to defraud – defrauding elderly homeowners in respect of bogus building works. Southampton Crown Court. Terminating ruling appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Operation Achilles/Aries (2008-2009)
Conspiracy to blackmail – animal rights extremists involved in a six year campaign (through the organisation SHAC) against companies linked to Huntingdon Life Sciences. Winchester Crown Court. Appeal to Court of Appeal for case involving Lifetime ASBO: R v Avery (Gregg) [2009] EWCA Crim 2670
Serious Driving offences
R v Jarosz (2017)
Attempted murder case arising from a deliberate car crash on the day the defendant’s wife had committed suicide. Bournemouth Crown Court (led by Adam Feest QC)
R v A (2016)
Dangerous driving – lorry driver alleged to be involved in a road rage incident, legal argument about no warning being provided and no notice of intended prosecution being sent. Aylesbury Crown Court.
R v A (2016)
Dangerous driving – pursuit involving alleged “tail-gaiting” by ex-partner. Dorchester Crown Court.
R v Marshall (2015)
Death by dangerous driving – 16 year old passenger killed. Dorchester Crown Court.
John Friel is a highly experienced practitioner with particular expertise in public law issues. He has developed a strong practice with extensive experience acting for local authorities, private applicants, charities, independent schools, maintained schools governing bodies and provides a prompt response to instructions.
He has won leading cases in the House of Lords, Court of Appeal, and High Court. He is available for direct client access in certain cases.
Education
John has handled a large number of highly complex, complicated and difficult cases in the Special Education Needs Tribunal. The amount of tribunal cases has increased, and the cases have increased in complexity, and in difficulty. John has achieved a commendable degree of success in such cases.
Publications
Special Needs and Legal Entitlement: The Essential Guide to Getting out of the Maze, written by John Friel and Melinda Nettleton, is a straightforward and comprehensive guide to the legal rights of children and young people with special educational needs, and to the Children and Families Act 2014.
Recent cases:
K v The School and the Special Needs Tribunal, Court of Appeal [2007] ELR 234
John represented the school which established the nature of the defence of justification in Disability Discrimination. It is the leading case on Justification.
L v Clarke and Somerset [1998] ELR 128
This is the leading case on the rights of children with statements of special educational needs.
School Admission Appeals Panel for the London Borough of Hounslow v The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Hounslow (2002) ELR 602
This case establishing at long last, despite contrary dicta in the Court of Appeal, and some first instance decisions to the contrary that the Human Rights Act does have a significant effect upon school admission appeals, and education law generally. At p.602 May LJ specifically singled out Mr Friel’s submissions for favourable comment. Confirmed Gloucestershire LEA.
Gloucestershire Local Education Authority v Gloucestershire Schools Appeal Panel (2002) ELR 309
John appeared for the parents, successfully.
O v The London Borough of Harrow & Sherwin (2002) ELR 195
Court of Appeal allowed the parents appeal, John representing the parents, on the issue of the structure of the appellate process under the 1996 Education Act.
B v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2008] EWHC 2094 (Admin)
John represented a child who appealed against a decision that the respondent local authority had correctly decided to place her at a maintained special school for pupils with a range of special educational needs rather than an independent school for pupils with speech, language and communication difficulties.
B County Council v H [2008] EWHC 1070 (Admin)
An appeal by a LEA against the decision of a Special Needs Education Tribunal to move a child with ADHD and Autism to another school.
Disciplinary and Regulatory Proceedings
John’s work in this area naturally overlaps with his work in Judicial Review and Local Government. His wide ranging practice encompasses all areas of reviewing professional conduct for which he has received significant recognition.
John has continued to deal with a large number of professional negligence cases, the majority of which settled favourably prior to coming to court and two of which settled in court. Since the House of Lords’ decision in Phelps v Hillingdon (2001) AC 611, few such cases have been fought to the finish. The trend continues. However, in other areas, despite a high degree of success in settling favourably administrative law cases, there have been a number of significant developments.
Recent cases:
H v Isle of Wight Council 2001 WL 825780
Allegations that a local education authority had negligently failed to protect a dyslexic pupil from bullying or take adequate steps to maintain and support her educational progress were entirely baseless.
Phelps v Hillingdon LBC [2001] 2 A.C. 619
House of Lords case concerning the duties of a teacher and whether a local education authority could be vicariously liable for the acts of its employees. It was held that there was no justification for a blanket immunity policy in respect of education officers performing the authority's functions with regard to children with special educational needs.
Public and Regulatory
John is an expert in all aspects of education law, particularly complex cases involving Special Education Needs, and in disciplinary and regulatory proceedings. His wide ranging and successful track record encompasses professional conduct disputes, professional negligence and administrative law cases.
John completed a 12-month pupillage at 11 Stone Buildings with an emphasis on commercial disputes and personal and corporate insolvency. John now frequently appears in the Business and Property Courts on insolvency matters.
John also advises and appears in Court on matters of general commercial litigation, and has developed a busy construction law practice since joining 3PB.
John maintains a practice in property disputes, and has appeared in the High Court on matters relating to onerous tenancy administration fees, proprietary estoppel and trusts.
John accepts instruction to produce written advice and to draft pleadings in all areas of his expertise, and has significant experience of resolving disputes through alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
Direct Access
John is able to provide Court representation and written advice on a Direct Access basis in all of his practice areas.
Property and Estates
Property and Estates
John frequently provides advice and representation in residential property disputes including:
Landlord and tenant disputes (eviction proceedings and disrepair claims)
Boundary disputes
Mortgage repossessions
Leaseholder disputes.
He also advises commercial landlords and tenants, particularly on complex tenancy contracts.
John accepts instructions in this area from professionally-represented clients and via Direct Public Access.
Cases:
Avon Ground Rents Limited v Sarah Louise Child [2018] UKUT 0204 (LC), successful application to prevent a landlord’s legal costs being charged as an administration fee.
Sahota v Prior [2019] EWHC 1418 (Ch), a High-Court consideration of the interaction between section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 and the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.
A successful defence against an application for third party disclosure in the High Court in 2020, the case subsequently settled.
Probate
John has experience of advising and providing representation in all areas of probate including the interpretation of and challenge to wills.
John has particular experience of alternative dispute resolution in disputes relating to wills through mediation and other forms of ADR, and has accepted instructions directly from members of the public in such matters through Direct Public Access.
Commercial
Insolvency
John has had exposure to complex and high-value disputes between liquidators and former directors, and frequently advises in difficult insolvency matters.
John has successfully acted for a number of companies in disputed winding up proceedings brought by HMRC and private creditors.
John also has experience in the field of personal insolvency.
Commercial
John is often instructed to advise upon complex commercial contracts and appears in Court frequently on such matters.
In terms of alternative dispute resolution, John recently successfully negotiated a settlement agreement in a commercial dispute relating to a consultant company’s entitlement to “finder’s fees” for arranging commercial loans.
John has a particular interest in cross-border commercial disputes, having studied Conflict of Laws at Oxford University, and has recently advised and drafted pleadings in a complex and high-value jurisdiction and choice of law dispute and has also appeared in the County Court in a claim regarding rejection of goods as unsatisfactory by a Lebanese port authority.
Company
In addition to his experience in corporate insolvency, John has substantial experience in general Company law matters and frequently appears and advises on matters such as applications to rectify the register of charges under the Companies Act 2006.
John has recently advised upon, and appeared in application hearings related to, a complex shareholders dispute.
Construction and Engineering
Construction
John Jessup has a strong grasp of construction theory and practice and a formidable level of technical knowledge. John's working practice in areas of disputed fact is often to speak directly to employers, architects, contractors and experts with whom he is able to converse at a technical level.
John has married his experience of complex commercial disputes to his technical background and is well-placed to advise and provide representation on all aspects of construction law. He is familiar with all standard forms of construction contract, and has appeared in several multi-track trials in construction matters.
Recent cases
Successfully resisted attempt to enforce adjudicator’s award in the Technology and Construction Court.
Advised on alleged variations to building works (homeowner occupier).
Advised on expert and client witness statements.
Advised and drafted pleadings on prospects in claim against negligent surveyors re damp. Claim settled favourably.
Drafted proceedings in dispute with builder over refitted kitchen.
Advised and drafted proceedings in dispute with builder over swimming pool and garden works.
Advised on prospects against an architect and site manager for defective works to a roof.
Advised builders on prospects of defending claim by homeowner that they had not followed architect's drawings.
Advised on prospects against installer of flooring after floor damaged by damp.
Drafted proceedings for defects and counterclaim for wrongful termination – acting for builders.
Advised as to prospects, settlement offers and witness evidence in plumbing works dispute regarding wrongful termination and defects.
Advised and drafted proceedings in multi-track claim for non-payment of invoices in building work.
Advised, contractor –v- sub-contractor – sub-contractor instructed to install glass partitions at mental health facility. Sub-contractor installs wrong thickness and type of glass. Engaged in technical discussions with contractor regarding types of glass, thickness, and specification drawings.
Advised and drafted correspondence – defective building works.
Adjudication – advised on recovery where unknown to the parties. Matter governed by Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
Representing Claimant – unpaid invoice for building works, counterclaim for defective works.
Wrongful termination – in practice works not defective but merely unfinished.
Jonathan specialises in clinical negligence, personal injury, inquests, public law and costs. He is frequently instructed in complex and high value litigation.
Jonathan accepts instructions on behalf of both claimants and defendants in the High Court and County Court. He is an experienced civil advocate who appears daily in trials, applications, CCMCs, approval and disposal hearings.
From 2015 to 2018, Jonathan acted as JJ for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the successful defence of the largest group action ever brought against the UK Government (Kimathi and others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office). Jonathan’s work with the team included drafting pleadings, assisting in the High Court during trial and conducting research.
Jonathan has considerable expertise acting for defendants in cases involving issues of fraud/fundamental dishonesty. He regularly provides advice, conducts conferences, settles pleadings and attends trials for defendant insurers.
Jonathan takes pride in offering practical advice to clients and delivering highly effective advocacy in Court. Outside of his practice, Jonathan enjoys distance running and playing guitar.
PERSONAL INJURY
Jonathan regularly advises and acts in personal injury proceedings for both claimants and defendants. He offers expertise in relation to employer’s liability, occupier’s liability, RTAs, fatal accidents, motor insurance fraud and product liability claims. He has experience of high value PI litigation involving complex issues of liability, causation and damage.
Recent instructions include:
Kenyan Emergency Group Litigation (KEGL): From 2015 to 2018, Jonathan was instructed as JJ (Junior Junior) for the UK Government in a group action brought by 40,000 claimants arising from alleged mistreatment during the Kenyan Emergency in the 1950s. KEGL was one of the longest-running trials in English legal history. The litigation was successfully defended.
Advising in a claim involving a serious left humerus fracture sustained in an accident at work resulting in permanent restriction of shoulder movement, ongoing symptoms and future expenses.
Advising in a claim involving a cyclist who suffered multiple fractures to his left foot, ankle and right shoulder when he was struck by a bus.
Inquests
Jonathan provides representation to bereaved families and other interested parties at inquests. He is able to provide ongoing advice and advocacy in any civil claim arising from fatalities. Jonathan has experience of inquests involving complex medical issues and the questioning of experts.
Jonathan’s experience also includes:
Hospital deaths
Road traffic deaths
Emergency services attendance
Suicides
Article 2 inquests
Recent inquests include:
Re S: Representing the family in an inquest dealing with the tragic death of a young woman in her twenties who suffered a fatal stroke secondary to acute pyogenic meningitis which was not diagnosed upon her initial attendance at hospital.
Re A: An inquest involving two deaths following a high-speed road traffic accident with a motorcyclist.
Representing the family in an inquest touching the tragic death of a man killed in the course of a motor sport event (ongoing).
Jonathan is always conscious of the sensitivity and care required when representing families who are coping with the loss of a loved one and the importance of finding answers to the crucial questions which often remain following a death.
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE
Jonathan is able to offer advice and representation in cases arising from:
Unnecessary or inappropriate treatment
Surgical negligence
Pharmaceutical negligence
Misdiagnosis and delayed diagnosis
Failure to obtain informed consent
Dental negligence
Cosmetic negligence
In cases involving a fatality, Jonathan is experienced in providing representation at inquests on behalf of families or interested parties.
Recent instructions include:
P v An NHS Trust: Drafting pleadings, conducting conference and providing advice to the claimant in a case involving delayed diagnosis of spinal tuberculosis. The claim was successfully settled in the sum of £500,000.
A v An NHS Trust: Drafting pleadings, conducting conference and providing advice to the claimant in a case involving the delayed diagnosis of a developing cauda equina syndrome.
F v An NHS Trust: Drafting pleadings for the claimant in a successful claim involving a failure by the defendant to remove retained products of conception in the course of a birth.
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.
Joseph England specialises in Employment Law and Business & Commercial Law. His two areas complement each other and often overlap, enabling him to provide advice and representation from a practical and holistic perspective. He is very experienced in both fields and is often trusted with important and complex cases by those instructing. Further detail and examples of previous cases can be found in his specialist pages.
Joseph can be instructed directly through the Direct Access Scheme and is happy to discuss potential cases with clients without obligation. He regularly provides training and articles that consider contemporary legal issues and as well as publishing a book, he has been published on Westlaw and in the ELA Briefing. He provides legal updates and news on Twitter @JEnglandCounsel.
Joseph is committed to protecting and respecting privacy. Please contact 3PB's Operations Director or any clerk using the details on this website for a copy of Joseph's privacy policy, which sets out the basis upon which any personal data he may collect about you, or that is provided to him, will be processed. A copy of this policy will be provided to you within 5 working days of your request.
Employment and Discrimination
Joseph is an extremely experienced practitioner and his busy practice has ensured that he has in-depth experience of a wide variety of areas and types of claim. His success and evident abilities have led clients to trust Joseph with very complex cases. Joseph’s practice benefits from representing and advising both sides of employment disputes and he has been instructed in cases at the Court of Appeal, EAT and at a wide range of final and preliminary hearings in Tribunal and Court.He has appointed as a fee paid (part-time) Employment Tribunal Judge. He sits in the London South region and therefore cannot act in cases assigned to that region (Croydon and Ashford).
Joseph can be instructed directly through the Direct Access Scheme and is happy to discuss potential cases with clients without obligation. He regularly delivers training covering areas from nuanced and niche points of law to basics of the Tribunal procedure and mock tribunals. He has been published in the ELA Briefing and provides updates through Chambers’ monthly newsletter and on Twitter @JEnglandCounsel.
The below lists provide some examples of cases in which Joseph has been instructed.
Whistleblowing
Following involvement in various high profile and extremely significant ‘whistleblowing’ claims, Joseph has particular expertise and passion in this area. He is the author of NHS Whistleblowing and the Law and and provides pro bono support to Protect.
Mattu v Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust
Acting for the successful Claimant who was awarded £1.22mil net in 2016, this case was successful in demonstrating that Dr Mattu had made protected disclosures, suffered detriments as a result, been unfairly dismissed and suffered various acts of disability discrimination, including by his dismissal as a detriment arising from his disability. The case was extremely complex and document-heavy, involving approximately 25,000 documents. Joseph was the only lawyer to have been retained through every stage from 2013-2016 and appeared as Junior to Jack Mitchell then Jane McNeill QC. Please click here for more details.
McTigue v University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust ([2016] IRLR 742)
A successful appeal, leading to the expansion of protection under the extended definition of worker and the range of people able to rely on whistleblowing protection. The Claimant was employed as a nurse in a Sexual Assault Referral Centre and her employer was a third party that placed her in the NHS Trust, who denied that she was protected by the legislation. Please click here for more details.
Gilbert v X College
The Claimant was a learning support assistant in the home economics department and brought claims that she had made PIDs relating to health and safety (unsafe cooking facilities) and breaches of legal obligations (theft of cooking materials). Representing the Respondent, Joseph demonstrated that although PIDs had been made and detriments suffered, these were not because of any PID but because of her wider behaviour and the manner in which she raised her complaints.
T v James Paget University Hospital NHS FT
This case involved a surgeon dismissed for alleged capability issues. The Claimant brought various claims, including that he had made various PIDs relating to health and safety, particularly around the competency of his colleagues. Joseph was instructed on behalf of the Claimant in the drafting and advisory stages and appeared at a PH. The case had very dense and complicated facts and was consequently listed for an 8 week trial. Joseph produced an 82 page advice dealing with the various claims and the case subsequently settled.
B v D NHS Trust
Instructed by the Trust, this case considered whether a Claimant was dismissed because of whistleblowing whilst undertaking a student placement at the Hospital. Jurisdiction and the parameters of ‘employment’were key issues.
W v Ashcourt Rowan Asset Management
Joseph represented the Claimant, who was employed as the Head of Intermediary Sales. The Claimant claimed he had been dismissed as a result of PIDs concerning the way his previous employer had obtained their credit rating, including through allegedly false documentation. The case provided an interesting analysis of to whom a PID could be made and in this case the potential for PIDs to be made to the new employer about an old employer and to the FCA.
S v Z Haulage Contractors
Representing a national firm of haulage contractors in a claim in which an employee claims to have been dismissed due to raising allegations of a failure to comply with regulations of the Road Haulage Association.
X v British Transport Police
Representing the Claimant in this lengthy trial, Joseph demonstrated that PIDs had been made despite being contained within extremely dense documentation. The whistleblowing concerned alleged fraudulent overtime claims and health and safety concerns.
Discrimination
Mattu v Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust
Acting for the Claimant who was awarded £1.22mil net, this case successfully demonstrated that Dr Mattu had made protected disclosures, suffered detriments as a result, been unfairly dismissed and suffered disability discrimination. The case was extremely complex and document-heavy, involving approximately 25,000 documents. Joseph was the only lawyer to have been retained through every stage over the 4 year tribunal history, appearing as Junior to Jack Mitchell then Jane McNeill QC . Please click here for more details.
Lazarevic v [technology company] 2016
Acting for a multi-million pound I.T. company, Joseph was able to secure a rare 100% Polkey reduction for financial losses arising from a discriminatory dismissal.
V v Hertfordshire County Council and Another ([2015] All ER (D) 260)
Successfully represented a school caretaker dismissed for allegations loosely based on ‘crossing professional boundaries’ in relation to his interactions with children. The dismissal was exposed by Joseph as involving an investigation that was “seriously flawed”, by the appeal stage “the process was so badly flawed, it was irredeemable” and an act of sex discrimination. At the remedy hearing, the tribunal nevertheless awarded a nearly 100% Polkey reduction to the Claimant’s compensation. However, Joseph successfully appealed and compensation was increased from £1135 to over £60,000, in addition to an award of over £20,000 for injury to feelings. Please click here for more details.
Dawes v X County Council
Representing a County Council in a complex claim of disability discrimination arising out of difficult issues involving the long term sickness absence of a carer dismissed for his absence, successfully defending claims of direct, indirect, ‘reasonable adjustments’ and ‘related’ discrimination.
Chikale v Okedina [2018] All ER (D) 86 (Jan) (UKEAT/0152/17)
Joseph appeared against leading and junior counsel in an appeal considering the scope of a defence of illegality based on the expiry of a migrant domestic worker’s working visa.
L v G
Representing a software company against various discrimination claims, including Equal Pay, sex and race discrimination during a trial lasting 11 days.
K v T NHS Foundation Trust and another
Representing a Claimant paramedic in an ongoing claim involving harassment through text messages and appearances outside the Claimant’s home as well as victimisation for complaints then brought by the Claimant. The employer is relying upon the statutory defence and therefore the claim will consider the extent of liability if discrimination is proved.
E v B School
Representing the school against various claims of disability discrimination brought by a teacher, including relating to dismissal for disability related absence arising out of alleged depression.
Restrictive Covenants and Employee Competition
Joseph has appeared and advised in a number of cases in this area, often leading to settlement. Work in this area often overlaps and is complemented with his expertise in commercial cases outside of traditional employment relationships, such as director and shareholder disputes. Cases frequently involve the finance and manufacturing sectors and involve confidential information and trade secrets. Examples of cases include defending an application for damages brought by an employer against an ex-employee for the use of confidential data used to poach clients and the drafting of an application for an injunction to prevent a football agent from poaching players.
Unfair Dismissal
Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust v Mundangepfupfu ([2015] All ER (D) 265)
At the EAT, various grounds of appeal successfully resisted concerning unfair dismissal and the balance between substitution of a tribunal’s decision and the correct exercise of the ‘range of reasonable responses test’. Other grounds of appeal resisted included bias and perversity. Remitted for remedy.
V v Hertfordshire County Council and Another ([2015] All ER (D) 260)
Successfully represented a school caretaker dismissed for allegations loosely based on ‘crossing professional boundaries’ in relation to his interactions with children. The dismissal was exposed by Joseph as involving an investigation that was “seriously flawed”, by the appeal stage “the process was so badly flawed, it was irredeemable” and an act of sex discrimination. At the remedy hearing, the tribunal nevertheless awarded a nearly 100% Polkey reduction to the Claimant’s compensation. However, Joseph successfully appealed and compensation was increased from £1135 to over £60,000, in addition to an award of over £20,000 for injury to feelings. Please click here for more details.
Al Mustafa v Ibrahim (UKEATPA/0830/14)
At the EAT, an appeal against a decision of a Registrar that an appeal was lodged out of time, itself an appeal against a tribunal decision that a claim form making a claim of unfair dismissal had been submitted out of time and there were no grounds to extend time under the ‘not reasonably practicable’ test.
Boynton v West London NHS Trust
Representing the music therapy teacher at Broadmoor psychiatric hospital, successfully demonstrating employee status despite no written contract and consequentially gaining a concession on claims of unfair and wrongful dismissal.
P v Topps Tiles UK Ltd
Successfully representing a Claimant in a conduct dismissal, demonstrating that although dismissal could have been fair, reliant on computer data of log-in times, on the facts it nevertheless was unfair.
L v Lann & Hummell UK Ltd
A claim of unfair dismissal arising out of misconduct allegations for making allegedly defamatory remarks on Facebook.
J v WBTA
Representing a Claimant whose company was purchased by the Respondent, only for the Respondent to swiftly dismiss him for alleged misconduct. The evidence of the Respondent’s Director was exposed by Joseph at trial to be “extremely unsatisfactory...totally unreliable”.
F v Mouchel
Representing an accountant against a global firm, bringing a claim of unfair dismissal based on a sham redundancy after a TUPE transfer led to the Claimant being employed on a much higher salary than her comparable new colleagues.
Transfer of Undertakings
Joseph’s complementary practice in Business and Commercial Law enhances his Employment practice and he is often instructed in cases involving an overlap between the two, notably in matters involving TUPE transfers.
Samra and others v Optimax and others
Representing a test Claimant following the purchase by Optimax of Ultralase, a 5 day PH considered whether there was a transfer of undertaking between the two companies, against junior and leading Counsel.
L and others v Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership and NHS Trust and others
Representing one of four Respondents in a claim in which numerous Claimants had claimed to be employees arising out service provision changes. Joseph’s client was held not to be liable.
Tucker and others v Premier Security Services and others
Representing a Claimant employed to monitor CCTV with one company, the service for which was then brought in house to the County Council, then transferred to another company. The case looked at whether there had been a service provision change at any point between 4 different respondents.
R v Ad Valorem Accounting and another
Representing a Claimant bookkeeper, whose employer was purchased by another, then allegedly kept separate by a complex series of transactions and name swaps between companies.
F v Mouchel
Representing an accountant against a global firm, bringing a claim of unfair dismissal based on a sham redundancy after a TUPE transfer led to the Claimant being employed on a much higher salary than her comparable new colleagues.
Conduct and Internal Resolution
Joseph has been appointed to determine internal employment matters, including misconduct cases and grievances. His employment expertise ensures that he approaches such matters fully cognisant of correct and fair procedure and his appointment ensures independence within the decision making process. His experience in these matters builds upon his selection to sit on Police Misconduct Disciplinary Panels as a tribunal member, principally considering cases of misconduct considering actions against officers under the Police Conduct Regulations 2008 and Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 .
His vast experience in particular of cases for and against the NHS has ensured that Joseph is fully aware of the unique and sometimes complex features of NHS regulations and disciplinary procedures. Other cases have involved a wide number of regulatory bodies, including the FCA, GDC and NMC.
Working time, holiday, sickness
Numerous of the claims detailed elsewhere have involved additional contractual claims for remuneration across the full spectrum of claims and the following provide further specific examples:
Weeks and another v G National Care Homes
Representing a chain of national care homes in what was being treated as a test case, Joseph successfully ensured the dismissal of two claims for the payment of National Minimum Wage during ‘sleep-in shifts’. Please click here for more details.
K National Care Provider
Following a HMRC review, this chain of national care providers sought Joseph’s advice in conference on whether the National Minimum Wage was payable to staff who had lengthy breaks between visiting clients and during sleep in shifts at care homes.
Palmer v Sopwell House Hotels
Representing a Claimant beauty spa therapist for various claims relating to underpayment of her wages. The Tribunal stated it had “considerable sympathy” for the Claimant’s confusion over her pay slips and the reality of her payments as against her contract were considered over a 3 day trial. The case looked at issues including whether there was any bonus, whether commission included VAT and whether the Claimant should have been paid hourly or monthly.
Remuneration, Bonuses and Notice Pay
Numerous of the claims detailed elsewhere have involved additional contractual claims for remuneration across the full spectrum of claims.
Palmer v Sopwell House Hotels
Representing a Claimant beauty spa therapist for various claims relating to underpayment of her wages. The Tribunal stated it had “considerable sympathy” for the Claimant’s confusion over her pay slips and the reality of her payments as against her contract were considered over a 3 day trial. The case looked at issues including whether there was any bonus, whether commission included VAT and whether the Claimant should have been paid hourly or monthly.
Smith v Wholefoods Ltd
Representing the Respondent in a claim that considered the validity of a clause relating to overpayment of wages against a promise to pay a higher than normal bonus shortly before the Claimant’s resignation, including overlap with excess salary provided in a final salary payment.
Jurisdiction
E v Nygard International Partnership
Conducting a hearing via video link with Canada, including cross examination, to successfully demonstrate that the employment tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a breach of contract case against a Canadian company brought by an employee based in the UK.
Yasim v X School and B v D NHS Trust
Representing a NHS Trust and separately a school, in both cases Joseph successfully had the claims of discrimination struck out on the basis that the Claimants were engaged through student placement pursuant to university courses and therefore the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims.
Commercial
Joseph is an experienced practitioner in Commercial and Business Law. He provides practical and accurate solutions and is an accomplished trial advocate, developing key experience in his other complementary area of Employment. His Commercial and Business work focuses on matters of Company and Partnership Law, Insolvency and Trading and Financing, outlined below.
Company and Partnership Law
Joseph's knowledge of Business and Commercial Law complements his Employment practice and he is often instructed in cases involving an overlap between the two, such as matters involving Director disputes, TUPE transfers or civil claims for matters arising out of employment. Examples include:
Claims to enforce restrictive covenants and/or claim damages following a breach. Cases frequently involve the finance and manufacturing sectors and involve confidential information and trade secrets. Examples of cases include defending an application for damages brought by an accountancy firm against an ex-employee for the use of confidential data used to poach clients and the drafting of an application for an injunction to prevent a football agent from poaching players.
Disputes between directors and shareholders. Examples include advising an ex-director and sole shareholder as to his rights over money paid pursuant to a ‘loan note’ for a company once he was no longer a director or shareholder, and advising the remaining director on methods to control a disruptive ex-director following redundancy.
Defending an employer from claims of Harassment, Deceit and Negligence brought by their dismissed in-house Counsel.
Defending a claim by a contractor against an outsourcing company for profits between the outsourcing company and end user, leading to successful strike out following Joseph’s drafting of an application.
Disputes over bonuses, commission, wages, pensions, references and a number of cases involving commission payments relating to agency work.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Strengthening his experience in Company Law, Joseph has extensive knowledge of Insolvency Law, having appeared in a wide range of hearings in both the High Court and County Court, including:
Advising Directors in numerous cases about their rights and those of employees upon the insolvency of companies, including issues such as Director’s duties, TUPE obligations and the validity of late remuneration.
Successfully obtaining High Court Injunctions to prevent the presentation of winding up certificates.
Applications for a vesting order to enable trustees to realise the sale of a bankrupt’s investment property.
Applications to wind up companies, take carriage of winding up petitions, rescind winding up orders, make bankruptcy orders and annul bankruptcy orders.
Making and resisting applications to set aside statutory demands.
Charging and possession order applications, including for an extension of time to register a charge and commercial property.
Restoring companies to the Register for the purposes of future litigation
Cases involving an overlap with Joseph’s Employment practice, for example those involving TUPE transfers and questions over the implications of employees.
Trading and Business Financing
Joseph’s solid grasp of contract and tort law has meant that he frequently appears in commercial trials, covering the full range from small to multi-track, at appellate level and first instance and in consumer contracts and between businesses. Joseph has a particular strength in cases of professional negligence. Examples include:
Numerous professional negligence disputes, including cases involving legal advice (often overlapping with Joseph’s Employment Law expertise), building work, surveyors, architects, tax advisers, vets and even boat repairers.
Representing national utility companies in a variety of contractual claims, often leading to strike out following summary judgment. This work has included appearances to resist applications for warrants under the Rights of Entry Act 1954.
Advising a national hair care company on the enforceability of a contract for a ‘salon loan’ of over £500,000.
Myriad interim applications, including for summary judgment, the attachment of penal notices to aid enforcement, third party disclosure orders, security for costs, costs applications (including within the tax tribunal Starmill UK Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 681), appeals and setting aside summary judgments.
Joseph Giret KC is a barrister and mediator. He is registered with the respected regulatory body, the Civil Mediation Council as a mediator and is Bar Council / Society of Mediators accredited. His practise is a blend of advisory, drafting and court appearances through litigation or mediation whenever possible. His personal skill sets are perfectly suited to bringing solutions for clients through mediation. He is on the panel of available mediators through 3PB chambers. He has been described in Court as an “Iron fist in a velvet glove”.
With 35 years of experience building his skills, Joseph puts his clients’ best interests front and centre. He is a problem solver and delivers sensible and appropriate solutions whilst being “one of the most approachable and friendly QC’s we have had the pleasure to instruct”.
Joseph enjoys a formidable reputation for his civil and commercial expertise. His expertise covers:
Business and Commercial law, including Intellectual Property and Company and Partnership Disputes
Chancery commercial
Alternative Dispute Resolution and Mediation
All Litigation: embracing all stages from preparation to trial proceedings
Civil and Criminal Fraud investigations / allegations including FCA instituted proceedings
Professional Discipline and Negligence
Sports disputes of every type and nature.
For more information please refer to the Practice Area drop downs below or click here.
Joseph is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public and professional clients under the Direct Public Access scheme.
Joseph has lived and worked in the offshore jurisdiction of Bermuda which operates under an American style fused profession model. While in Bermuda, he has worked closely with attorneys from the USA and with very high net worth company representatives.
Notable recent cases:
FCA -v- R.M - Advising and acting for client charged with contravention of financial regulations in an action brought by FCA on behalf of shareholders. £5M claim.
HM -v- OL - Shareholders dispute and breaches of Directors duties arising from a residents’ management company and association.
W.I + S.I -v- TW - $20M claim for repayment of investment sums obtained by fraud, in respect of a high net worth building project in Brazil that failed. Linked Claims filed in USA.
P Ltd and S.T + B.M - Claim against former employee, and Iraqi national for restoration of monies taken as part of a sophisticated fraud on Iraqi employer; monies hidden in 40 separate accounts including a number in Iraq.
N.M -v- Crystal Palace FC - Claim by former Education supplier to young and aspiring academy players for breach of employment contract.
D.H + N.H -v- S+HB+P Ltd - Family business / shareholders dispute over entitlements and construction of shareholders agreements.
Acted on behalf of the Bermuda Royal Gaming Commission against former whistleblower employee. Injunction obtained to be served out of the jurisdiction [USA]; object to prevent further disclosures in contravention of employment contract; high level Governmental concerns about highly confidential information being made public and wrecking a scheme to bring Casinos to Bermuda.
Commercial
Joseph is a specialist commercial law Barrister with an emphasis on insolvency law and company law. He enjoys a formidable reputation for his civil and commercial expertise and is recognised by the Legal 500 as a leading commercial silk. Joseph has particular experience advising and representing clients in a wide range of high value commercial disputes, breach of contract, trademark disputes and franchise agreements. His experience also extends to advising and representing legal and financial professionals in claims for liability.
Joseph welcomes instructions across the following areas:
Company and Partnership Disputes
Insolvency & Bankruptcy
Trademark Disputes
Franchise Agreements
Professional Liability claims
Recent disputes:
Joseph frequently undertakes drafting and advisory work in multi-million pound claims including:
A claim brought by a Hong Kong based company, in a dispute over the construction of a profit sharing contract and franchise agreement;
High value claim by a firm of solicitors against a former partner and director for breach of fiduciary duties under both common law and statute as a company director;
Acted for a partnership of Medical professionals in an acrimonious dispute over the terms of their partnership agreement.
Public and Regulatory
Joseph's experience includes all types of regulatory disputes: advising on regulatory aspects of sports law, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and The GMC. He has had the conduct of disputes with HMRC offences (VAT, Company Act and Tax issues), insider share dealings, as well as fraud, bribery and corruption allegations. He is a highly experienced yachtsman with experience in marine law issues.
Recent disputes include:
Acting for the Defendants £1.5m claim brought before the Queens Bench Division by the HMRC in a claim for under-declared profits and siphoning off cash into property purchases. The matter was successfully resolved before commencement of a 15 day trial by negotiating a satisfactory compromise and settlement.
He leads legal teams in lengthy and complex trials, acting at every tribunal level.
Joseph also acts for parties involved in mediation and arbitration.
Joshua believes that everyone should have access to robust representation and realistic, honest advice. He tries to offer all his clients straightforward and cost-effective solutions to their problems. If the only option is litigation, he aims to secure them the best outcome he can, tailored to their circumstances and their means.
Joshua is a specialist whose goal is to guide his clients through the maze of English property law while avoiding its frequently unexpected hazards. His practice includes familiar property work, such as neighbour disputes (boundaries, nuisance, rights of way), and the full range of residential and commercial landlord & tenant matters. He also accepts instructions in property law more broadly, such as applications under TOLATA 1996, mortgages, commons and agricultural tenancies. He has significant experience of social housing issues, including anti-social behaviour, homelessness and allocations.
Joshua’s practice also includes public and regulatory law disputes, from local authority prosecutions through professional disciplinary proceedings to age disputes brought by unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors.
Joshua provides advocacy and advice on litigation in the High Court and County Court, as well as the First-Tier and Upper Tribunals, and at inquiries.
Joshua lectured part-time in Public Law at BPP in 2006 and 2007.
Property and Estates
Joshua believes that everyone should have access to robust representation and realistic, honest advice. He tries to offer all his clients straightforward and cost-effective solutions to their problems. If the only option is litigation, he aims to secure them the best outcome he can, tailored to their circumstances and their means.
Joshua is a specialist whose goal is to guide his clients through the maze of English property law while avoiding its frequently unexpected hazards. His practice includes familiar property work, such as neighbour disputes (boundaries, nuisance, rights of way), and the full range of residential and commercial landlord & tenant matters. He also accepts instructions in property law more broadly, such as applications under TOLATA 1996, mortgages, commons and agricultural tenancies. He has significant experience of social housing issues, including anti-social behaviour, homelessness and allocations.
Joshua provides advocacy and advice on litigation in the High Court and County Court, as well as the First-Tier and Upper Tribunals, and at inquiries.
Joshua is regularly instructed in real property matters and neighbour disputes, including:
Nuisance
Trespass
Boundary & easement disputes
Party Wall etc Act 1996 matters
Mortgages
Charges, charging orders & orders for sale
LPA Receiver matters
Equitable interests (eg applications under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996)
Agricultural tenancies.
Joshua has represented clients in the Court of Appeal and before the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry, as well as the County Court, High Court, First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). He has experience of a variety of other property-related matters, from planning breach injunctions to parking enforcement.
Joshua has lectured to solicitors and not-for-profit organisations on all aspects of housing, landlord & tenant and property law. He is happy to provide in-house lectures tailored to clients’ needs. He has spoken at the annual Housing Law Conference (HLPA/Law Society) and is a member of several specialist associations for property practitioners.
Commercial Landlord and Tenant
Joshua’s practice encompasses the whole range of residential and commercial landlord & tenant advice and advocacy, including:
Possession & forfeiture
Tenancy renewal
Disrepair & dilapidations
Rent reviews
Service charge disputes
Anti-social behaviour
Unlawful eviction.
Joshua has also represented clients in leasehold disputes over major works projects, and in a variety of cases relating to HMOs, civil penalties and tenancy disputes brought under the Housing Act 2004.
Joshua has particular expertise in social housing (including homelessness, allocations, human rights, and disability discrimination). He also has extensive experience of anti-social behaviour litigation, pursuing injunction applications on behalf of social landlords and defending possession claims brought against tenants accused of anti-social behaviour. He accepts publicly-funded housing work, as well as instructions from individuals and local authorities.
Recent cases
Piechnik v Oxford City Council [2020] EWHC 960 (QB): establishing that right-to-buy leases are not impressed with the local authority landlord’s extended right of access to remedy a state of affairs which is injurious to health or presents a risk of death or injury.
Quashing a local authority’s improvement notice issued under s.11, Housing Act 2004: FTT. (May 2018)
7-day hearing in the FTT representing 64 leaseholders, opposing the reasonableness of on-account service charge demands of up to £34,000 to fund a £3.5m refurbishment of 5 low-rise blocks. The Tribunal reduced the works price by approximately £400,000. (Feb 2018)
Obtaining a final possession order against a private-sector assured shorthold tenant in 12 days from issue of an injunction application to final order, on the basis of serious anti-social behaviour, involving risk to property and people through fire (May 2015)
Thomas-Ashley v Drum Housing Association Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 265; (2010) 107(13) LSG 17; [2010] NPC 36: what is the extent of a social landlord’s duty to alter its letting terms under ss 24A and 24D Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
Residential Landlord and Tenant and Housing
Joshua’s practice encompasses the whole range of residential and commercial landlord & tenant advice and advocacy, including:
Possession & forfeiture
Tenancy renewal
Disrepair & dilapidations
Rent reviews
Service charge disputes
Anti-social behaviour
Unlawful eviction.
Joshua has also represented clients in leasehold disputes over major works projects, and in a variety of cases relating to HMOs, civil penalties and tenancy disputes brought under the Housing Act 2004.
Joshua has particular expertise in social housing (including homelessness, allocations, human rights, and disability discrimination). He also has extensive experience of anti-social behaviour litigation, pursuing injunction applications on behalf of social landlords and defending possession claims brought against tenants accused of anti-social behaviour. He accepts publicly-funded housing work, as well as instructions from individuals and local authorities.
Recent cases
Piechnik v Oxford City Council [2020] EWHC 960 (QB): establishing that right-to-buy leases are not impressed with the local authority landlord’s extended right of access to remedy a state of affairs which is injurious to health or presents a risk of death or injury.
Quashing a local authority’s improvement notice issued under s.11, Housing Act 2004: FTT. (May 2018)
7-day hearing in the FTT representing 64 leaseholders, opposing the reasonableness of on-account service charge demands of up to £34,000 to fund a £3.5m refurbishment of 5 low-rise blocks. The Tribunal reduced the works price by approximately £400,000. (Feb 2018)
Obtaining a final possession order against a private-sector assured shorthold tenant in 12 days from issue of an injunction application to final order, on the basis of serious anti-social behaviour, involving risk to property and people through fire (May 2015)
Thomas-Ashley v Drum Housing Association Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 265; (2010) 107(13) LSG 17; [2010] NPC 36: what is the extent of a social landlord’s duty to alter its letting terms under ss 24A and 24D Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
Land and Boundaries
Joshua has a substantial practice in real property matters, providing pragmatic advice and advocacy, with the aim of resolving disputes in the most efficient and effective way for his clients. His expertise spans the wide field of land law, including neighbour disputes, enforcement and modification of covenants, rectification and alteration of the Register, and adverse possession. He has particular interest in:
Nuisance
Boundary & easement disputes
Party Wall etc Act 1996 matters
Agricultural tenancies.
Recent cases
5-day trial (County Court) vindicating clients’ allegations of malicious trespass and nuisance (including deliberate flooding) by neighbour over more than 20 years, and achieving award of aggravated damages. (April 2019)
5-day trial (County Court) during which Joshua helped his client prove a right of way to her field, establish her boundaries and prevent neighbours from obstructing her access. (March 2018)
5-day County Court trial for Claimant, obtaining injunctive relief and damages to halt deliberate interference with the Claimant’s sole vehicular access after 20 years of nuisance. Indemnity costs awarded against Defendant. (September 2017)
4-day County Court trial for Claimants in trespass and nuisance, when neighbours erected a fence up to 2m into clients’ land. The crucial section of disputed boundary was determined in the Claimants’ favour when they succeeded in showing that a Defendant had scrubbed out part of the existing boundary hedge. (September 2017)
5-day High Court trial defending a claim in misrepresentation over the sale of a house – whether the vendor had disclosed a history of flooding – including argument over method and quantum of valuation (March 2015)
Establishing a pedestrian right of way across the frontage of neighbouring property by lost modern grant and prescription: County Court. (May 2018)
Coownership and Trusts of Land
Joshua has helped clients to establish their beneficial shares in co-owned property, to rectify or alter the Register and to establish estoppels. He also has experience of litigating equitable defences such as undue influence, and of dealing with allegations of fraud and forgery.
Public and Regulatory
People can find themselves in conflict with public bodies at any time, whether it’s their local authority, their professional body or a national regulator. Joshua represents individuals to give them an effective voice in challenging the state, and represents public authorities to ensure that a fair balance is struck between the needs of everyone in society.
Joshua has particular expertise in social housing and age disputes. His experience encompasses homelessness and allocations, through human rights and disability discrimination, to community care and particularly age assessment disputes between unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors and local authorities.
Joshua acts regularly for local authorities, social landlords and tenants in all aspects of social housing law (both private and public). He has advised and advocated in a variety of cases related to local government powers and duties, representing clients across a range of public and regulatory law issues from planning breach injunctions to parking enforcement, including civil penalties for landlords under the Housing Act 2004. His public law practice includes the Administrative and County Courts, and Tribunals. He is familiar with out-of-hours applications to the duty judge. He also has experience of professional disciplinary proceedings.
Joshua was a Part-time External Tutor in Public Law (Judicial Review) on the Bar Vocational Course, BPP (London) in 2006 and 2007.
Recent cases
R (HBTN) v Sunderland City Council [2019] EWHC 3221 (Admin): Joshua successfully defended the local authority’s refusal to disclose a confidential age assessment document on the basis that the claim had become academic.
2-day public inquiry into a proposed toll increase for the Bournemouth-Swanage ferry, in which Joshua successfully represented a number of public authorities opposed to the price rise (September 2018)
R (GE (Eritrea)) v SSHD and Bedford Borough Council [2015] EWHC 1406 (Admin): Joshua enabled his client to prove that the local authority had wrongly assessed her age both as a question of fact and on traditional judicial review grounds.
R (GE (Eritrea)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another [2014] EWCA Civ 1490: a leading authority on the definition of ‘former relevant child’ in the Children Act 1989, the judgment establishes a local authority’s duty to consider its discretionary powers to remedy any unlawfulness arising from its erroneous assessment of a child’s age.
4-day Upper Tribunal age dispute hearing defending local authority’s assessment of an Albanian national – Joshua successfully resisted the Claimant’s arguments based on SA (Kuwait) v SSHD [2009] EWCA Civ 1157 that the UT should decide the case on the documents alone but should hear evidence to assess the Claimant’s credibility (October 2014).
R (MW) v Croydon London Borough Council, CO/10832/2011 (Upper Tribunal, 18/01/13): Joshua succeeded in establishing the claimed age of an Afghani child who had been unlawfully age-assessed by the local authority; the Tribunal made particular criticisms of the authority’s age assessment process (especially a failure to put adverse matters to the applicant).
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.
Kara Cann continues to develop a specialist family practice and accepts regular instructions across a range of both children and care law matters.
Before coming to the Bar, Kara worked as a tax consultant with Deloitte LLP specialising in VAT and other indirect taxes. Her role involved both compliance and consulting work, and allowed her to develop a number of unique skills which have transferred to her legal practice.
FAMILY
Kara Cann has a growing specialism in family law and maintains a busy practice across a broad range of cases.
Private Law
Kara regularly accepts instructions to appear on behalf of both applicant and respondent parents in private children matters. She has gained experience in all areas of child arrangement disputes, including those involving allegations of domestic violence or with substantial Local Authority involvement, and is able to represent parents at all stages of proceedings.
Kara also has a particular interest in applications concerning non-parent parties. She accepts instructions on behalf of grandparents, step-parents and Special Guardians and is able to advise and represent such parties from initial permission applications through to final hearings.
Kara has additional experience in applications for prohibited steps and specific issue orders, ranging from matters concerning removal from the jurisdiction to school attendance. She has particular experience in applications concerning removal to non-Hague Convention countries.
In addition to private children work, Kara has considerable experience in both bringing and defending Family Law Act applications.
She is able to accept instructions on a direct access basis where appropriate.
Public Law
Kara has a keen interest in public children matters and accepts regular instructions on behalf of parents, guardians and local authorities at all stages of care proceedings. She also has experience acting for extended family members and others who seek party status.
Her experience includes cases involving non-accidental injury, mental health issues and drug/alcohol addictions, including the representation of vulnerable clients and cases proceeding in the FDAC courts.
Karen Moss has 18 years' experience as an employment law specialist, instructed on behalf of both respondents and claimants to undertake all aspects of employment and discrimination work. She is Deputy Head of 3PB's employment and discrimination law group.
She has been most recently ranked as a Tier 1 Leading Junior in the South Eastern Circuit Employment ‘She is a superstar: a lawyer of the strongest calibre and an excellent advocate with strong cross-examination and client care skills’ and praised for being ‘personable with all clients’ and being able to ‘put witnesses at ease while keeping them focussed on their evidence‘. As a Leading Junior at the London Employment Bar, she is recognised as ‘Superb at processing complex matters and cutting through to the core legal and commercial issues in play, her technical knowledge is extensive and impressive’ (Legal 500 2021).
She has been recognised in this year’s Chambers and Partners UK 2021 as a “Widely acclaimed barrister with a tremendous depth of experience handling an array of employment matters including discrimination and whistle-blowing claims… "She's absolutely fantastic with clients and also just gets the legal issues instantly. She is my go-to barrister for everything because she can turn her hand to anything – she's absolutely incredible." "She routinely impresses me with opinions and her advocacy. She is very quick at cutting through the complex factual background to get to a clear legal view.”
Her areas of specialist knowledge include all forms of unfair and wrongful dismissal as well as discrimination and harassment relating to all protected characteristics, victimisation, unlawful detriment and whistleblowing claims. She has particular interest in disability, race and sex discrimination, and regularly advises on TUPE, breach of contract, pensions, working time, stress at work claims, unlawful deductions from wages, equal pay claims, post-employment restrictions and injunctive relief. She regularly appears in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and has represented clients in Court of Appeal on employment-related matters.
She has been instructed to draft a wide variety of employment pleadings and frequently advises parties pre- and post-action in industrial relations matters generally and tribunal and/or county court and/or High Court litigation.
Karen undertakes work via Direct Access for lay clients, on Conditional Fee and Damages Based Agreements and on a pro bono basis in appropriate cases. Additionally she has represented parties in judicial and other mediations regarding employment and wider commercial disputes.
She gives lectures, seminars and produces training material on the development of employment law to solicitors, human resources and other professionals.
Karen is known as having a down-to-earth and practical approach with clients, combined with being a knowledgeable, skilful and tenacious advocate.
Publications and seminars
Post Pnaiser Protection - ((1st September 2017) NLJ 13) an update on discrimination arising from disability after Pnaiser v NHS England and another, published by the New Law Journal
'EAT Guidance in Pnaiser and Hampshire v Wyatt - An update on knowledge and compensation in disability discrimination cases (from the 'Solent Employment Law Training Day')' ELA online resource 10th February 2017
'Keeping an eye on the Information' (23rd July 2004) 154 NLJ 11
Employment and Discrimination
Karen is an employment law specialist with 18 years of experience. She has been most recently ranked as a Tier 1 Leading Junior in the South Eastern Circuit Employment ‘She is a superstar: a lawyer of the strongest calibre and an excellent advocate with strong cross-examination and client care skills’ and praised for being ‘personable with all clients’ and being able to ‘put witnesses at ease while keeping them focussed on their evidence‘. As a Leading Junior at the London Employment Bar, she is recognised as ‘Superb at processing complex matters and cutting through to the core legal and commercial issues in play, her technical knowledge is extensive and impressive’ (Legal 500 2021).
She has been recognised in this year’s Chambers and Partners UK 2021 as a “Widely acclaimed barrister with a tremendous depth of experience handling an array of employment matters including discrimination and whistle-blowing claims… "She's absolutely fantastic with clients and also just gets the legal issues instantly. She is my go-to barrister for everything because she can turn her hand to anything – she's absolutely incredible." "She routinely impresses me with opinions and her advocacy. She is very quick at cutting through the complex factual background to get to a clear legal view.”
Employment tribunal work has included both Claimant and Respondent work relating to unfair dismissal (substantive and procedural, constructive or actual), wrongful dismissal, discrimination (sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, religion and belief; direct and indirect), harassment, victimisation, stress at work claims, unlawful detriment claims, equal pay claims, TUPE, breach of contract, PIDA/whistleblowing claims, working time and unlawful deductions from wages. She has a particular interest in disability discrimination claims, including failure to make reasonable adjustments, and race and sex discrimination claims.
She is also regularly instructed to appear or to advise in matters of employment-related insolvency and judicial or other employment mediations. She has been instructed to draft a wide variety of employment pleadings and frequently advises parties pre- and post-action in industrial relations matters generally and tribunal and/or county court and/or High Court litigation, including post-termination restrictions and injunctive proceedings. She regularly appears in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and has appeared in the Court of Appeal on employment matters.
Karen undertakes work via Direct Access for lay clients, on Conditional Fee and Damages Based Agreements and on a pro bono basis in appropriate cases. Additionally she has represented parties in judicial and other mediations regarding employment and wider commercial disputes.
She gives lectures, seminars and produces training material on the development of employment law to solicitors, human resources and other professionals.
Reported and interesting appellate cases:
Ahmed v Cardinal Hume Academies UKEAT/0096/18 29th March 2019
Successfully defended an appeal regarding disability harassment and direct discrimination because of disability. Mr Justice Choudhury (P) found that the tribunal had been correct to find that if it was not reasonable for the conduct to be regarded as violating the Claimant’s dignity or creating an adverse environment for him, then it should not be found to have done so. Additionally, the tribunal had concluded that the Appellant had been suspended because of his difficulties with handwriting. That was a finding that treatment was because of the adverse effect of an impairment or of something arising from disability; it was not a finding that the treatment was because of the disability – whether dyspraxia or some other unspecified physical or mental impairment - itself.
Baldeh v Churches Housing Association of Dudley & District Ltd UKEAT/0290/18/JOJ 11th March 2019
HHJ Shanks determined that where the original decision to dismiss was for disability-related reasons, without knowledge of the disability, but the appeal decision, upholding the dismissal was for the same reasons, with the requisite knowledge of a disability, that was actionable by an employee claiming to have been dismissed because of something arising in consequence of her disability. The ET had failed to apply the correct thresholds for liability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 and so the matter was remitted to a fresh tribunal
Philcox v CGDM Ltd TA Andrew Wilson & Co A2/2016/2804
May 2017 Representing the successful Respondent in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Underhill set aside the permission to appeal granted last year by Lord Justice Elias in this factually complex case involving multiple allegations of sex discrimination and unfair dismissal (EAT in February 2017 EAT/0819/16/DA).
Hampshire County Council v Wyatt UKEAT/0013/16/DA
October 2016 Represented the successful Respondent before the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Mrs Justice Simler DBE who gave invaluable guidance in relation to the divisibility of injuries and proportionate reduction of ITF and personal injury awards and on the use of medical evidence in employment tribunals for personal injury claims.
Pnaiser v NHS England and Coventry City Council [2016] IRLR 170
November 2015 Represented the successful Appellant in showing that a prospective employer could be liable for discrimination arising in consequence of a disability, by relying on a reference which itself was discriminatory, even if the prospective employer did not know of the link between negative reference and the disability. The decision of the Tribunal overturned and a decision upholding her claims for disability discrimination was substituted.
Scotthorne v Four Seasons Conservatories (UK) Limited UKEAT/0178/10/ZT
Whether the Tribunal was correct not to order disclosure of documented advice from “Employment Consultants” or HR professionals who were not legally qualified on the grounds of either legal advice privilege or litigation privilege and the application of New Victoria Hospital v Ryan [1993] IRLR 202 and Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No.6) [2005] 1 AC 610.
Snows Motor Group Ltd v Palmerino UKEAT/1512/08DM
Whether the Tribunal had “slipped into the substitution mindset” following the Court of Appeal decision in London Ambulance v Small and the applicability of the statutory disciplinary procedures where detailed evidence had not been provided until the Step 2 hearing.
Lloyd-Briden v Worthing College [2007] 3 CMLR 27, EAT
The applicability and effect of the ECJ decision in Mangold on the age discrimination provisions before the implementation date in the UK.
London Borough of Camden v Price-Job UKEAT/0507/06/DM [2007] All ER (D) 259 (Dec)
Question of whether the Tribunal correctly considered all relevant circumstances of Respondent to a DDA claim, and whether they considered the effect of s.3A(6) appropriately. Additionally the application of the law in relation to whether an appropriate assessment of an employee is a necessary pre-condition to reasonable adjustments.
Roberts v Valleyrose Ltd T/A Fernbank Nursing Home UKEAT/03944/06/D [2007] All ER (D) 163 (Aug)
Question of whether the Tribunal was biased against the Appellant and whether the Appellant had had a fair opportunity to refute an allegation of bad faith in a PIDA claim.
Investigations
Karen Moss has extensive experience of advising investigators in a number of different sectors, including healthcare, the legal profession, including partnership disputes, communications, manufacturing and education.
The investigations with which she has been involved have ranged from straight-forward disciplinaries and grievances, to factually and legally complex, wide-ranging high-stakes cases involving C-suite executives, whistleblowing and discrimination allegations. She has particular expertise in cases involving disabilities or suspected disabilities, especially those involving mental health.
Her skills are in distilling voluminous information into the salient points, being efficient, incisive and comprehensive. Her down-to-earth, practical nature makes her easy to work with.
Injunctions
Karen Moss is frequently instructed on High Court applications for interim injunctions concerning an employee’s breach of express and implied terms during and after their employment, including breach of fiduciary duty and directors’ duties, breach of confidentiality, protection of Databases and Trade Secrets, enforcement of restrictive covenants and third party liability. Successful applications have included interim and final injunctions, springboard relief, orders for delivery up and destruction, and substantial damages.
She has advised claimants and defendants, including C-suite executives, on negotiating appropriate undertakings, enforceability and severability of covenants, team moves and the use of garden leave, in addition to providing practical tactical guidance both before and after a claim is issued.
Kate Lumsdon KC defends and prosecutes a broad range of criminal and regulatory cases, from murder, rape and child abuse to corporate fraud.
Recent cases include a series of murders, fraud, drug conspiracy, child abuse and people trafficking.
As a Grade 4 prosecutor she prosecuted many multi-handed cases of murder, rape, systematic child abuse, armed robbery and drug importation and distribution.
She is a vulnerable witness advocacy trainer on behalf of the Criminal Bar Association.
Kate undertakes advisory work. She has advised a Government Department as to the viability of proposed criminal offences and potential alternative solutions. She has been asked to advise the CPS in respect of difficult charging decisions. She has advised private clients as to the viability of Judicial Review proceedings.
CRIME
Since taking silk in 2018 Kate has defended and prosecuted a series of murders, serious violence and sexual offences.
Many of her cases involve young or otherwise vulnerable people.
She deals with serious sexual offences from large scale multi-handed child abuse, people trafficking and prostitution to one off “date rape” situations.
She is familiar with cell site, telephone analysis and ANPR.
Notable cases:
R v K and K (2021) - Murder and attempted Murder by driving a car into a group of men
Murder of one man and grave injury to two more by deliberately driving into them at maximum acceleration. Leading Daniel Fugallo, 23es.
R v B, M and T (2021) – Murder by arson of a mother and child
Murder by arson of mother and child and s18 GBH of mother’s partner. Setting fire to a house at 1am as the family slept. Leading Rebecca Austin, 2KBW.
R v FI (2020) - Profound and permanent injury inflicted on new-born baby
Profound and permanent injury inflicted on new-born baby Section 18 GBH and Child Cruelty. 5 expert witnesses. Leading Lesley Bates, 23es.
R v RD (2020) - Murder
Defending a man charged with tying up and killing a woman in Gosport. Defendant of very low intelligence requiring an intermediary throughout trial. Leading Naomi Gyane of 3 Pump Court.
R v S (2019) – Murder
Representing the interests of a severely autistic and learning disabled man who killed his mother. Leading Lizzy Acker, 23 Essex Street.
R v G and another (2019) - Murder
Defending man charged with the murder of his friend following a disagreement arising out of drug dealing. Leading Simon Hanns, Crown Solicitors, Birmingham.
R v G (2019) – Murder
Prosecuting a man who stabbed his wife outside a primary school where she was collecting her children.
R v C (2019) – Murder
Prosecuting a man for assaulting a friend in drink – resolved by pleas to manslaughter.
R v D and W (2019) - Murder
Prosecuting murder, manslaughter and drug offences where a man was stabbed to death following the robbery of a drug dealer. Leading Tom Godfrey, 23 Essex Street.
R v M (2019) - Sexual Offences
Prosecuting Roman Catholic Priest for rape and sexual assault of 6 children in his congregation in the 1970s. Leading Claire Robinson, Charter Chambers.
R v L (2019) - Murder
Defending man who stabbed and killed his downstairs neighbour following a dispute over noise. Leading Tom Godfrey, 23 Essex Street.
R v A and others (2018) - Murder
Defending man with mental health difficulties who was jointly charged with murder. He was found unfit to plead a trial of whether he did the act was held alongside his fit co-defendants. Leading Rufus Taylor, 3 Paper Buildings.
R v L (2018) - Murder
Prosecuting man for murder who dropped a paving slab repeatedly on the head of a man sleeping rough at the Brighton Pavilion.
R v W (2018) - Murder
Defending man charged with murder who was attacked in his own home and responded by stabbing his assailant, killing him. Leading Tom Godfrey, 23 Essex Street.
R v A and 7 others (2018) - Drug Offences
Prosecuting county lines cocaine supply conspiracy. Leading Richard Moss, 4 King’s Bench Walk.
R v E and 7 others (2017) - Sexual Offences
Prosecuting historic child abuse ring perpetuated over generations of an extended family. Leading Tessa Hingston, CPS Wiltshire.
R v R (2017) - Sexual Offences
Defending young man charged with raping his wife. Crown persuaded not to proceed on production of 6 months of text messages between the two together with analysis of allegations.
R v M (2017) - Sexual Offences
Defending elderly man accused of raping his children in the 1970s/80s.
R v S and others (2017) - Murder
Prosecuting 8 handed intra-gang axe murder. Led by Mark Fenhalls QC.
R v B and others (2017) - Murder
Prosecuting 4 handed "honour killing". Led by John Price QC.
R v CIM (2016) - Sexual Offences
Defending solicitor charged with conspiracy to rape, trafficking, controlling prostitution and immigration offences. Led by Simon Russell Flint QC.
FRAUD, BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL CRIME
Kate Lumsdon QC defends and prosecutes corporate fraud in businesses from farms to animation companies.
Notable cases:
R v MP
Defending farmer charged with Bovine Tuberculosis Fraud, alleged to have defrauded DEFRA of £500,000 compensation by falsifying reactions to a tuberculin test. Challenge by way of expert evidence to basis of Prosecution case – dispute that histopathological reaction relied upon was indeed abnormal, rather was a typical reaction described in textbooks. Challenge too to the integrity of the APHA’s handling of samples. Further challenge to Government assumptions/theory about spread of Bovine TB, the efficacy of its eradication programme, the necessity for its onerous record keeping requirements. Case settled by pleas to regulatory offences; fraud not pursued. Leading Tom Godfrey of 23 Essex Street.
R v BW
Representing high profile tax advisor in complex case arising out of an action in the High Court. Led by Mark Fenhalls QC, 23 Essex Street.
R v G and another
Representing business man in the Midlands who made children’s television programmes and was alleged to have defrauded his investors. Led by Simon Russell Flint QC,
R v DB and another
Representing broker in complex corporate finance fraud ($38m) involving sale of large Nigerian telecommunications company. Led by Christopher Kinch QC, 23 Essex Street.
REGULATORY CRIME
Kate has prosecuted for the GMC and defends cases which cross the boundary between criminal offences and regulatory breaches.
Notable cases:
R v P
Defending farmer charged with fraudulently claiming compensation in relation to Bovine Tuberculosis. Case resolved by pleas to regulatory offences. Leading Tom Godfrey, 23 Essex Street.
R v S
Prosecuting a doctor for sexually assaulting a series of his patients.
R v H and another
Defending owner of Care Home, prosecuted for an offence under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Court of Appeal: R v Hopkins and Priest [2011] EWCA Crim 1513. Article “Prosecutors: Beware the MCA” (Archbold Review). Leading Barry McElduff, 2 King’s Bench Walk.
Family barrister Kate Yeomans is an experienced and tenacious advocate with a track record over fifteen years regularly representing applicants and respondents at all stages of family law proceedings, including multi-day fact-find and final hearings. She joined 3PB in September 2022 and is now developing a family finance practice as well.
Kate acts on behalf of local authorities, parents, children’s guardians, competent children and intervenors in a wide range of cases:
Chronic neglect
Drafting advices and threshold documents
Drug and alcohol abuse (including FDAC proceedings)
Adoption
Special Guardianship
Inflicted injuries
Domestic Violence
Child arrangements disputes, including intractable contact disputes
National and International Relocation
Parental Alienation
Kate is adept at building a rapport with clients swiftly, to ensure that they feel at ease and have confidence in her representation. Whilst maintaining an ability to empathise with her clients over issues that are important to them, she never shies away from delivering robust advice.
Whilst recognising the benefits of negotiation and compromise, Kate is a determined and forthright advocate who is always willing and prepared to fight for her clients.
Outside of her busy career at the Bar, Kate enjoys a young family and her main sporting interest of horse-riding; and has competed with two of her horses. She also enjoys running and is a die-hard Harry Potter fan.
Family
Family barrister Kate Yeomans has fifteen years advocacy experience representing applicants and respondents at all stages of family law proceedings, including multi-day fact-find and final hearings. In addition to children and care cases, she is now developing a family finance practice as well.
Reported cases:
Re C (Interim threshold not crossed) [2019] EWFC B5 (15 February 2019): on behalf of a grandfather, Kate successfully opposed the local authority’s application for an interim care order, where the plan was to remove the subject child from the care of her client for the duration of proceedings. Kate successfully persuaded the Court that interim threshold had not been crossed, thus avoiding the need for public law orders and ensuring that the subject child remained in his grandfather’s care.
Northamptonshire County Council v M, L, H, L, & N and E ((originally Re H-L (Summary Dismissal of Care Proceedings) [2019] EWCA Civ 704): following the conclusion of an 8-day Fact-Finding Hearing (which followed the Court of Appeal decision cited above), Kate’s client (the mother) was exonerated from having caused any of the inflicted injuries to her daughter and serious findings were made against the intervenor. As a result, Kate invited the local authority to withdraw their application for public law orders altogether and the case against her client was dismissed in its entirety.
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.
Lachlan is experienced in all areas of education, employment, and professional disciplinary law. He advises and represents individuals, employers, local authorities, schools, charities, and regulatory bodies.
Lachlan has particular experience in cases of discrimination (race, religion, sex, and disability), school admissions and exclusions, special educational needs, educational negligence, whistle-blowing, and fitness to practice hearings before professional regulators and University disciplinary and conduct panels.
The common theme to all Lachlan’s practice areas is human behaviour and conduct which requires understanding and scrutiny, whether it is exhibited by a child requiring specialist SEN provision; an individual before disciplinary proceedings, or an employer or professional carrying out their duties towards organisations and individuals.
Lachlan is also a trained mediator.
Education
Lachlan’s public and administrative law practice is centred on the field of education and he appears in Chambers and Partners for this field. He taught for a number of years before qualifying as a lawyer and now conducts cases involving a wide range of education law issues at all levels from the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal to the Court of Appeal.
Lachlan advises and represents children, parents, school proprietors and governing bodies, local education authorities, voluntary organisations and charitable trusts, further and higher education institutions, students, and universities, on the full range of education disputes, including:
School admissions - policies and appeals (including nursery and infant class admissions)
School exclusions - policies and appeals, and other pupil disciplinary matters
School attendance and registration of pupils
Discrimination (including allegations of disability discrimination before the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, and Independent Appeal Panel in cases of permanent exclusion)
Special Educational Needs (including hearings before, and appeals from, the SENDIST)
Local Government Ombudsman (complaints to, and challenges against decisions of)
Negligence in the field of Education
Employment in Education, and other education contracts
Charitable Trusts
Further and Higher Education – admissions, attendance, disciplinary issues
Universities - admissions, academic and disciplinary disputes, including fitness to practice panels.
Significant cases
R v Wakefield MDC ex p G ( LTL 30/1/98 : Times, February 10, 1998)
R v Wakefield LEA ex p K (LTL 24/6/99)
R v Oxfordshire CC Exclusions Appeal Panel, ex p P [2001] ELR 631
R v S Gloucestershire Education Appeals Committee, ex p B [2001] ELR 53
R (ota) Wakefield MDC v E and SENT (2002) ELR 2003
Olchfa Comprehensive School Governors v (1) IE & EE (2) Helen Rimington (Chair Of Special Educational Needs & Disability Tribunal) [2006] EWHC 1468 (Admin)
Centrepoint Soho Ltd v Ms S Omaboe [2017] UKEAT/0129/17/BA
East Sussex County Council v JC [2018] UKUT 81 (AAC)
The Harpur Trust v Brazel [2019] EWCA Civ 1402
Lachlan regularly advises both informally, and in formal presentations, on latest developments in Education Law.
Employment and Discrimination
disputes before employment tribunals throughout the country, and before the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
He was recently counsel for music teacher Mrs Lesley Brazel in her claims before the Court of Appeal and UK Supreme Court in the leading holiday pay case of The Harpur Trust v Brazel [2019] EWCA Civ 1402/The Harpur Trust v Brazel [2022] UKSC 21, regarding the statutory paid holiday entitlement of “part-year” workers on permanent contracts.
He specialises in areas of discrimination and public interest disclosure, but his extensive experience in employment litigation includes:
Unfair Dismissal claims (substantive and procedural, constructive, automatic)
Wrongful dismissal claims
Discrimination claims (disability, sex, sexual orientation, race, religious beliefs, gender reassignment)
Maternity rights
Equal Pay claims
Holiday pay and rights for part-year or part-time workers
Public Interest Disclosure claims (whistle-blowing)
Redundancy payment claims (statutory and contractual)
National Minimum Wage and Working Time disputes
Transfer-of-Undertakings (TUPE) disputes
Unlawful wage deduction claims
Employment Tribunal jurisdiction and procedural disputes
High Court and County Court litigation, including:
- contractual bonus and share issues
- restrictive covenants
- employers’ references
- vicarious liability for professional negligence
- fiduciary obligations of senior employees and directors.
In addition, Lachlan has advised extensively on the effective drafting of:
Contracts of employment, including restrictive covenant clauses
Confidentiality clauses
Disciplinary and grievance procedures
Compromise agreements.
As a trained mediator, Lachlan is also frequently called upon to act as counsel in mediations concerning employment disputes.
Recent cases
Perkin v St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust [2005] EWCA Civ 1174
Akhavan-Moossavi v Association of London Government (2005) UKEAT/0501/04
Vasquez-Guirado v Wigmore (2005) UKEAT/0033/05
Olchfa Comprehensive School Governors v (1) IE & EE (2) Helen Rimington (Chair Of Special Educational Needs & Disability Tribunal) [2006] EWHC 1468 (Admin)
Centrepoint Soho Ltd v Ms S Omaboe [2017] UKEAT/0129/17/BA
East Sussex County Council v JC [2018] UKUT 81 (AAC)
The Harpur Trust v Brazel [2019] EWCA Civ 1402/The Harpur Trust v Brazel [2022] UKSC 21
Lachlan is pleased to advise professional clients both informally, and in formal presentations, on latest developments in employment law. Further details can be obtained from the specialist clerk to the Employment Group.
Mediation
Lachlan is an Accredited Mediator.Public and Regulatory Lachlan Wilson's public and administrative law practice is focused in the field of education law disputes. He taught for a number of years before qualifying as a lawyer and now conducts cases involving a wide range of education law issues at all levels from the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal to the Court of Appeal. This includes dealing with teachers' disciplinary and regulatory cases.
Criminal barrister Laura Deuxberry has expertise in criminal, regulatory, public law and quasi-criminal/civil matters.
Laura is praised for her tenacious and robust approach in court, whilst outside of court, she has an approachable and reassuring manner with clients and witnesses, with whom she is quick to establish a rapport. Laura gives sensible, realistic advice. She has an ability to manage client’s and witnesses’ expectations, whilst also ensuring that they feel that their views have
been listened to.
Due to Laura’s manner, she is able to reach agreement with her opponents which results in successful resolutions to cases that otherwise may not have been possible.
Laura acts as a junior mentor for pupils within Chambers. She also mentors students who are thinking of pursuing a career in law and at the Bar. She has appeared as a guest speaker at events and she is keen to encourage people from all backgrounds to apply.
Laura is a Level 2 Prosecutor on the CPS Advocate Panel General Crime List.
CRIME
Laura Deuxberry prosecutes and defends in all areas of general crime including; drugs (possession and supply), offences against the person, arson, burglary, fraud, sexual
assaults, child offences (images, contact offences and child neglect), weapons offences, public order offences, breach proceedings, harassment and stalking.
Laura also acts in Youth Court proceedings. Her reassuring and approachable manner means that youth clients and their parents/carers are put at ease. Laura has defended in court martial hearings and is a keen supporter of military charities. She also spent time shadowing a prosecutor from the SPA.
Criminal Defence
Recent defence cases include:
R v GC (2022): successful appeal to the Court of Appeal regarding the imposition of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order. Order removed.
R v BD (2022): Newport IoW Crown Court, not guilty verdict of GBH after trial advancing self-defence.
R v EC (2022): successful in persuading the Crown to withdraw the case against a client with serious mental health difficulties who had assaulted paramedics and police in the midst of a mental health crisis.
R v FS (2022): Portsmouth Crown Court, suspended sentence for a client who pleaded guilty to child neglect x 3.
R v DH (2022): Newport IoW Crown Court, not guilty verdicts after trial relating to charges of ABH and having an offensive weapon in a public place
R v MS (2022): Portsmouth Crown Court, not guilty verdict after trial of ABH
R v SM (2022): Newport, IoW Crown Court, not guilty verdict after trial of assault by beating of an emergency worker
R v FD (2022): Newport, IoW Crown Court, not guilty verdict after trial of ABH on a prison officer.
R v JS (2022): Swindon Crown Court, not guilty of GBH and witness intimidation after trial.
R v L (2022): Bournemouth Crown Court, breach proceedings withdrawn after evidence of a reasonable excuse was presented to the NPS.
R v MN (2022): Bournemouth Crown Court, not guilty verdict in respect of a breach of a non-molestation order, the jury were hung on the second charge
and no retrial sought by Crown, not guilty verdict entered.
R v AS (2021): Salisbury Crown Court, dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit, successful submission of no case to answer, not guilty verdict entered.
R v ZA (2021): Crown persuaded to offer no evidence in respect of a charge of being concerned in the supply of class B, guilty plea to having a knife in a
public place, suspended sentence imposed, mitigation described as focussed and methodical.
R v LT (2021): Portsmouth Crown Court, successful application to dismiss charges of having an offensive weapon in a public place, affray and a public
order offence.
R v JH (2021): Newport IoW Crown Court, not guilty verdict after trial for a client with Asperger’s who had acted in self-defence but had been charged
with ABH.
R v SC (2021): Newport (Wales) Crown Court- Section 4A stalking causing serious alarm or distress, hung jury, no retrial sought, not guilty verdict
entered.
R v MK (2020): Southampton Crown Court- drove with excess alcohol (118mg in 100ml breath) and two charges of child neglect (children in the car when
drove with excess alcohol), avoided custodial sentence and obtained suspended sentence.
Criminal Prosecution
Recent prosecution cases include:
R v SB (ongoing): Portsmouth Crown Court, section 18 wounding with intent to cause GBH and section 20 wounding.
R v GH (2022): Weymouth stalker tried sell former partner home and firebombed neighbours car, case attracted widespread publicity including the Times and Dorset Echo.
R v SC (2021): assault of woman in Bournemouth hotel; the case was covered in the press including the Gazette.
R v AS and IL (2021): Portsmouth and Bournemouth Crown Court, ABH x 2, guilty verdicts after trial: press coverage included the Dorset Echo
PUBLIC AND REGULATORY
Professional discipline
During pupillage, Laura undertook a two-week secondment to the Nursing and Midwifery Council, during which she case presented at substantive order review hearings.
Her experience prior to coming to the Bar provided her with an excellent grounding in this area. She worked in conjunction with law firms to prepare a large professional negligence class action against financial advisers who had mis-sold complex tax schemes.
Taxi licence appeals
Laura has been instructed by local authority Councils to resist such appeals.
Education offences
Laura has prosecuted numerous hearings on behalf of Councils relating to education offences under the Education Act 1996.
Police matters
Laura has been instructed to represent the police in applications for domestic violence protection orders and in relation to shotgun appeals.
Environmental matters
Recent matters:
Buckinghamshire County Council v SS (2019) Aylesbury Crown Court- breach of statutory duties relating to controlled waste
PT v Blaby District Council (2018) Leicester Crown Court- appeal against conviction and sentenced for failure to comply with community protection notice, represented the Respondent Council, appeal dismissed
MOTORING OFFENCES
Laura prosecutes and defends in such matters. She represents both publicly-funded and privately paying clients.
Recent cases include:
R v NV (2022): Staines Magistrates’ Court, speeding and driving with no insurance, successful exceptional hardship argument, disqualification reduced
from 6 months to 4 weeks for a client who was a dentist and needed to drive for work.
R v VR (2021): Bournemouth Crown Court, successful appeal against conviction, s.172 offences x 2 (failure to provide information).
R v VD (2020): Thames Magistrates’ Court, driving with excess alcohol, (99 mg in 100ml breath) avoided a community order and received a curfew
R v JG (2020): Northampton Magistrates’ Court, careless driving, the Defendant had hit an elderly lady causing her to suffer two leg fractures, after
strong mitigation the client received a fine and 6 points avoiding disqualification.
R v RW (2019): Poole Magistrates’ Court, careless driving, the CPS offered no evidence after weaknesses in the case were highlighted
R v DP (2019): City of London Magistrates’ Court, careless driving and failure to stop - successfully defended a London taxi driver at trial.
R v EP (2019): Southampton Magistrates’ Court, speeding and s.172 offence, CPS offered no evidence in relation to both offences after documents were produced supporting the client’s defence
Family barrister Laura Scott practises exclusively in children and domestic violence law and has extensive experience representing parents, grandparents, children, guardians, extended family members and local authorities in all aspects of the law relating to children.
Formerly at two well-known London sets, Laura now lives in the Midlands and joined 3PB in August 2022. Laura has been consistently ranked as a top family law barrister by legal researchers at Legal 500, focusing on her public and private child care work and cases involving children where there are allegations or evidence of abuse.
Outside of work, Laura is a yoga and meditation teacher; she plays the drums and orchestral percussion and enjoys the cinema.
Family
Private Law Children
Laura Scott is experienced in dealing with all aspects of child arrangements, domestic violence allegations, extended family care arrangements (including grandparents’ applications for contact and residence), special guardianship, private adoption and leave to remove from the jurisdiction.
She is regularly instructed in complex matters involving allegations of emotional, physical and sexual abuse and in cases where the representation and joinder of children to proceedings is an issue.
Laura’s work often involves an international element and her practise encompasses applications by parents for leave to remove children permanently or temporarily from the jurisdiction.
Reported cases:
X v Y & Others (Assisted Reproduction: Parent) [2015] EWFC 13 (Fam): High Court declarations of parentage made in respect of father whose child was conceived using donated sperm, in circumstances where he had signed a consent form, which the fertility clinic had lost.
K v P [2008] EWCA Civ 600: Court of Appeal decision relating to the length of sentence imposed in respect of breaches of a non-molestation order to which a power of arrest was attached.
Re C-J (Section 91(14) Order) [2006] EWHC 1491 (Fam); [2006] 2 FLR 1213: Contact – appropriateness of s91 (14) order – exercise of district judge’s discretion.
Other cases include:
Re P [2021]: Acted for the child through their guardian in a matter where the immediate transfer of residence had been ordered after findings of parental alienation; subsequent agreement for contact with alienating parent reached through extensive negotiations with litigants in person.
Re M [2021]: Acted for a mother in a case of very serious parental alienation and unlawful retention where a local authority was compelled to take ICOs for 2 children at the court’s own motion and care proceedings then followed.
Re J [2016]: Acted for the father in seeking and obtaining parental alienation and physical abuse findings against a mother.
Public Law Children
Laura acts in matters involving all aspects of care and adoption, especially complex cases where there are allegations of non-accidental injuries and physical, sexual and emotional abuse, including historic allegations.
Laura is frequently instructed for fact-finding hearings and is adept at handling expert witnesses and voluminous medical evidence. She has a particular interest and expertise in dealing with vulnerable parties and witnesses, including those requiring the assistance of an intermediary.
Laura has several years’ experience in case managing complex local authority matters.
In addition to care proceedings, Laura also has experience in relation to education law and provides advice and representation in this area.
Reported Cases:
A (Care and Placement Orders) [2014] EWFC B143: Care proceedings involving applications for Care and Placement Orders. Represented the paternal aunt pro bono throughout High Court appeal and subsequent proceedings.
Other cases include:
Re C [2021]: Last minute representation of intervenor in very serious NAI. Complex case involving another intervenor lacking capacity but being compelled to give evidence.
Re J [2016]: Represented a mother accused of causing a number of fractures to a young baby. Mother exonerated of causing the injuries or failing to seek prompt medical attention.
Re A [2015]: Acted for a local authority in the 2nd set of care proceedings less than 18 months after conclusion of the first proceedings in relation to 5 children. Mother had transitioned gender without medical supervision.
Re B [2013]: Acted for the local authority seeking historic findings of CSE made against stepfather of adult daughter where younger siblings at risk and were being groomed by the father during supervised contact.
Lawrence is an experienced family law barrister advising in serious public law children cases, often appearing in High and County Courts. He has more than twenty five years experience as an advocate in public law children’s cases. He has also undertaken cases involving vulnerable adults and children for over 25 years in a variety of jurisdictions, including involving mental health and social care legislation, and undertakes Court of Protection cases.
He represents local authorities, relatives and patients in health and welfare issues.
Lawrence has chaired the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) Midlands Region Legal Group for some ten years and is a trainer on the paediatrician expert witness programme. He also lectures on aspects of public children law and often chairs related conferences and seminars, usually of a multidisciplinary nature.
Lawrence is an Accredited Mediation Advocate.
Family
Lawrence is an experienced family law barrister advising in public law children cases, often appearing in High and County Courts. He has more than twenty five years experience as an advocate in public law children’s cases.
Public Law Care and Adoption
Lawrence specialises in serious public law children’s cases, regularly appearing in the Family Division of the High Court. He is instructed by local authorities, parents and guardians.
He undertakes serious fact finding cases including cases where a child has died, NAHI, other serious non-accidental injury, fabricated or induced illness, as well as complex outcome hearings including those with an international element. As well as conventional public law children cases, Lawrence also advises and appears in those with sensitive medical and ethical aspects for example, cases where the lawfulness of whether to resuscitate a child is at issue or where one parent has killed the other.
He advises and appears in cases where there are serious issues of confidentiality and disclosure including those requiring the exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction and the making of reporting restriction orders to restrain media publication.
He is regularly instructed by local authorities, parents and guardians to advise where there are issues of particular procedural, jurisdictional or evidential complexity.
As a senior junior he regularly appears against silks and occasionally leads junior counsel.
Court of Protection
Lawrence is an experienced family law barrister advising in public law children cases, often appearing in High and County Courts. He has more than twenty five years experience as an advocate in public law children’s cases.
Health & Welfare
Lawrence has undertaken cases involving vulnerable adults and children for over 25 years. These cases have involved a variety of jurisdictions, including Mental Health and Social Care legislation, the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court and more recently the Court of Protection.
He has represented local authorities, relatives and patients. He has a number of qualities which have proved particularly relevant to these important and often complex cases.
Lawrence has chaired the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) Midlands Region Legal Group for some ten years and is a trainer on the pediatrician expert witness programme. He also lectures on aspects of public children law and often chairs related conferences and seminars, usually of a multidisciplinary nature.
Reported Cases
Re ABC (Children: Overlaying Child) [2020] EWFC [57]
Lawrence advised Nottinghamshire County Council in the High Court case exercising its powers, under the inherent jurisdiction, in relation to a treatment plan for a young child involving the withdrawal of life-supporting treatment and the institution of palliative care measures. Please click here for more information.
RE AA (Children) & 25 Ors [2019] EWFC 64
RE: R – A – Child [2019] EWCA 482 Civ
Re T (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 650
Re F (A child) 11 Dec 2015 (HHJ Rundell)
Birmingham City Council v CH [2015] EWFC 66
Re EK (Child: therapy) [2013] EWHC 3747 (Fam)
A City Council v M [2013] 1 FLR 517
Re L (A child) [2011] EWHC 1285 (Fam) (Judge Bellamy)
Actual errors and omissions in articles written by a journalist about care proceedings demonstrated the dangers in relying on partisan reporting by family members and supporters rather than attending court hearings to hear the evidence the court itself heard.
Re A and B (one parent killed by the other - guidance) [2010] EWHC B25 (Fam)(Hogg J) (7 September 2010)
Hogg J considered the issues in a case where one parent had been killed by the other and gave extensive guidance about such cases.
W-P (Children) [2009] EWCA CIV 216 (Sir Mark Potter (President), Smith LJ, Wilson LJ) [2009] 2 FLR 200
The Court of Appeal considered an appeal by a local authority against findings of fact made in respect of non-accidental injuries sustained by a seven week old baby.
X and Y v a Local Authority (Adoption: Procedure) [2009] EWHC 47 (Fam) McFarlane J [2009] 2 FLR 984
McFarlane J considered a failure by the Family Proceedings Court to meet the requirements of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 s.46(6). An agreement which had been reached between local authority and birth parent on a regime for postadoption contact about which the adopters were not informed and to which the adopters would not agree was set aside.
Re B (Minor) 2008 EWHC 1996 Coleridge J 10/6/08 (Lawfulness of not resuscitating disabled child)
The court considered whether it would be lawful and in the best interests of a profoundly mentally and physically disabled child for her not to receive intensive resuscitation, if she developed a deteriorating illness or became severely unwell
A County Council v a Mother, a Father and X, Y and Z (by their guardian) [2005] EWHC 31 (Fam) Ryder J[2005] 2 FLR 129
Ryder J considered the proper approach to deducing the welfare of the child. It was a multi-faceted concept which could not be deduced from any one professional perspective. He also considered the relevance of the terms ‘Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy’ and ‘Factitious/fabricated (and induced) illness (by proxy)’ concluding that they were not descriptions of a disease, but merely descriptions of a range of behaviours whose context and assessments could provide insight into the degree of risk a child might face.
Louise Worton is a highly respected practitioner, with a particular emphasis on property and matrimonial finance.
She is an accredited mediation advocate.
Family
Louise’s practice covers all aspects of matrimonial finance provision. She undertakes First Appointments, Financial Dispute Resolutions and Final Hearings. She deals with family finance upon separation and her cases include financial provision on divorce, Trusts of Land Act applications and Schedule One applications for children.
With her complimentary chancery practice, Louise is particularly well placed to deal with cases involving farms and estates, inheritance, land and estate/farm management, partnerships, third party intervention and other property aspects. She also has considerable experience in dealing with enforcement and variation proceedings.
She is a member of the Family Law Bar Association and also a qualified mediation advocate.
Private Remote FDR Hearings
Louise is available for private remote FDR hearings.
Property and Estates
Louise is a specialist property and chancery practitioner, with a particular emphasis on the law of landlord and tenant. She undertakes a broad range of work in this field. Her work covers both residential and commercial property and includes advising, drafting and advocacy. She is Deputy Head of 3PB's Property and Estates Group.In the residential sphere, Louise is frequently instructed in possession actions by both tenants and landlords, which regularly include a number of local authorities and housing associations. She is experienced in dealing with a range of claims dealing with breaches of covenant, particularly quiet enjoyment and disrepair. She has been involved in a number of cases concerning anti-social behaviour. Louise has considerable experience in successfully obtaining orders against trespassers.
In relation to business premises, Louise has a broad client base, which includes a number of major public house chains and breweries. Her commercial work includes lease renewal disputes, forfeiture and disrepair.
Louise has undertaken a number of cases in relation to mobile homes. Her agricultural work includes farm business tenancies, agricultural occupancies and allotments.
Louise regularly appears before the First Tier Tribunal, both in London and in the regions. She acts on behalf of lessors and lessees. She has particular experience in service charge disputes and determinations under section 168 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
Louise has a broad practice in respect of the Court Of Protection, with a natural emphasis on property and financial affairs and has been involved in matters under both the old regime and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Examples of cases in which she has been instructed include the proper exercise of the powers of a deputy, capacity to consent to marriage and sexual relations, revocation of an enduring power of attorney, capacity to create a lasting power of attorney and the contested approval of a statutory will.
Louise’s property and chancery practice includes the following areas:
Boundary disputes
Rights of way and other easements
Applications under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996
Wills
Contentious probate
Insolvency
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claims
She is a longstanding member of the Property Bar Association. She is also an accredited mediation advocate.
Louise’s practice covers all aspects of matrimonial finance provision. She undertakes First Appointments, Financial Dispute Resolutions and Final Hearings. She deals with family finance upon separation and her cases include financial provision on divorce, Trusts of Land Act applications and Schedule One applications for children.
With her complimentary chancery practice, Louise is particularly well placed to deal with cases involving farms and estates, inheritance, land and estate/farm management, partnerships, third party intervention and other property aspects. She also has considerable experience in dealing with enforcement and variation proceedings.
Court of Protection
Louise has a busy practice in respect of the Court Of Protection, with a natural emphasis on property and financial affairs and has been involved in matters under both the old regime and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Examples of cases in which she has been instructed include the proper exercise of the powers of a deputy, revocation of an enduring power of attorney, capacity to create a lasting power of attorney, the contested approval of a statutory, best interests decisions in relation to contact and DOLs.
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
Luke is a financial remedies and TOLATA specialist. Luke is also comfortable undertaking other chancery work such as probate and Inheritance Act disputes.
He has also recently built a strong practice in child maintenance appeals; advising from the inception of a case through to representation at the Social Entitlement Chamber.
Luke is approachable, calm, confident and able to put his clients at ease: utilising the skills he acquired in his previous life in the entertainment industry. He offers a sensible, pragmatic and persuasive approach to the matters in which he is instructed.
Luke offers a principled, interest-focused approach to negotiations, whether at FDR, mediation or through correspondence. Luke understands that the key to a successfully negotiated outcome is achieving an outcome that satisfies both parties’ interests. He pursues that goal with compassion, focus and issue-centric advocacy.
Luke is an experienced trial advocate. He is regularly praised for his clear and effective cross-examination and his ability to consolidate his trial preparation with the evidence to create a compelling closing speech.
Advocacy & Legal Experience
Prior to commencing pupillage, Luke worked as a part-time lecturer in Family Law at the University of Gloucestershire. He taught private family law to the second year students at the university, setting and marking coursework, teaching lectures and seminars and delivering online lectures.
Luke also undertook work as a solicitor’s agent: providing advocacy services on various property matters across the country.
Biography
Luke has an unusual biography for a barrister, having been the drummer and manager of a heavy metal band until 2014, playing numerous concerts across the UK and recording an album during a six year career in the music industry; all while managing a successful pool bar.
Interests
Outside work, music still remains a great interest, as well as heath, fitness and cooking.
Property and Estates
Luke has a particular interest in matters arising out of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and is comfortable advising and advocating in concurrent Schedule 1 Children Act matters. Luke provides advice in conference or on paper and has a sound knowledge of the principles of equitable accounting and occupation rent.
Luke is a skilled mediation advocate. He utilises his knowledge of the law to achieve practical, client-led solutions which work (so far as possible) for both sides. Luke understands that the key to successful mediation is identifying and addressing each party’s competing interests and developing a solution that satisfies both.
Luke has recent experience in the following:
Drafting statements of case and advising on prospects and offers pre-issue
Advising and appearing in all hearings from inception of the claim, to CCMC to final hearing
Advising in relation to the establishment of a constructive trust based on an agreement which was never executed, where the defendant was refusing to make mortgage payments over the property and possession proceedings were impending
Advising and representing a client in a case involving large contributions from both sides, a reconciliation and considerable sums spent on renovations
Representing a client in a long-running case alongside Children Act sch 1 proceedings where the respondent had suppressed the profit-earning capacity of the business in order to remain in the FFH
Advising on a matter involving an agreement to transfer the beneficial interest in a property where the buy-out sum was never paid
Obtaining strike out and summary judgment against a company who wrongfully asserted the existence of a common intention constructive trust, proprietary estoppel and agreement to dispose of beneficial interest in domestic property
Family
Luke undertakes a primarily finance-based practice: specialising in financial remedies, co-ownership disputes and contested divorce. Luke is known for his down-to-earth, practical and pragmatic approach to financial cases as well as his deft client care skills. He approaches all matters knowing that his clients are experiencing one of the most difficult times of their lives and endeavours to ease their burden with an easy rapport and clear advice.
Luke taught private family law and financial remedies at the University of Gloucester before joining chambers and uses this experience in the matters in which he is instructed.
Finance
Luke is a specialist financial remedies barrister. Luke is known for his down-to-earth, practical and pragmatic approach to financial cases as well as his deft client care skills. He approaches all matters knowing that his clients are experiencing one of the most difficult times of their lives and endeavours to ease their burden with an easy rapport and clear advice.
Luke taught private family law and financial remedies at the University of Gloucester before joining chambers and uses this experience in the matters in which he is instructed.
Financial Remedies
Luke has experience in a wide variety of financial remedies matters. He is able to run a case through from FDA to Final Hearing. He is also comfortable advising on enforcement actions, setting aside consent orders and intervener actions. Luke is also happy to draft all documents required in financial remedies matters, including questionnaires, schedules of deficiency, offer letters & interim applications. Luke frequently acts in cases involving foreign property, contested business valuations and intervener actions. Luke has recent experience in the following:
Representing the company of a wealthy husband which was asserting ownership over various matrimonial properties in the High Court alongside and against leading Queen’s Counsel
Advising and representing in a matter involving an alleged fraudulent disposition of cross-border property
Successfully establishing the validity of an ante-nuptial agreement alleged to have been entered into under duress
Successfully arguing an add-back of c.£50k in a needs case
Prosecuting an application for committal based on consistent failures to comply with the service of financial disclosure
Resisting an application for a Legal Services Payment Order where both parties worked and lived in Australia and the UK
Advising on and drafting an application to freeze assets pending the outcome of financial remedy proceedings
Assisting Hamish Dunlop in a long-running farming case involving inherited wealth and equestrian assets; the latter issue forming the basis of concurrent intervener proceedings
TOLATA
Luke has a particular interest in matters arising out of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and is comfortable advising and advocating in concurrent Schedule 1 Children Act matters. Luke provides advice in conference or on paper and has a sound knowledge of the principles of equitable accounting and occupation rent.
Luke is a skilled mediation advocate. He utilises his knowledge of the law to achieve practical, client-led solutions which work (so far as possible) for both sides. Luke understands that the key to successful mediation is identifying and addressing each party’s competing interests and developing a solution that satisfies both.
Luke has recent experience in the following:
Drafting statements of case and advising on prospects and offers pre-issue
Advising and appearing in all hearings from inception of the claim, to CCMC to final hearing
Advising in relation to the establishment of a constructive trust based on an agreement which was never executed, where the defendant was refusing to make mortgage payments over the property and possession proceedings were impending
Advising and representing a client in a case involving large contributions from both sides, a reconciliation and considerable sums spent on renovations
Representing a client in a long-running case alongside Children Act sch 1 proceedings where the respondent had suppressed the profit-earning capacity of the business in order to remain in the FFH
Advising on a matter involving an agreement to transfer the beneficial interest in a property where the buy-out sum was never paid
Obtaining strike out and summary judgment against a company who wrongfully asserted the existence of a common intention constructive trust, proprietary estoppel and agreement to dispose of beneficial interest in domestic property
Injunctions
Luke accepts instructions relating to injunctions and ownership of property, including non-molestation orders, occupation orders and applications for transfer of tenancy – usually linked to concurrent or impending financial remedy proceedings.
Luke is experienced in advising on applications for freezing injunctions and avoidance of disposition orders under the Matrimonial Causes Act, Senior Courts Act and the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
Property
Luke has a particular interest in matters arising out of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 and is comfortable advising and advocating in concurrent Schedule 1 Children Act matters. Luke provides advice in conference or on paper and has a sound knowledge of the principles of equitable accounting and occupation rent.
Luke is a skilled mediation advocate. He utilises his knowledge of the law to achieve practical, client-led solutions which work (so far as possible) for both sides. Luke understands that the key to successful mediation is identifying and addressing each party’s competing interests and developing a solution that satisfies both.
Luke has recent experience in the following:
Drafting statements of case and advising on prospects and offers pre-issue
Advising and appearing in all hearings from inception of the claim, to CCMC to final hearing
Advising in relation to the establishment of a constructive trust based on an agreement which was never executed, where the defendant was refusing to make mortgage payments over the property and possession proceedings were impending
Advising and representing a client in a case involving large contributions from both sides, a reconciliation and considerable sums spent on renovations
Representing a client in a long-running case alongside Children Act sch 1 proceedings where the respondent had suppressed the profit-earning capacity of the business in order to remain in the FFH
Advising on a matter involving an agreement to transfer the beneficial interest in a property where the buy-out sum was never paid
Obtaining strike out and summary judgment against a company who wrongfully asserted the existence of a common intention constructive trust, proprietary estoppel and agreement to dispose of beneficial interest in domestic property
Injunction
Luke accepts instructions relating to injunctions and ownership of property, including non-molestation orders, occupation orders and applications for transfer of tenancy – usually linked to concurrent or impending financial remedy proceedings.
Luke is experienced in advising on applications for freezing injunctions and avoidance of disposition orders under the Matrimonial Causes Act, Senior Courts Act and the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
Prior to coming to the Bar, Makhsudul was a litigation lawyer for two international law firms, bringing a wealth of experience and understanding of private practice.
Makhsudul has built up a busy court practice of trials and interlocutory hearings. Away from court, he drafts opinions, pleadings, conducts conferences and acts as a mediation-advocate. He has a strong following and is regularly instructed by leading international (including law firms from the UAE) and regional commercial law firms.
Makhsudul's practice primarily focuses on commercial litigation, including contractual disputes, debt recovery, supply of goods and services and enforcement of personal guarantees.
Clients have praised Makhsudul's technical ability, attention to detail, his effectiveness in giving detailed and clear opinions early on in proceedings, and his ability to put solicitor and lay clients at ease with his personable approach.
Makhsudul is a finalist for Barrister of the Year at the Worcestershire Law Society Awards 2023.
Interests
Outside of work, Makhsudul is keen on keeping fit and mental well-being. He enjoys weight training, football, cycling, travelling and reading. He is also a self-confessed "horologist" and has a passion for collecting vintage timepieces.
Commercial
Makhsudul accepts instructions on a wide range of commercial disputes including contractual breaches, breach of manufacturer warranty, loss of chance/opportunity claims, debt recovery, supply of goods and services and enforcement of personal guarantees.
He regularly represents some of the leading insurers, technology giants, banks, energy providers, shopping complexes, private schools and builders’ merchants in the UK.
Makhsudul’s recent experience includes defending a luxury German and Japanese vehicle manufacturer against professional negligence and breach of manufacturer warranty claim.
Aside from attending hearings and trials, Makhsudul is very well-versed in drafting opinions and pleadings in commercial matters. He is well-known for turning around opinions and pleadings very quickly and well in advance of any set deadlines.
Some of his recent work include:
Advising and drafting the Particulars of Claim for a leading energy provider on its prospects of recovering outstanding payments from a well-renowned hotel chain.
Advising a private school on its prospect of recovering outstanding school fees.
Advising and drafting a skeleton argument in a dispute between an ex-husband and wife arising out of the breach of an oral agreement.
Advising and drafting a Reply to Defence and Counterclaim, for an estate agent on an alleged oral variation to the terms and conditions and its entitlement to commission on the sale of a portfolio of properties.
Advising one of the largest builders’ merchants in the UK on their prospects of enforcing a personal guarantee against a director.
Advising and drafting Defences on behalf of a company and one of its directors who were being pursued by a consultant.
Advising a leading hotel chain on its contractual liability to contractors in the event of an Act of God (i.e. the COVID-19 pandemic).
Advising a consumer and drafting the Particulars of Claim in a claim against a well-renowned German luxury car brand for breach of contract.
Advising and drafting the Particulars of Claim for a property developer in recovering outstanding commercial rent arrears.
Advising and attending a trial on behalf of structural engineers for payment of outstanding invoices concerning desktop designs for an excavation that had gone wrong.
Advising a consultancy of construction experts on its prospects of recovering outstanding fees from an international law firm and a project management company.
Advising a renowned Japanese vehicle manufacturer on the prospects of success of obtaining a strike out and summary judgment on a professional negligence and breach of warranty claim.
As an extension of Makhsudul’s commercial practice, he can also attend the following hearings if required:
Returns of goods
Possession (relating to section 8 and section 21 notices)
Application to suspend warrant of eviction
Trespass
Forfeiture
Appeals
In addition to the above, Makhsudul has experience of drafting forfeiture proceedings both for non-payment of rent and “other” breaches. He regularly advises commercial landlords and legal expenses insurers on breaches of lease agreements, interpretation of clauses and the prospects of obtaining an order for forfeiture.
Insolvency
Makhsudul attends bankruptcy and winding-up hearings on a regular basis at the Royal Courts of Justice and regional Business & Property courts. Aside from attending hearings, Makhsudul has experience of drafting:
Statutory demands
Verification of petitions
Insolvency Act applications
Settling witness statements on behalf of creditors contesting the annulment of a bankruptcy order
Opinions on the prospects of obtaining a bankruptcy or winding-up order.
Enforcement
As a result of Makhsudul’s commercial practice and in particular his specialism of debt recovery, clients regularly instruct him to attend enforcement hearings. He is able to attend the following hearings:
Charging order
Orders for sale
Third party debt order
Attachments of earning order
Determination.
Costs
Makhsudul is very well-versed in costs law and has substantial experience in attending Costs and Case Management Conferences (CCMCs), costs applications, summary and detailed assessment hearings. Aside from advising and attending hearings, he is able to draft costs budgets (Precedent H), budget discussion reports (Precedent R), points of dispute, costs applications and skeleton arguments.
Marc is an experienced commercial and chancery practitioner, and is Head of 3PB's Commercial team. His broad litigation and advisory work covers most areas of the law normally litigated in the Chancery and Queens Bench Division, including:
Company law and partnership
Shareholder disputes
Corporate and personal insolvency
Breach of Contract
Furthermore, Marc has developed a practice acting for lenders and in particular short-term bridging lenders and mortgage/civil fraud related disputes. He has also recently acted for Defendants in a number of complicated ‘land banking’ claims brought in the Chancery Division by the Financial Services Authority.
Marc has also been a High Court Examiner for the purpose of litigation in the United States of America and has appeared in the Privy Council on appeal from the New Zealand Court of Appeal as well as advising in the Isle of Man on a case involving British litigants and Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise.
Furthermore, Marc has developed a practice acting for lenders and in particular short-term bridging lenders and mortgage/civil fraud related disputes. He has also recently acted for Defendants in a number of complicated ‘land banking’ claims brought in the Chancery Division by the Financial Services Authority.
Marc has also been a High Court Examiner for the purpose of litigation in the United States of America and has appeared in the Privy Council on appeal from the New Zealand Court of Appeal as well as advising in the Isle of Man on a case involving British litigants and Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise.
COMMERCIAL
Marc’s practice covers a broad range of chancery and commercial litigation and he has substantial experience in both litigation and advisory work. In particular, Marc’s practice covers high value contractual disputes, insolvency & bankruptcy and company related disputes with an emphasis on partnership and shareholder disputes, fraudulent/wrongful trading and breach of director’s duties.
Marc has developed a particular expertise in acting for lenders and in particular short-term bridging lenders and mortgage/civil fraud related disputes.
He has also recently acted for defendants in a number of complicated ‘land banking’ claims brought in the Chancery Division by the Financial Services Authority.
Marc has also been a High Court Examiner for the purpose of litigation in the United States of America and has appeared in the Privy Council on appeal from the New Zealand Court of Appeal as well as advising in the Isle of Man on a case involving British litigants and Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise.
Current Work
Acting in a number of substantial linked cases proceeding in the High Court involving claims in which the claimants are suing for the return of money allegedly paid to the defendant for the purchase of property in Dubai, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation by D.
A substantial case proceeding in the High Court in which C, a Kuwaiti, is claiming a right to ‘trace’ money into a property purchased by D in this jurisdiction.
A case proceeding in the Chancery Division of the High Court involving the use of alleged ‘confidential information’ obtained from the husband by the wife in which the husband is seeking to injunct the wife from using the material in family proceedings.
Recent Cases
County Leasing Asset Management Ltd & 5 ors v Mark Glenn Hawkes [2015] CA
Wingfield Financial Heritage v Ikeji [2015] High Court QBD
Acting for the claimant lender in several hearings before Chancery judges and QB
Masters in a claim in which issues of ‘default penalty interest’ arose
Elliott Green (as liquidator of Ice Commercial Developments Ltd) v Singh [2014]
ChD (Manchester District Registry)
Acting on behalf of a former director of the company and successfully resisting a claim for damages for wrongful trading
Foreprime Properties Limited v Cheval Bridging Finance [2014] ChD
Successfully representing the defendant in a claim where the claimant alleged sale by the defendant mortgagee in possession of property at an undervalue
Martha Khan v Samir Bashir [2013] EWHC 957 QB
Freezing order/striking out claim
Grunwick v Dhanak & Perera [2012] EWCA Civ 1250
Acting for one of the defendants (D) in a trial that lasted over 2 weeks and then in the Court of Appeal. P was employed by G in their silver recovery department. He sold silver flakes to D, D did not pay and P sued D. G found out about the claim and joined into the claim, alleging that the silver flakes had been stolen from them by P. D successfully raised the defence of ‘illegality’ to resist P’s claim. G succeeded against P but did not pursue D.
Notable Cases
County Leasing Asset Management Ltd & 5 ors v Mark Glenn Hawkes [2015] EWCA Civ 1251 - Acting for the successful appellants in this case, in which the Court of Appeal has provided guidance on the principles applicable to the Court’s discretion, when making an order for the restoration of a dissolved company, to order that the period of dissolution should not count for limitation purposes: aka a ‘limitation direction’.
Wingfield Financial Heritage v Ikeji [2015] High Court QBD - Acting for the claimant lender in several hearings before Chancery judges and QB Masters in a claim in which issues of ‘default penalty interest’ arose.
Elliott Green (as liquidator of Ice Commercial Developments Ltd) v Singh [2014] ChD (Manchester District Registry) - Acting on behalf of a former director of the company and successfully resisting a claim for damages for wrongful trading.
Foreprime Properties Limited v Cheval Bridging Finance [2014] ChD - Successfully representing the defendant in a claim where the claimant alleged sale by the defendant mortgagee in possession of property at an undervalue.
Martha Khan v Samir Bashir [2013] EWHC 957 QB - Freezing order/striking out claim.
Grunwick v Dhanak & Perera [2012] EWCA Civ 1250 - Acting for one of the defendants (D) in a trial that lasted over 2 weeks and then in the Court of Appeal. P was employed by G in their silver recovery department. He sold silver flakes to D, D did not pay and P sued D. G found out about the claim and joined into the claim, alleging that the silver flakes had been stolen from them by P. D successfully raised the defence of ‘illegality’ to resist P’s claim. G succeeded against P but did not pursue D.
PROPERTY AND ESTATES
Marc Brittain has a longstanding practice in advising and representing clients in court in property disputes, notably in ‘mortgage’ issues, especially in relation to sub-prime lenders.
His current caseload includes :
a claim on behalf of a client who purchased a property, or at least he thought he did, only to find that the ‘seller’ was a fraudster – the issues are the same as in the fairly recent case of Dreamvar;
a defendant in a "right of light" case – in which we have experts reports with differing modules and other complications;
a case for a defendant property developer who charged his portfolio to a ‘bridger’, and where the ‘bridger’ has alleged a breach of the legal charge leading to receivers being appointed. Marc is in the process of applying for injunctive relief on the basis that although one of the properties was let out to a ‘relative’ within the meaning of the legal charge, the borrower was his client’s company and a company cannot have ‘relatives’ within the meaning of the prohibition in the legal charge;
a claim on behalf of another developer who purchased a property in a development in Manchester with a car parking space that is too small to fit a car into, thereby substantially reducing the value of the property;
a dispute relating to service charges and rent arrears in relation to a property purchased at auction – construction of the lease and auction particulars; and
a recent liability trial in which the landlord client had served a s.146 notice and then evicted the tenant. The validity of a s.146 notice and thereafter a quantum trial in which various issues were argued. Construction of the lease, election re mesne profits/lost business profits, how mesne profits were to be calculated (by reference to the rent paid under the lease or by reference to the rent at which the landlord was now advertising the premises), exemplary damages were all argued in the case.
He is variously instructed by both solicitors and on a direct access basis, by developers, commercial tenants and property professionals.
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.
Prior to coming to the Bar, Mark Sullivan qualified as a Chartered Accountant and then worked for 14 years in international investment banking in London and New York. He is registered for direct access.
His principal areas of practice are:
Personal Injury
Mark acts for both Claimants and Defendants in all types of personal injury actions. He has particular experience and expertise in employer’s liability, road traffic and fatal accident claims. His background in accountancy enables him to deal with complex financial loss claims including loss of self-employment, loss of business and pension claims.
Inquests
Mark has extensive experience of representing bereaved families, employers, highway authorities and other interested parties at Pre-Inquest Hearings and Inquests, including Article 2 Inquests.
Clinical Negligence
He acts primarily for Claimants in all types of clinical negligence actions. Recent cases include acting for Claimants in relation to delayed diagnosis of cancer, failure to diagnose acute respiratory failure in a young adult, negligently performed hysterectomy and injury caused by misplaced nasogastric tube.
Professional Disciplinary
Mark brings his many years of experience as a criminal advocate to the field of professional disciplinary proceedings. He advises and represents firms and individuals before the disciplinary and fitness to practise committees of various professional bodies in the healthcare, accountancy, finance and related sectors.
He sits as a Legal Assessor/ Adviser to a number of professional disciplinary bodies in the healthcare and finance sectors.
Licensing and Regulatory
Mark represents Commercial and Public Service Vehicle Operators in the criminal courts and appears frequently in Public Inquiries before the Traffic Commissioners.
He also advises and represents individuals and firms before Admissions, Registration and Licensing Committees of various professional bodies and in the Tribunal System (Social Care and Social Entitlement Chambers).
Professional Negligence
Mark acts for both Claimants and Defendants, particularly in relation to actions involving accountants, tax advisers, financial advisers and solicitors.
PERSONAL INJURY
Mark acts for both Claimants and Defendants in all types of personal injury actions. He has particular experience and expertise in employer’s liability, road traffic and fatal accident claims. His background in accountancy enables him to deal with complex financial loss claims including loss of self-employment, loss of business and pension claims.
He accepts instructions under Conditional Fee Agreements in appropriate cases. He is registered for direct access.
Fatal Accidents
Current and recent cases include:
G v K – fatal accident involving young wife and mother of 3 children. Advised on quantum and apportionment
F v G – acted for dependant Claimants following fatal accident involving death of a Kenyan national with family in Kenya and USA
J v E Ltd. – claim on behalf of dependent partner of mesothelioma victim who had been a successful entrepreneur and had just started a new business at the date of his death
C v H Ltd. – claim on behalf of mesothelioma victim who owned and operated a guest house with his dependent widow.
Employer’s liability
He has appeared, primarily for Claimants, in a large number of cases involving breaches of all of the major sets of regulations.
Current and recent cases include:
R v W Ltd and another – represented Claimant under a CFA in claim relating to injuries sustained in an accident in a farmyard from where he was collecting milk. Successful at trial against both employer and owner of yard under the Workplace Regulations and PUWER
H v PE Ltd. – represented Claimant in complex claim brought under the Manual Handling Regulations
G v OAU – represented Claimant under a CFA in relation to injuries sustained while working on an archaeological dig. Successful at trial under the Workplace Regulations
F v C Ltd – represented Claimant under a CFA in relation to injuries sustained in an accident involving hydraulic machinery. Defendant eventually admitted liability under the PUWER and Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000
A v B&C Ltd. and others- represented Claimant in multi-Defendant claim for HAVS resulting from employment in shipyards and boat-builders between mid-1970s and 2010
D v C Ltd.- represented Claimant in action for RSI arising from employment on production line
S v NHS – represented Claimant in case against NHS Trust for injuries sustained in an assault by a patient in a secure mental institution.
He has also represented Claimants in relation to claims under the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2007, Control of Vibration at Work Regulations 2005 and Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1994, amongst others.
Road Traffic
Current and recent cases in which liability has been in dispute include:
R v SB Ltd. – represented Claimant under a CFA in relation to an accident involving a bus and a pedestrian in which the Claimant suffered severe brain damage. Reconstruction experts instructed for both sides. Claim settled pre-trial
B v W – acted for Defendant in multi-car pile-up. Represented him in criminal proceedings and then advised insurer on liability apportionment
B v W – acted for Claimant, a pedestrian who was knocked down by the Defendant. Liability resolved 70/30 in her favour.
Other Quantum Claims
M v C Ltd – acted for Claimant injured in accident on building site which lead to the demise of his successful business
W v J – acted for Claimant who was a doctor injured in a car accident. Unfit to return to work. Advised on significant loss of earnings and pension claim
H v S – acted for Claimant in complex loss of earnings claim arising from loss of career as a foreign exchange trader.
C v C – acted under a CFA for a semi-professional footballer badly injured in a dangerous tackle
C v WG – represented Claimant in action in relation to food poisoning leading to the development of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
S v B – represented Defendant in relation to allegations of sexual abuse. Issue included resisting application for a freezing order
H v B – represented Defendant convicted of sexual offences; advising on quantum and negotiating settlement.
In addition to acting in civil proceedings, he is frequently instructed by insurers to represent Defendants in related criminal proceedings for causing death by dangerous and/ or careless driving.
Mark has extensive experience of representing the deceased’s family, interested parties, employers and highway authorities at Inquests.
INQUESTS
Mark has extensive experience of representing bereaved families, employers, highway authorities and other interested parties at Pre-Inquest Hearings and Inquests, including Article 2 Inquests.
Current and recent instructions include:
Representing the parents of Arietta-Grace Barnett (d.o.b. 6th June 2017) at the Inquest into her death on 9th July 2019. In the course of the 2 day hearing in Winchester Coroner’s Court on 4/5th November 2020, the Coroner, Rosamund Rhodes-Kemp, heard evidence into the tragic circumstances of Arietta’s death. She had been taken to hospital on 28th June 2019 following the suspected accidental ingestion of a toilet cleaning product. She was detained in hospital until 2nd July 2019 and then discharged, apparently well. On 9th July 2019 she suffered a fatal haemorrhage from an aorto-oesophageal fistula. The evidence at the Inquest was unclear on the precise cause of the fistula although it was postulated that it may have been as a result of the cleaning product, which was a viscous gel-like substance designed to stick to wet surfaces, adhering to Arietta’s oesophagus.
The Coroner recorded a conclusion of accidental death. Although declining at this time to make a report to prevent future deaths under Coroners & Justice Act 2009, s.7, she has requested further investigations into the composition of the cleaning product in order to establish if it was a possible cause of the fistula.
Mark acted for the bereaved parents via the Direct Access scheme.
Representing family of bereaved at Pre-Inquest Hearings in relation to Inquest into death of elderly man following a cycling accident and subsequent hospitalisation. Cause of death was controversial and Mark was instructed to represent the deceased’s family, making representations as to the scope of the Inquest and the evidence to be adduced.
Advising bereaved family, under direct access arrangement, following death of a woman while undergoing medical treatment. Advice covered scope and procedure of an Article 2 Inquest, witness requirements and possible sources of funding.
Representing seriously injured interested party at Inquest involving a fatal road traffic accident, including examination of several expert witnesses and making submissions as to the available verdicts.
Several cases representing Highway Authorities in connection with fatal road traffic accidents.
Representing employer at jury Inquest involving death of employee while operating a ride-on mower.
Mark Sullivan is registered for Direct Access. He has also specialises in Fatal Accident Claims (see Personal Injury entry) and has provided representation at Inquests under Conditional Fee Agreements covering a related civil claim.
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE
Mark acts primarily for Claimants in all types of clinical negligence actions.
He accepts instructions under Conditional Fee Agreements in appropriate cases. He is registered for direct access.
Current and Recent Cases
OH v UHS – advising Claimant on causation and quantum arising from a vesico-vaginal fistula caused by negligent surgery during a hysterectomy
E v MDU – advising Claimant in relation to alleged negligence on part of his GP for failing to refer for specialist treatment of complex neurological condition
R v SGH – advising Claimant in relation to breach of duty, causation and quantum following late diagnosis of breast cancer. Complex quantum issues arising out of lost years claim.
E v SGH – advising minor Claimant in relation to alleged failure to diagnose spinal haematoma by GP, ambulance service and A&E Department leading to delay in treatment and resulting in catastrophic injury.
W v MC – advising Claimant following injury caused by misplacement of nasal tube during surgery.
Re AC – advising family of deceased in relation to Article 2 Inquest following death as a result of alleged negligent misplacement of naso-gastric feeding tube, one of a series of such incidents in a group of hospitals. Instructed under Direct Access scheme. Solicitors likely to be instructed in Fatal Accident claim following the Inquest.
PUBLIC AND REGULATORY
Professional Negligence
Prior to coming to the Bar, Mark Sullivan qualified as an Accountant and then worked in international Investment Banking for 15 years. He brings that experience and expertise to his practice in professional negligence matters, acting for both Claimants and Defendants, particularly in relation to actions involving accountants, tax advisers, financial advisers and solicitors.
Current and recent cases include:
Advising Company in relation to allegedly negligent tax advice involving claims for Entrepreneurs’ Relief, Capital Allowances and Inter-Company property transfers.
Advising Company in relation to alleged negligence on the part of its statutory auditor in failing to advise on financial mismanagement and impending financial difficulties.
Advising small company in potential claim against payroll sub-contractor following discovery of overpayments to employees and failure to account for PAYE.
Advising individual in relation to alleged negligence by solicitor representing him in criminal proceedings, including delay in instituting judicial review proceedings and unauthorised disclosure.
Connected to his professional negligence work, Mark Sullivan also represents accountants and other financial professionals in disciplinary proceedings.
He is a member of the Professional Negligence Bar Association. He is registered for Direct Access and accepts work under Conditional Fee Agreements in appropriate cases.
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 Stephen Lomas is a highly experienced advocate. After an early background in criminal trial advocacy and a wide variety of common law claims, he has spent more than 25 years developing a specialist practice in personal injury and clinical negligence litigation and related aspects of professional negligence and inquisitorial hearings.
He acts for both Claimants and Defendants in personal injury claims and predominantly for Claimants in clinical negligence claims.
Mark is an Accredited Mediation Advocate.
Personal Injury
Mark acts for Defendants and Claimants in personal injury matters and has a related practice at inquests and in professional negligence actions arising out of personal injury claims.
Mark has a particular interest in catastrophic injury claims involving both traumatic brain injury and spinal injury and also in fatal accident claims. He has expertise in the valuation of complex damages claims involving multiple expert witnesses and, often, accountancy evidence. He has wide experience in acting for children and protected parties.
Mark has long experience acting in claims arising out of injury connected to marine activities. Claims experience includes claims by both crew and passengers for injury aboard car ferries, cruise ships and cargo vessels and a claim involving a piracy attack against a cruise ship. He has also acted in claims relating to injury in leisure and light craft including canoes, white water inflatables, sailing boats, power boats, canal barges, speed boats, ribs and rib racing. Mark also has considerable experience in claims arising out of the shipping container industry, including injury relating to the loading and unloading of cargo, both on board vessels and on the quayside and involving container terminal practices and machinery.
His experience extends to injury arising in a wide variety of circumstances including the following:
Accidents at work, with particular emphasis in the construction, docks, assembly line production and logistics industries
Industrial disease, with particular emphasis on asbestosis related disease and work related upper limb disorders
Psychiatric injury, stress at work and harassment
Road traffic accidents, with particular emphasis on motor cycle accidents
Other transport incidents including marine accidents, injury on the railway and air transport claims
Injury by animals, including both the common issues of dogs and horses but also other species from cattle to elephants
Military accidents and injury claims
Historic (and recent) sexual abuse
Injury caused by criminal assault, including deliberate injury with motor vehicles, marine piracy, physical assault, rape, shooting and murder.
Recent cases:
G - Multiple injury, including brain injury suffered by a pedestrian hit by a bus, injury further complicated by a fresh brain injury after hospital discharge, yet again compounded by a poor outcome from a later remedial neurosurgical procedure. Claim complicated by the claimant's prior ankylosing spondylosis and paranoid schizophrenia.
M – Serious brain injury caused to pedestrian run over when crossing the road at night. Substantial dispute over liability and quantum complicated by pre-existing psychiatric conditions.
B - Lorry driver unable to retain an HGV licence and his employment, following facial injuries, the loss of one eye and severe psychological injury after being struck in the face by a defective container door.
D - Motorcyclist suffering nerve injury, psychological and spinal injury following a collision with a car, which turned in front of him. The quantum was complicated by the fact that he had suffered serious spinal injury in a prior accident. Inability to run a successful business and substantial losses arising.
B - Mesothelioma claim based upon exposure in the construction industry and complicated by circumstances of low exposure.
B - Acting for the widow of former engineer in electricity generating stations, who died of mesothelioma after asbestos exposure working in a number of different stations.
B - Acting for the family of a motorcyclist killed in a collision with a car. Claim complicated by the fact that the motorcyclist was travelling at extreme speed (over 100 mph in a 50 mph limit) when a car pulled out in front of him on the limits of visibility.
T - Acting for the family of builder killed when falling from a ladder whilst fitting double glazing. Liability was disputed on the basis that he was a self-employed sub-contractor responsible for his own working arrangements and health and safety and that the general work method was safe and the accident caused solely by his personal error.
A - Acting for the widow of a 70 year old professor of agriculture electrocuted by the domestic electricity supply of a privately rented house on a large country estate within a few weeks of taking the lease.
S - Acting for the widow of a driver killed in a road accident. The deceased witnessed an accident on a dual carriageway and stopped and walked back to assist the injured driver. As he did so another vehicle also stopped and reversed back to the accident site and in so doing ran him down and killed him.
G - Severe, traumatic brain injury caused to a man hit by a double decker bus on a city centre pedestrian crossing at night, resulting in a catastrophic injury claim.
G - Teenage, rear seat car passenger suffered a severe traumatic brain injury following the loss of control of the car and collision with a tree, resulting in a catastrophic injury claim.
B - A flooded road caused the claimant to cross to the opposing carriageway and collide with an oncoming car. The other driver suffered fatal injury and the claimant suffered multiple injury, including psychiatric injury causing him to take his own life 5 years later, leading to a Fatal Accidents Act claim.
L - Serviceman killed by a car whilst on a pedestrian crossing, giving rise to a substantial Fatal Accidents Act claim
W - Motorcyclist killed by van turning across his path, leading to a substantial Fatal Accidents Act claim
G - Severe hand injury caused by entrapment in machinery in a container terminal
S – Severe neck injury caused when construction worker struck by falling materials on a building site
M – Bilateral HAVS and carpal tunnel syndrome caused by using vibrating hand tools at work as a metal fabricator
E - Claim for damages for advanced pleural thickening caused by direct industrial asbestos exposure
A – Claim for damages for mesothelioma caused by childhood exposure to asbestos dust from father’s overalls in the 1960’s
F - Death from mesothelioma; direct industrial exposure
S - Death from mesothelioma; environmental exposure through living and working nearby an asbestos factory in the 1940’s and 1960’s.
M & E – Sexual abuse of children by mother’s partner during the 1970’s
I – Death of crew member following collision between a dredger and a sailing yacht at sea
M - Death from mesothelioma; environmental exposure when working as a caretaker in a school.
Clinical Negligence
Mark acts predominantly for Claimants in a variety of claims for clinical negligence against medical, dental and other therapeutic providers extending to claims against GPs (and practice employees), GDPs, and hospital staff to consultant level including cases of the utmost evidential complexity, catastrophic injury and fatality. He has a related practice at inquests and in professional negligence actions arising out of medical negligence claims and has acted in GMC disciplinary proceedings.
Recent cases:
M - B A claim arising out of the negligent re-siting of a gastrostomy tube in a young child, leading to sepsis, cardiac arrest, brain injury and multi organ failure.
Y - I A claim arising out of the delayed diagnosis of a knee injury, leading to the patient requiring 8 major procedures instead of a straightforward treatment.
N - W A claim arising out of the alleged misdiagnosis and subsequent treatment of a patient with a uterine abnormality causing multiple miscarriages.
P - S A claim arising out of the delayed treatment and inadequate care for a prisoner's tracheostomy, leading to permanent lung damage and breathing difficulties.
B - B A claim arising out of the negligent care of a stroke patient, amidst his relative unwillingness to cooperate. The claim involved detailed review of hospital's care plans, protocols and records.
M - N A claim arising out of the defendant's failure to diagnose a recurring brain tumour and the neurological damage resulting from delayed surgery.
T - P A claim arising out of repeated (3 procedures) upper gastrointestinal surgery to remedy reflux, resulting in the inability to take a solid diet and chronic pain.
W - S A claim arising out of the failure to detect and treat bowel cancer in a patient suffering from ulcerative colitis, resulting in his death, aged 30.
P - U A claim arising out of a hospital's failure to follow up on a patient's diabetic retinopathy, resulting in the need for prolonged, invasive treatment and damage to vision.
G - W A claim arising out of a hospital's inability to detect and treat DVT and pulmonary embolism and the resulting impact on the patient's reduced function at work.
W - A claim arising out of the failure by an Emergency Department to diagnose and treat a canimorsus capnocytophaga infection, leading to near fatal sepsis, multi organ failure and limb amputation.
S - A claim arising out of the failure by a general practitioner to investigate symptoms which would have led to diagnosis of a testicular cancer in good time, leading to the development of advanced cancer, severe illness and prolonged symptoms affecting a career as a professional racing driver.
B - A claim arising out of spinal cord injury sustained during spinal surgery. The claim was advanced upon the basis both of lack of informed consent to the injurious aspects of the surgery and in failing to provide prompt remedial surgery to reduce the consequences of injury.
B - A claim arising out of the failure to investigate the claimant and detect a leak from an anastomosis formed during a laparoscopic bariatric procedure, leading to advanced sepsis and death.
A - A claim arising out of the failure to detect and treat a bowel perforation during laparoscopic pelvic surgery, leading to severe illness, a de-functioning ileostomy, chronic pain, prescribed opiate addiction and psychiatric injury.
A - A claim arising out of the failure by an optometrist to investigate abnormality of vision following a sight test that would have revealed the presence of, and enabled earlier treatment of, a brain tumour.
M - A claim arising out of the failure by two consecutive general practitioners to diagnose / treat infective mastitis leading to prolonged hospitalisation for PVL-SA infection and pneumonia and requiring repeated surgery for advanced breast abscesses.
R - A claim arising out of surgery for ectopic pregnancy in which the wrong fallopian tube was removed, causing reduced fertility and psychiatric injury.
S - A claim arising out of the death of an unborn child following hypoxic damage suffered after the mother experienced post-operative bleeding following surgery to treat an ovarian cyst.
C - A claim arising out of negligently conducted shoulder surgery of hemiarthroplasty.
Inquests
For many years, Mark has undertaken the representation of interested parties at Inquests, whether in short form, Jamieson type, proceedings or the more wide ranging inquiry of Middleton type proceedings mandated by Article 2 ECHR and both with and without a jury.
Mark is well versed in the differing approaches required to represent the interests of a bereaved family as well as those of an interest party whose potential responsibility for a death may become the focus of the proceedings and is experienced in the representation of both.
He has previously been involved in cases:
Within the clinical care field, including the deaths of babies and those who lack mental capacity, concerning:
Failure to diagnose a condition and treat a patient, for instance: cardiac failure / respiratory distress
Failure to monitor and support patients with high care needs, for instance: tracheotomy or parenteral nutrition requirements
Death in the course of or immediately consequent upon surgery
Death linked to prescribed, potentially harmful, medication
Care of the elderly, nursing home falls and neglect.
Outside the clinical negligence field, concerning:
Highway defect
Road traffic collision
Industrial accident
Light aircraft crash
Canal boat / lock fatality
Murder by a prisoner on licence.
Mark Green is an employment law specialist and appears frequently for both claimants and respondents in the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal, Court of Appeal, High Court and County Court. He has been recently ranked in the Legal 500 2021 for both the London Bar and on the South Eastern Circuit, with clients praising him as a ‘skilled and highly competent barrister’, noting his 'quiet and unassuming confidence' that makes lay clients ‘feel at ease as soon as they meet him’ and his 'excellent, pragmatic advice’.
Mark also has a media presence, following the high profile age discrimination case of Jolly v Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust 3324869/2017, and several appearances on television, radio and in national newspapers, including discussing the case on the This Morning sofa. Click here to watch the interview.
He also works on litigation with a national security dimension, particularly large scale civil damages claims and asset freezes in addition to appeals to SVAP (Special Vetting Appeals Panel). Reflecting his niche practice in the overlap between employment law and national security law, he has recently co-authored two chapters entitled 'Employment Law and National Security' and ‘National Security Vetting' in the upcoming (2021) Oxford University Press publication ‘National Security: Law, Practice, and Procedure’.
Before coming to the Bar, Mark taught in schools both in the Midlands and in Rome. He also worked as an intern for the World Health Organisation, Geneva in the field of Bioethics. He was the Guardian Young Travel Journalist of the Year in 2001.
He was appointed to the Attorney General’s ‘B’ Panel in 2019 having been appointed to the ‘C’ Panel in 2013, and regularly represents a number of government departments.
Mark is an Accredited Mediation Advocate.
Employment and Discrimination
Mark Green has over 14 years’ experience as an employment law specialist. His busy practice has covered a wide range of cases, representing both Claimant and Respondent, at the Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal in addition to the High Court and County Court. He has been recently ranked in the Legal 500 2021 for both the London Bar and on the South Eastern Circuit, with clients praising him as a ‘skilled and highly competent barrister’, noting his 'quiet and unassuming confidence' that makes lay clients ‘feel at ease as soon as they meet him’ and his 'excellent, pragmatic advice’.
He is also regularly instructed to draft pleadings, advise on prospects and witness statements and deal with mediation proceedings.
Mark also has a media presence, following the high profile age discrimination case of Jolly v Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust 3324869/2017, and several appearances on television, radio and in national newspapers, including discussing the case on the This Morning sofa. Click here to watch the interview.
In the EAT, issues have covered the definition of disability, limitation, protected disclosures, unlawful deductions from wages, medical evidence, pecuniary loss arising from discrimination, costs awards, satisfactory reasoning, victimisation and whole career loss of earnings.
Mark also advises on and acts in restrictive covenant matters and directors’ disqualification hearings, in addition to conducting internal appeals from disciplinary procedures.
He has appeared for a number of Italian clients, and is happy to deal with documentation and conduct conferences in both French and Italian.
As a member of the Attorney General’s B panel of barristers, Mark appears frequently for numerous Government departments on both standard employment matters and those with an element of national security, an area in which has developed a niche practice, and has written on. He is also appointed to the barrister panel of ELAAS (the Employment Lawyers Appeals Advice Scheme), providing pro bono advice and representation for EAT hearings.
Mark has also been invited to provide training on discrimination law on behalf of the Employment Lawyers’ Association, along with Kiran Daurka of Leigh Day.
Out of tribunal, Mark has developed a reputation as an advocate with an excellent 'bedside manner', taking the time to listen to his clients carefully and explain matters clearly and concisely.
Recent tribunal issues have included:
Disability, age, sex, sexual orientation, race and religious discrimination
Discrimination on the basis of marital status and pregnancy
Restructuring processes wrongly called redundancy situations
Constructive unfair dismissal
Employee status of former company directors
Public interest disclosures relating to health and safety
Gross misconduct
Capability procedures, particularly with regard to long term sickness
Breach of contract
Victimisation/harassment
Waiver of privilege in Employment Tribunal proceedings
Final salary pension loss
Post termination discrimination
The interrelationship between parallel criminal and employment proceedings
Reported cases:
Bath Hill Court (Bournemouth) Management Company Ltd v Coletta [2019] EWCA Civ 1707: This long-running case involved three appeals to the EAT which Mark dealt with as sole counsel, and a fourth to the Court of Appeal, in which he was led by Tim Brennan QC. The Court of Appeal confirmed that there is no backstop on claims for unlawful deductions from wages in the Employment Tribunal. The six year limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980 did not apply to such claims. This meant that because Mr Coletta had entered his claim before July 2015, when the statutory backstop of two years was introduced under the 2014 Deductions from Wages (Limitation) Regulations, he could claim 15 years of arrears for a failure to pay the full national minimum wage.
Omar Kalif v Evolve Hospitality Limited UKEAT/0313/19/LA: the Claimant appealed on the basis that the ET had failed to consider the full extent of a PCP (regarding the handling of pork) in a claim for indirect religious discrimination. Mark, for the Respondent, successfully argued that even if there had been an error of law (which the EAT agreed was not made out), the outcome would not have been any different, as there was no requirement for him, as a matter of fact, to handle pork products. Jafri v Lincoln College [2014] IRLR 544 applied.
Humankind Charity (formerly Blenheim CDP) v Gittens UKEAT/0086/18/BA: Mark Green successfully represented the Appellant, Humankind Charity. Ms Gittens was dismissed for misconduct, following an allegation of dishonesty. The Employment Tribunal found that the Respondent had fairly dismissed her but went on to find that she had been wrongfully dismissed, as she had no duty to disclose her own misconduct and therefore had not fundamentally breached her own contract. The Tribunal agreed with Mark that the case of Ranson –v- Customer Systems Plc [2012] EWCA 841 had been misapplied.
Mark appeared in two EAT cases which were assessed to have little reasonable prospect of success and so were filtered to a 3(10) preliminary hearing. In both cases, he persuaded the President of the EAT to allow the matters through to final hearings, and went on to succeed in both.
In Brighton v Tesco UKEAT/0165/15/DM, the Respondent had dismissed the Claimant because of aggression he alleged was due to an epileptic fit. The Respondent did not believe him. Mark argued successfully that it was both perverse and non-Meek compliant for Tesco to disregard the medical evidence in the way it did, even if it was because it did not find the Claimant a credible historian. The EAT found that whilst Tribunals are not bound by medical evidence, they should give proper respect to it and provide sufficient reasons for disregarding it.
In Ndebele v Kasterlee UKEAT/0307/15/DM the Senior President of Tribunals accepted Mark’s argument that the Tribunal was wrong to hold that the Claimant could not claim loss of earnings because she had not put herself forward for work (on a zero hours contract). The Tribunal should have looked further at the reason why she had not put herself forward. In her case, the reason was because of disability discrimination she had already suffered.
In Anwar v Tower Hamlets UKEAT/0091/10, an appeal under the DDA 1995, Mark successfully argued that when considering whether or not an impairment was likely to last 12 months and therefore be 'long term', the Tribunal must have regard to the likely effect of treatment on that impairment. The Tribunal went on to name several factors that should be taken into account, confirming the law in this area for the first time.
Mark Calway is an experienced family law specialist advising on all aspects of the law. He has recently been appointed as a Family Recorder to the Western Circuit and acts as an Independent Funding Adjudicator for the Legal Aid Agency.
Mark has particular expertise representing parties in care proceedings, often involving complex non-accidental injury, sexual abuse and traumatic brain injury. He advises on private and public family law matters and has a wealth of experience dealing with Court of Protection cases. He has acted for clients in both health and welfare matters and in cases involving property and finance.
Mark is able to undertake all ancillary relief matters. He has experience in conducting claims where there are assets of substance [up to £15 million], trusts, business assets, intervening parties and foreign or jurisdictional elements. He conducts cases involving inheritance provision, TOLATA, Schedule 1 Children Act Claims and child support matters.
Mark also advises in financial remedy cases, always striving for practical and economic solutions in the best interests of his clients.
Mark combines an understanding and sensitive approach to the client with practical and clear advice. His in-court advocacy is robust and efficient and, over 20 years, has gained the respect of both the Judiciary and his opponents.
Family
Mark is an experienced family law specialist advising on all aspects of the law. He has recently been appointed as a Family Recorder to the Western Circuit and acts as an Independent Funding Adjudicator for the Legal Aid Agency.
Mark has particular expertise representing parties in care proceedings, often involving complex non-accidental injury, sexual abuse and traumatic brain injury. He advises on private and public family law matters and has a wealth of experience dealing with Court of Protection cases. He has acted for clients in both health and welfare matters and in cases involving property and finance.
Mark is able to undertake all ancillary relief matters. He has experience in conducting claims where there are assets of substance [up to £15 million], trusts, business assets, intervening parties and foreign or jurisdictional elements. He conducts cases involving inheritance provision, TOLATA, Schedule 1 Children Act Claims and child support matters.
Mark also advises in financial remedy cases, always striving for practical and economic solutions in the best interests of his clients.
Mark combines an understanding and sensitive approach to the client with practical and clear advice. His in-court advocacy is robust and efficient and, over 20 years, has gained the respect of both the Judiciary and his opponents.
Private Law Children and Domestic Abuse
Mark is a very experienced Private Law barristers and accepts instructions in a wide range of cases.
Public Law Care and Adoption
Mark has a wealth of experience of acting in Public Law Care and Adoption cases.
Family Finance
Mark is a family finance expert who is able to undertake all ancillary relief matters. His focus specifically, is to offer practical advice in order to settle matters in as advantageous a manner as possible.
His Court work combines meticulous preparation and detailed forensic cross-examination.
Mark has experience in conducting claims where there are assets of substance [up to £15 million], trusts, business assets, intervening parties and foreign or jurisdictional elements. He also conducts cases involving inheritance provision, TOLATA, Schedule 1 Children Act Claims and child support matters.
Reported cases
Re S (No. 3) (Care Proceedings) (Article 56: Placement in the Republic of Ireland) [2019] EWFC 36
Re S (Care proceedings: Article 15 Second transfer) [2018] EWHC 3054 (Fam) (29 October 2018)
Re D + Ors (Children) 2017 EWFC B87
Court of Protection
Mark has a wealth of experience dealing with Court of Protection matters. He has acted for clients in both health and welfare matters and in cases involving property and finance
Mark's calm, understanding and sensitive approach, backed by extensive knowledge of the area and straightforward advice and representation is of real benefit to vulnerable patients and others involved in their cases.
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.
Mark Wilden is a specialist Intellectual Property and commercial barrister.
Mark acts in the High Court, IPEC, County Court and IPO and accepts instructions in contract, copyright, trade mark, passing off, database, designs, confidential information and related matters. He joined 3PB after completing pupillage at 8 New Square Chambers, where he worked on high profile IP matters for clients including Apple, BBC, Ferrari, Google, Microsoft, Next, Peloton and Tesco.
Mark came to the Bar after a successful 15-year career as an audio producer, sound engineer and musician. He worked in house at Oxford University Press for eight years and qualified as a PRINCE2 Project Management Practitioner in 2007. He also played drums professionally, performed as a DJ and produced music podcasts through the 2000s.
Mark drawns upon a wealth of commercial, technical and creative experience in music and publishing. While at 3PB he has acted for clients across the creative and entertainment industries including in fashion design, film-making, football and music, including musicians, record labels and concert promoters. Mark hosts regular pro bono advice clinics in Bristol for musicians and for SMEs in the creative industries.
He also worked for a year with Carpmaels & Ransford LLP on a range of matters including protection of design rights in consumable parts of complex products in Hypertherm v B&Bartoni R 2843/2019-3 (EUIPO), literary copyright infringement in Anna Pasternak v Lara Prescott [2022] EWHC 2695 (Ch), and pharmaceutical patents in Fibrogen v Akebia [2020] EWHC 866 (Pat).
He regularly writes articles and presents seminars on intellectual property issues, and volunteers in the High Court as part of the Chancery Litigants in Person Support Scheme (CLiPS). Mark takes a practical approach to advice, pleading and litigation strategy, and has been described as “a diligent and talented lawyer and a pleasure to work with”.
Intellectual Property
Mark accepts instructions in all areas of Intellectual Property. He has worked on copyright, trade mark, design, patent and breach of confidence actions in the Chancery Division, IPEC, UKIPO and EUIPO.
Examples of recent work
Pasternak v Prescott [2022] EWHC 2695 (Ch): analysis and drafting of defence in high-profile copyright infringement claim.
Z v R (IPEC): defending individual in claim for alleged piracy of internet pornography.
M v CFC (IPEC): negotiated settlement terms for claimant football club in a passing off claim against a rival club.
James v Mitchell & Borabeads (IPEC): successfully represented claimant in a trial for passing off of jewellery brand.
R2843/2019-3 B&Bartoni v Hypertherm (EUIPO): written submissions for successful appeal on the invalidity of registered design protecting a consumable part of a complex product.
Re. “LOVE UR CURLS” (IPO): successfully represented trade mark applicant in overcoming objections of three examiners under s.3(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 on the basis that the mark was inherently distinctive and was not merely generic text-speak.
I v C (IPEC): acting for defendant to claim for trade mark infringement and passing off.
Re. “EONX” (IPO): acting for registrant defending trade mark opposition based on four earlier marks and an unregistered sign on grounds under ss.5(2)(b), 5(3) and 5(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
Re. “TMKONNECT” (IPO): acting for opponent in trade mark opposition on s.5(2)(b) grounds.
Re. “GAY STAR NEWS” (IPO): acting for opponent in trade mark opposition on s.5(4) grounds.
Drafting particulars of claim for passing off of a car fleet management brand.
Advisory work including:
Copyright infringement issues including unlicensed use of photographs on non-commercial websites.
Trade mark opposition and infringement issues relating to unlicensed resale of own-brand products, restaurant services, hot tub cleaning products and insurance brokering services.
Confidential information and database rights issues arising from the use of data by ex-employees working for commercial competitors.
Domain name disputes and use of the Nominet Domain Dispute Resolution Service.
Commercial
Mark accepts instructions on contractual disputes, especially in cases involving the entertainment industries, intellectual property rights and technology-related issues.
Examples of recent work
S v S (County Court): Obtaining summary judgment and strike-out for concert promoter in claim for breach of joint venture agreement.
A v A (County Court): Acting for defendant in film financing claim.
C v T (County Court): successfully represented claimant in a trial for non-payment of invoices for provision of cloud computing services, including beating the claimant’s Part 36 offer.
Re. Petropavlovsk (Ch D): Representing shareholders in the disputed insolvency of a Russian gold mining company as part of CLiPS Scheme.
Advisory work including:
Potential liability for interception of data by ‘data sniffing’.
Music licensing, including advice on the nature and scope of relevant rights.
Negotiation and interpretation of contractual terms.
Martin Strutt has a general civil practice with Chancery emphasis, including property-related disputes such as ownership issues, rights of way and other easements, boundaries and landlord and tenant law. He also undertakes probate, contract and commercial work and related professional negligence cases.
His property practice includes the following aspects:
Boundaries
Easements
Restrictive covenants
Adverse possession
Equitable ownership disputes
Proprietary estoppel claims
Conveyancing disputes
Land registration
Commercial and residential landlord and tenant disputes
Property related undue influence/rectification/non est factum disputes
Property related nuisance claims (including flooding cases)
His chancery practice includes the following aspects:
Wills
Contentious probate
Inheritance Act claims
Partnership disputes
Insolvency
Passing off/trade marks
He appears regularly in the County Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal and in Land Registry adjudication proceedings. He also undertakes all related professional negligence claims.
PROPERTY AND ESTATES
Martin's principal area of practice covers property and chancery work.
His property practice includes the following aspects:
Boundaries
Easements
Restrictive covenants
Adverse possession
Equitable ownership disputes
Proprietary estoppel claims
Conveyancing disputes
Land registration
Commercial and residential landlord and tenant disputes
Property related undue influence/rectification/non est factum disputes
Property related nuisance claims (including flooding cases)
His chancery practice includes the following aspects:
Wills
Contentious probate
Inheritance Act claims
Partnership disputes
Insolvency
Passing off/trade marks
He appears regularly in the County Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal and in Land Registry adjudication proceedings.
Notable cases include:
Greatorex v Newman 2008 EWCA Civ 1318
Derbyshire County Council v Fallon 2007 EWHC 1326 Ch
Lloyd-Wolper v Moore 2004 1 WLR 2350
Recent cases:
10 day trial in the Chancery Division concerning a dispute between siblings over ownership of a farm. Settled on 8th day with client securing assets of £1m.
2 day trial successfully establishing a right of way of way over farmland.
Acting for St. Johns College Oxford as landlord in two cases involving possession of commercial premises in Oxford and possession of a rural property with land outside Oxford.
Acting for a trustee in bankruptcy in connection with obtaining possession of 3 properties in Woking: a case with substantial factual disputes and documentation which resulted in two trials and applications for freezing order in the Chancery Division.
Advising in a case considering whether the client's occupation of a farm in Gloucestershire was as a farm business tenant or a business tenant (with 1954 Act protection) by reason of his equestrian use. Successfully established equestrian use, with the result that the client was able to purchase the farm at a substantial discount as a protected sitting tenant.
Acting for a tenant of the Blenheim Estate who was arguing he had a protected agricultural tenancy. Case settled at Court on terms of payment of money and offer of alternative accommodation.
Professional Negligence
He also undertakes related professional negligence claims including:
Solicitors’ negligence arising out of property transactions and property litigation
Solicitors’ negligence arising of the drafting of wills and administration of estates
Surveyors’ negligence
Martin appears regularly in the County Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal, as well as in the Property Tribunal in Land Registry adjudication proceedings.
Notable cases include:
Lloyd-Wolper v Moore 2004 1 WLR 2350
SC Confectia SA v Miss Mania Wholesale Limited 2014 EWCA Civ 1484
Greatorex v Newman 2008 EWCA Civ 1318
Graves v Graves 2007 EWCA Civ 660
Chapman v Godinn Properties Limited 2005 EWCA Civ 941
Nicolet v Halim 2005 EWCA Civ 91
Derbyshire CC v Fallon 2007 EWHC 1326 Ch
Williams v Williams 2003 EWHC 742 Civ
Probate
Martin deals with all aspects of contentious probate involving challenging the validity of wills on the grounds of formality, incapacity, lack of knowledge and approval and undue influence. He also undertakes Inheritance Act claims.
In the case of Re Wills, which involved four separate actions, he acted for the executors and principal beneficiaries, firstly enabling the deceased to be cremated, secondly in having a later will set aside on the grounds of undue influence and lack of knowledge and approval, thirdly in defeating an Inheritance Act claim and fourthly in obtaining a possession order in respect the deceased’s house.
Martin will always seek to resolve what are often acrimonious family disputes in a sensitive and constructive manner and acting for parties in mediation now forms a substantial part of the his probate practice.
COMMERCIAL
Martin is an experienced commercial and chancery practitioner. His broad litigation and advisory work covers most areas of the Law normally litigated in the Chancery Division, including:
Company law and partnership
Shareholder disputes
Corporate and personal insolvency
Contract
Passing off / Trademarks.
Martin’s practice also encompasses contentious and non-contentious work in the following fields: Property, trusts, wills and estates and probate.
He has extensive experience dealing with professional negligence issues arising from disputes within his specialist fields.
Martin appears regularly in the County Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal and in Land Registry adjudication proceedings.
Recent cases:
10 day trial in the Chancery Division concerning a dispute between siblings over ownership of a farm. Settled on 8th day with client securing assets of £1m.
Acting for St. Johns College Oxford as landlord in two cases involving possession of commercial premises in Oxford and possession of a rural property with land outside Oxford.
Acting for a trustee in bankruptcy in connection with obtaining possession of 3 properties in Woking: a case with substantial factual disputes and documentation which resulted in two trials and applications for freezing order in the Chancery Division.
Notable cases include:
SC Confectia SA v Miss Mania Wholesale Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 1484
Greatorex v Newman [2008] EWCA Civ 1318
Derbyshire CC v Fallon [2007] EWHC 1326 Ch
Graves v Graves [2007] EWCA Civ 660
Chapman v Godinn Properties Limited [2005] EWCA Civ 941
Nicolet v Halim [2005] EWCA Civ 91
Lloyd-Wolper v Moore (2004) 1 WLR 2350
Williams v Williams [2003] EWHC 742 Civ.
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.
His Honour Martin Dancey was admitted as a solicitor in 1981, becoming a partner with law firm Ellis Jones in Bournemouth in 1985 and their managing partner in 1993. He specialised in financial and children work (private and public) and was a member of the Law Society’s Children Panel.
An associate member of chambers, Martin returned to private practice with 3PB in Bournemouth in January 2023 and now undertakes private financial dispute resolution appointments as well as early neutral evaluation and problem solving in private children cases.
Martin was appointed a deputy district judge in 1993 and as a district judge in 1999. He was a regional costs judge between 2005 and 2015 when he was appointed a circuit judge. He was Designated Family Judge for Dorset from 2018 until his retirement in 2022. He continues to sit regularly in retirement in family work including in the financial remedies court at first instance and hearing appeals. Martin drafted the current standard children orders at the invitation of Munby P.
Martin has lectured frequently locally and nationally to judges and other professionals.
Published articles:
Contact Activities: Parenting Programmes [2010] Fam Law 1101
Judicial Conciliation in Private Law Cases [2013] Fam Law 472
Family Justice: the Human Condition [2022] Fam Law 436
Away from the law, Martin enjoys music and sailing and spending time with his family.
FDR Hearing Service
HHJ Dancey, recently retired as the Designated Family Judge for Dorset after 23 years on the Bench, now accepts appointments as a Private FDR Judge. Martin is also offering a Children Conciliation Service as well as Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) in disputes over children.
Before becoming a judge, Martin was a family lawyer with the South Coast law firm Ellis Jones from his admission as a solicitor in 1981, until his appointment as a District Judge in 1999. He was appointed a Circuit Judge in 2015, happily (for him at least) continued to sit in Bournemouth hearing family and civil cases.
Martin was a member of the Private Law Working Group and Family Solutions Group, established to work with separated parents and their children outside of the court, and has been closely involved in developing the private law reforms pilot that has recently launched in the family courts in Dorset and North Wales. This focuses on restoring the child to the centre in systems that currently operate largely for parents.
Appointed as a tutor judge with the Judicial College Family Team in 2009, Martin was a Course Director between 2013 and 2017, spending much of his time planning family courses, writing materials and delivering talks to fellow judges. This included drafting guidance for the conduct of financial dispute resolution appointments for a pilot ancillary relief course.
Published judgments
E (A Child) (Step-parent adoption) [2022] EWFC B3
A Child (Application of PD12J) (No 2 – Findings of Fact) [2022] EWFC B5
A Child (Application of PD12J) [2021] EWFC B58
Dorset Council v M & Ors (Removal – Balance of Harm) [2021] EWFC B43
BCP Council v A & Ors [2021] EWFC B17
Dorset Council v E (Unregulated placement: Lack of secure placements) [2020] EWFC 1098
BCP Council v KC & Ors (Care proceedings: Return to Poland: Child Arrangements Order) [2020] EWFC 20
JD & Anor v VB and Ors [2020] EWFC 16
BCP Council v A & Ors (Inflicted injuries: failure to protect) [2020] EWFC B4
Dorset Council v M (Failure to prove non-accidental injury) [2019] EWFC B63
Dorset Council v A (Residential Placement: Lack of Resources) [2019] EWFC 62
Dorset Council v E (Article 15 B11R) [2019] EWFC 35
A Mother v Dorset County Council (Older Children – Long-term fostering or Adoption) [2019] EWFC B3
A Local Authority v B, H and I (Sibling as carer or adoption) [2019] EWFC B1
A Local Authority v G (Parent with Learning Disability) [2017] EWFC B94
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Conciliation and early neutral evaluation in private law cases – finding solutions
All professionals agree that, whenever it is safe to do so, child arrangements are better dealt with by families outside the court arena. Ongoing parental conflict is highly damaging for children and the adversarial nature of court proceedings tends to promote rather than alleviate conflict, however hard the courts strive to adopt a problem-solving approach.
Martin Dancey was influential in the development and launch in February 2022 of the Pathfinder Pilot in Dorset, a new solution finding approach in private law cases. Part of the ethos of the Pilot is to encourage parents to resolve issues about arrangements for their children outside the court process.
Martin has spent over 40 years working in children cases, the last 23 years of them as a family judge. Conscious that court orders often offer little more than a sticking plaster to more deep-seated problems, Martin initiated judicial conciliation in private law cases, giving parents (and other family members) a more informal environment, within the court process, to discuss worries and find solutions, including improving communication.
Over the course of 5 years, Martin dealt with some 150 cases with a high rate of successful resolution.
Conciliation/early neutral evaluation offers an opportunity for parents and other family members:
to discuss their worries
to listen to others’ worries
in an informal, less stressed environment
to explore and improve communication and relationship issues
to seek their own solutions to issues between them
assisted where needed with neutral evaluation of likely outcome in the event of court proceedings
avoiding the need for costly and stressful court proceedings
achieving more sustainable child-focused agreements
Children
Martin Dancey, formerly HHJ Dancey, has spent over 40 years working in children cases, the last 23 years of them as a family judge. Conscious that court orders often offer little more than a sticking plaster to more deep-seated problems, Martin initiated judicial conciliation in private law cases, giving parents (and other family members) a more informal environment, within the court process, to discuss worries and find solutions, including improving communication.
Over the course of 5 years Martin dealt with some 150 cases with a high rate of successful resolution.
He now offers a conciliation and early neutral evaluation service in private law cases, helping families find solutions.
Mathew Gullick KC is an experienced High Court and appellate advocate. He has appeared in more than 30 substantive appeals in the Court of Appeal and the UK Supreme Court, most recently in the leading holiday pay case of Harpur Trust v Brazel [2022] UKSC 21, [2022] ICR 1380. He has also had significant involvement in highly complex and long-running matters, including Public Inquiry and Group Litigation experience.
Mathew’s practice is focused on public law and employment, but he is also instructed both on costs issues and on procedural points across the entire spectrum of civil litigation. Additionally, he undertakes asset forfeiture work (including on human rights issues) and is a contributor to one of the leading practitioner textbooks in the field. As well as appearing in Courts and Tribunals, he also acts as a representative in mediations.
Prior to taking Silk in March 2021, Mathew was for 13 years a member of the Attorney-General’s panels of junior Counsel to the Crown in civil matters, including five years on the London A Panel. From July 2015 to November 2018, he was part of the Counsel team instructed by the UK Government in the Kenyan Emergency Group Litigation (KEGL), in which more than 40,000 individuals unsuccessfully brought claims in the High Court arising from their experiences during the ‘Mau Mau’ Emergency in the 1950s. The KEGL was one of the longest-running trials in English legal history, sitting in court for 230 days between the start of the trial in May 2016 and its conclusion in November 2018. The case involved wide-ranging and complex issues including in relation to jurisdiction, limitation, constitutional law, tort (negligence, vicarious liability and common design), evidence and civil procedure.
From January to December 2020, he was instructed by Ofsted on several of the Investigations conducted by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA), including those into Child Sexual Exploitation by Organised Networks and into Effective Leadership of Child Protection in which Ofsted was a Core Participant.
Mathew appears in the Court of Appeal, the Administrative Court and the Upper Tribunal on a wide range of public law matters. In the employment context, he acts for both claimants and respondents (public, private and third sector) across the field of employment law in the Employment Tribunals and the courts. More generally, he has extensive experience of advising and appearing on jurisdictional and procedural issues, including in relation to many of the more obscure provisions of procedural legislation and rules. Several of his cases are cited as precedents in the leading textbooks on civil procedure.
Mathew is also instructed on costs issues in all types of civil litigation. He has been instructed on numerous high value costs matters, including multi-million pound costs claims in group litigation. He has twice been instructed, as specialist costs Counsel, to make post-judgment written submissions on costs to the UK Supreme Court and has also conducted two multi-day detailed assessments of costs in the UK Supreme Court. Mathew's work in this field has included both King’s Bench and Chancery matters as well as Tribunal proceedings. His costs practice has also, for example, seen him successfully making and opposing applications for protective costs orders in the Administrative Court, and successfully opposing applications for non-party costs orders against legal expenses insurers.
Mathew has been nominated for the Bar Pro Bono Award three times, on the second occasion receiving a special commendation from the judging panel. Outside the courtroom, he has represented the Bar of England & Wales at four Lawyers’ Cricket World Cups (2007-2016).
Reported Cases Include:
Harpur Trust v Brazel [2022] UKSC 21, [2022] ICR 1380 – workers on permanent contracts who perform work for only part of the year (e.g. during academic terms) are entitled to the full 5.6 weeks’ paid holiday under the Working Time Regulations 1998, which cannot be reduced on a pro-rata basis.
SC (paras A398-399D: ‘foreign criminal’: procedure) [2020] UKUT 187 (IAC), [2020] Imm AR 1121 – approach to human rights claim raised in response to deportation decision by foreign national whose criminal offence was committed abroad.
R (on the application of Jalloh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 4, [2021] AC 262 – a requirement to abide by an overnight home curfew, enforced by electronic tagging, constituted an imprisonment of the claimant for the purpose of the tort of false imprisonment.
R (on the applications of Nealon and Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 2, [2020] AC 279 – Article 6.2 ECHR not applicable to decisions to refuse award under statutory compensation scheme for miscarriages of justice; scheme would not breach Article 6.2 even if applicable.
Kimathi & Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2017] EWHC 3379 (QB), [2018] 4 WLR 48 – Article 9 of the Bill of Rights prevents reports of Parliamentary debates being used as evidence of the truth of the extraneous facts referred to by Members of Parliament in those debates.
Mahmud (s.85 NIAA 2002 - 'new matters') [2017] UKUT 488 (IAC), [2018] Imm AR 264 – a decision of the Upper Tribunal which gives guidance on the correct approach to considering a ‘new matter’ in statutory appeals, under s.85 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as amended).
Kimathi & Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2016] EWHC 3005 (QB), [2017] 1 WLR 1081 – CPR 3.9 could not be used to validate a claim which was a nullity because the claimant was dead when the claim was brought in his name.
Publications
Contributor to “Millington and Sutherland Williams on the Proceeds of Crime” (Fourth Edition, 2013, Fifth Edition, 2018, and Sixth Edition 2023) (Oxford University Press)
“Recusal of Judges in Civil Litigation”, Thomson Reuters Practical Law, February 2022
“Corner House Revisited: The Law Governing Protective Costs Orders”, Judicial Review March 2009, [2009] JR 43
“Cutting Back on Custody”, New Law Journal 11th February 2005, (2005) 155 NLJ 220
“The Criminal Justice Act 2003: Sentencing and Early Release of Fixed-Term Prisoners”, Criminal Law Review August 2004, [2004] Crim LR 653
“Political Donations and Political Expenditure by Companies: The Authorisation and Disclosure Requirements of the Companies Act 1985”, Business Law Review March 2003, (2003) 24 Bus LR 48
“Sentencing and the Home Detention Curfew Scheme”, Criminal Law Review May 2002, [2002] Crim LR 391
Mathew also assisted with the Third Edition (2004), Fourth Edition (2006) and Fifth Edition (2009) of “Understanding the Law” by His Honour Geoffrey Rivlin QC (Oxford University Press)
Public and Regulatory
Mathew Gullick KC accepts instructions in a wide range of public law matters, including (amongst other areas) immigration, issues relating to the criminal justice system and proceedings involving a wide range of other public bodies and local authorities.
In the immigration field, he has been instructed to appear in the UK Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the Administrative Court and the Upper Tribunal, and has been involved in numerous unlawful detention claims and deportation appeals. He has extensive experience of Points-Based System cases, having been instructed on several major appeals relating to the Post-Study Work route following its closure in April 2012.
Indicative immigration law cases are:
R (AAA & Others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – counsel for the Secretary of State on the application for an interim injunction to prevent removals to Rwanda in June 2022 under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP), [2022] EWHC 1686 (Admin), and on the claimants’ appeals to the Court of Appeal and the UK Supreme Court against refusal of interim relief.
SC (paras A398-339D: 'foreign criminal': procedure) Albania [2020] UKUT 187 (IAC), [2020] Imm AR 1121 – correct approach to Article 8 ECHR in deportation appeal of foreign national with overseas conviction for murder.
R (on the application of Jalloh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 2, [2021] AC 262 – a requirement to abide by an overnight home curfew, enforced by electronic tagging, constituted an imprisonment of the claimant for the purposes of the tort of false imprisonment.
R (on the application of Singh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1014, [2019] Imm AR 1275 – Upper Tribunal’s power to reverse oral grant of permission to apply for judicial review.
Mahmud (s.85 NIAA 2002 - 'new matters') [2017] UKUT 488 (IAC), [2018] Imm AR 264 - guidance on the correct approach to considering a ‘new matter’ in statutory appeals, under s.85 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as amended).
R (on the application of Idira) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1187, [2016] 1 WLR 1694 - detention in prison, under immigration powers, of time-served foreign national offender pending his deportation did not breach Article 5 ECHR.
Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKSC 59, [2015] 1 WLR 4546 - application of the evidential flexibility policy to Points-Based System applications; meaning of document missing from a sequence or series.
R (on the application of Giri) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 784, [2015] 1 WLR 4418 - Wednesbury review the correct approach to judicial review challenging findings of fact made in a decision under the Immigration Rules; no ‘heightened civil standard of proof’ in relation to findings of dishonesty.
R (on the applications of Mehmood and Ali) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 744, [2016] 1 WLR 461 - lead appeal in the litigation arising from the ETS language testing scandal; removal decision under s.10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 invalidated leave extended by s.3C of the Immigration Act 1971; no ‘special or exceptional factors’ existed justifying recourse to judicial review where out-of-country statutory appeal available.
PF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 251, [2015] 1 WLR 5235 - correct approach to exercise of the ‘casting vote’ by presiding member of a panel of the First-tier Tribunal; Upper Tribunal hearing statutory appeal for error of law had no jurisdiction to consider legitimate expectation argument arising from Home Office’s actions after the First-tier Tribunal’s decision.
SE (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 256, [2014] Imm AR 855 - prospects of rehabilitation in receiving country versus prospects in the UK not relevant to Article 8 ECHR balancing exercise when considering deportation of foreign criminal.
Syed & Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 196 - ACCA Professional Level Qualification was not a “UK recognised bachelor or postgraduate degree” so did not qualify for the award of points under the Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) route in the Immigration Rules; role of UK NARIC in assessing the level of non-degree qualifications obtained in the UK.
R (on the applications of Muazu and Adda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 3764 (Admin) - detention of immigration detainees refusing food, fluid and medical treatment was not contrary to Home Office policy and was lawful under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR.
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Raju & Others [2013] EWCA Civ 754, [2014] 1 WLR 1768 - whether applicants under the Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) route in the Immigration Rules qualified for leave to remain when they had not obtained their degrees at the date of application.
Mathew has also appeared in prison law claims and in cases involving challenges to refusals of applications for compensation for miscarriages of justice under the statutory scheme in the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Notable cases include:
R (on the application of Kay) v Secretary of State for Justice [2021] EWHC 2125 (Admin), [2021] ACD 117 – Applicability of Article 6.1 ECHR to, and lawfulness of, procedure for determination of applications under statutory compensation scheme for miscarriages of justice.
R (on the applications of Nealon and Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 2, [2020] AC 279 - Article 6.2 ECHR not applicable to decisions to refuse award under statutory compensation scheme for miscarriages of justice; scheme would not breach Article 6.2 even if applicable.
R (on the applications of Clark and Drury) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] EWHC 2383 (Admin) - relevance of the Crown Prosecution Service’s decision to abandon prosecutions at a re-trial following quashing of convictions by the Court of Appeal.
R (on the application of Andukwa) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] EWHC 3988 (Admin), [2015] ACD 54 - where a conviction was reversed on the ground that there had been an available statutory defence which had been overlooked at trial, there was no ‘new or newly discovered fact’ and so compensation was not payable.
R (on the application of Hussain) v Secretary of State for Justice [2013] EWHC 1452 (Admin), [2013] ACD 117 - Category A prisoner not entitled to an oral hearing of his annual categorisation review; request for an oral hearing should have been made before the review was undertaken, not afterwards.
R (on the application of Adetoro) v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] EWHC 2576 (Admin), [2013] ACD 16 - lawfulness of decision to revoke earlier decision accepting Parole Board recommendation for move of Category A prisoner to open conditions.
In Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Cattrell [2011] EWCA Civ 572, Mathew acted for the successful respondent in an appeal by the Secretary of State arising from the acceptance by the First-Tier and Upper Tribunals that there was no work that would be reliably safe for her as a result of a severe allergy, so that she was entitled to incapacity benefit. He has also acted in other benefit appeals involving similar issues.
Another area of interest is all aspects of the law relating to elections and political parties, especially electoral procedure and the law on political donations, as well as local government law, particularly the powers and duties of local authorities. Mathew acted for the appellant in Moss v KPMG LLP [2010] EWHC 2923 (Admin), a statutory appeal against the refusal of an auditor to apply for a declaration that an item in a local authority’s accounts covering income received from penalty charge notices levied on motorists was unlawful.
Mathew was a member of the pro bono team of barristers who appeared for the claimant in R (on the application of Compton) v Wiltshire PCT [2009] EWHC 1824 (Admin), in which the decisions of the Primary Care Trust in respect of facilities at Savernake Hospital in Marlborough were challenged. Cranston J's judgment set out the principles to be applied where it is alleged that the decisions of public authorities are vitiated by apparent bias on the part of their advisers.
Asset and Tax Recovery
Mathew Gullick KC’s asset forfeiture work has seen him appear in the UK Supreme Court and in both divisions of the Court of Appeal, as well as the Crown Court. He also has experience of drafting and appearing in proceedings relating to restraint and enforcement receivership orders and in contempt of court proceedings arising from breaches of restraint orders. His civil practice enables him to bring expertise from other fields, including employment and contract law, into the sphere of asset forfeiture work. He has been a contributor to the last three editions of “Millington and Sutherland Williams on the Proceeds of Crime” (Oxford University Press, Sixth Edition 2023).
In R v Ahmad and R v Fields [2014] UKSC 36, [2015] AC 299, Mathew was junior Counsel for the Home Secretary, an intervener in the Supreme Court, in what is now the leading case on the approach to be applied in confiscation proceedings when offenders have benefited jointly from their crime, the Court in its judgment reviewing the case law and explaining the effect of the seminal judgment of Lord Bingham in R v May on this point as well as dealing with the approach to be applied in situations of potential “multiple recovery”.
In Minshall v (1) HM Revenue and Customs (2) Crown Prosecution Service [2015] EWCA Civ 741, [2015] Lloyd’s Rep FC 515, he appeared for the CPS in the Court of Appeal in a case involving a claim for restitution of the sum paid under a confiscation order arising from a decision of the European Court of Human Rights in 2011 that there had been unreasonable delay (and a breach of Article 6(1) ECHR) in the criminal appeal proceedings, which had finally concluded in February 2006. The Court held that the European Court’s decision provided no basis for such a claim and that the confiscation order was final and conclusive.
Mathew has also appeared in the Court of Appeal in R v Lambert & Walding [2012] EWCA Crim 421, [2012] 2 Cr App R (S) 90 and R v Sivaraman [2008] EWCA Crim 1736, [2009] 1 Cr App R (S) 80, on the principles to be applied to the calculation of an offender’s benefit under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and in RCPO v Deprince [2007] EWCA Civ 512, an innocent wife’s claim to a beneficial interest in the marital home which was subject to confiscation which also raised issues under the Human Rights Act.
Employment and Discrimination
Mathew Gullick KC advises on and appears in a wide range of employment related matters. He acts for both Claimants and Respondents (private, public and third sector) across the range of employment areas, including unfair dismissal, constructive dismissal, wrongful dismissal, all types of discrimination, TUPE, equal pay, restrictive covenants, public interest disclosure, pensions, breach of contract and unlawful deductions from wages (including the non-payment of bonuses).
He is an experienced appellate advocate, appearing for Mrs Brazel in the UK Supreme Court in the leading holiday pay case of Harpur Trust v Brazel [2022] UKSC 21 [2022] ICR 1380, regarding the statutory paid holiday entitlement of “part-year” workers on permanent contracts. In addition to appearances in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, he has also appeared in the Court of Appeal in Sanders v Newham Sixth Form College [2014] EWCA Civ 734, in which the Court clarified the correct approach to analysing claims of discrimination by failing to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons.
Mathew Gullick KC’s employment practice also extends to advising on and appearing in High Court employment matters. He has been involved in several cases involving substantial six-figure damages claims, including for non-payment of bonuses and commission, wrongful dismissal and breach of a compromise agreement. He has also advised both employers and employees on contractual issues relating to remuneration packages, including benefits such as private health insurance.
Notable cases at first instance have included:
A direct age discrimination claim (acting for the successful Claimant) where the Tribunal found that the Respondent had made the Claimant redundant as part of a management restructure just before his 50th birthday in order to avoid paying a lump sum into the pension fund which would have been necessary in the event he had been made redundant after reaching the age of 50 (which would have enabled him to access his pension early). No consideration had been given to the case for delaying the Claimant’s redundancy for a transitional period to oversee work in progress, as had been done with other employees affected by the restructure; the Tribunal found that had this been done then the Claimant would have been made redundant after his 50th birthday and so would have received his retirement pension early. It rejected the Respondent’s alternative defence of justification and also found that the Claimant had been unfairly dismissed.
Acting for the successful Claimant, a former Executive Director of an NHS Trust with 25 years’ unblemished service who had been summarily dismissed for gross misconduct for alleged misuse of the work email system. The dismissal took effect two weeks before the expiry of an existing redundancy notice period whereupon the Claimant would have received a substantial redundancy payment. The Tribunal found that the dismissal was both unfair and wrongful, concluding that no reasonable employer would have imposed anything more than a written warning and that the Respondent had failed to establish that the Claimant was guilty of gross misconduct. It further upheld the Claimant’s claim of disability discrimination arising from the Respondent’s failure to postpone the disciplinary hearing at which he was dismissed.
Acting for the Respondent at a preliminary hearing in a claim concerning whether or not the provisions of the Civil Service Pension Scheme were discriminatory on the ground of disability – a deposit order was made and the claim subsequently struck out.
A three-day preliminary hearing on whether a carer funded by direct payments was an employee of the disabled persons cared for (but who did not have capacity to contract), their relatives who had day to day control of the employment relationship, the charity which administered the contracts, or the local authority with statutory responsibility for the provision of the care and which provided the funding.
Representing the defendant employer in Court proceedings brought by the employee to enforce payment under a purported compromise agreement which had been sent to the employee pre-signed but with the wrong figure for compensation inserted in error, which was three times higher than had previously been offered to the Claimant in writing. The Court found that the Defendant had orally withdrawn the offer to settle for the erroneous figure prior to the agreement being signed by the Claimant, and that in any event even if that withdrawal had not been effective then the agreement would have been void for mistake.
Matiss Krumins was called to the Bar in 2008 and qualified as a solicitor in 2011, specialising in public law children proceedings and judicial review.
He was senior solicitor at Birmingham City Council from 2011 to 2016 and a Principal Solicitor from 2016 to 2017, when he left to pursue his career at the Bar with 3PB.
Matiss accepts instructions from parents, intervenors, children’s guardians, and local authorities.
Family
Care and Adoption Proceedings
Matiss has significant experience in all types of proceedings relating to children:
All areas of care proceedings, including complex/highlight technical concerns:
Neglect/emotional harm;
Drug and alcohol abuse;
Domestic violence.
Sexual abuse (inter-generational and inter-sibling) and child sexual exploitation.
Non-accidental injuries;
Fabricated or Induced Illness (FII)
Cases with a foreign element (particularly transfer of proceedings pursuant to Brussels II and placement of children outside of the jurisdiction)
Applications in respect of child witnesses (application of Re W), in all types of cases.
Cases involving individuals with learning difficulties/learning disabilities.
Cases involving children with significant or profound disabilities, including life limiting conditions.
Cases where one parent has killed another.
Cases where a parent/adult has killed a child.
Cases involving terrorism.
Discharge of care
Human rights infringements
Designated local authority
Adoption
Placement applications
Applications for post adoption contact
Applications to discharge placement orders
Applications to oppose adoption orders
Special Guardianship
Placement of children
Application of support regulations
Inter-local authority disputes
Specialist applications in respect of:
Female Genital Mutilation
Forced Marriage
Press/Reporting injunctions
Wardship
Appeals of care orders (interim and full) and placement orders.
Judicial Review/Human Rights
Matiss has significant litigation experience advising and drafting documents in respect of judicial review challenges and is accustomed to dealing with these matters on short notice, including applications for declaration of infringement of human rights in the following areas:
Application of section 17 and section 20 duties, including:
Child in Need – including all forms of support, with emphasis on financial/accommodation support.
Child Protection.
Fostering (both external issues and administration of local authority fostering duties, including assessment and termination of foster carers, and family and friend carers).
Post-18 support to children, including children subject to immigration restrictions.
Children within the criminal justice system, including issues around detention in police stations.
Assessment and support for disabled children, including personal payments.
Duties to individuals who are deemed No Recourse to Public Funds and associated immigration matters.
Duties to Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Minors including assessment and support
Injunctions to prevent removal of children
Applications for human rights declarations and damages
Negotiating settlements in all types of the above matters, including large financial settlements.
Costs in relation to all the above matters.
Local Government
Matiss has experience of the regulatory functioning of local authorities and can assist in:
Advising on policy/procedural implications of changes in statute or case law, having previous experience of advising and assisting on:
Policies and procedures in respect of foster carers, including family and friends foster carers
Policies and procedures in respect of disabled children’s services;
Policies and procedures in respect of terrorism.
Advising on the application of local government constitution.
Advising on consultation requirements.
Advising in respect of Serious Case Reviews, having had experience of assisting with nationally reported Serious Case Reviews.
Reported cases
X City Council v M [2023] EWHC 1767 (Fam) : Represented local authority in a fact finding where the mother was alleged to have poisoned her child with salt on multiple occasions.
E (A Child) (Care and Placement Orders) [2023] EWCA Civ 721: appeal by a mother against care and placement orders made in respect of her son, E, who is now just over a year old. The appeal was opposed by the local authority and by the children's guardian. Judgement can be found here.
P (A Child: Fair Hearing) [2023] EWCA Civ 215
Re Y (Children in Care: Change of Nationality) [2020] EWCA Civ 1038
A City Council & M & F & C [2020] EWHC 947 (Fam)
Local Authority X v HI and others [2016] EWHC 1123 (Fam): this is a case whereby information arose by way of a 15-year-old child’s disclosure to the social worker that they did not want communicated to their parents within care proceedings. The local authority considered itself subject to a duty to disclose and the guardian sought to maintain the confidentiality of the disclosure. The court weighed the issues of relevance of the information, gravity and magnitude of harm and the rights of the individuals protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 in the balance.
Birmingham City Council v AB & others [2014] EWHC 3090 (Fam): this is a case where the father violently killed the mother. The children were initially placed with their grandmother, who sadly misappropriated £32,500 of their compensation monies. The local authority sought and were granted care and placement orders, in a case that had many complex elements.
Public and Regulatory
Local Government
Matiss has experience of the regulatory functioning of local authorities and can assist in:
Advising on policy/procedural implications of changes in statute or case law, having previous experience of advising and assisting on:
Policies and procedures in respect of foster carers, including family and friends foster carers
Policies and procedures in respect of disabled children’s services;
Policies and procedures in respect of terrorism.
Advising on the application of local government constitution.
Advising on consultation requirements.
Advising in respect of Serious Case Reviews, having had experience of assisting with nationally reported Serious Case Reviews.
Court of Protection
Matiss has significant experience of the application of Deprivation of Liberty to children in local authority care, which is a rapidly changing area of law as well as experience of welfare applications on behalf of disabled children, and experience of advising on financial matters in respect of disabled children (including issues of trust).
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.
Matthew Wyard is a specialist public law barrister who “is meticulous in his preparation and has a great way with clients, putting them at ease”, “is very detailed and will go that extra step in order to present the strongest possible case” and whose “advocacy is well beyond his year of call” (Legal 500).
He has appeared in courts/tribunals of all levels up to and including the Court of Appeal and regularly appears against senior juniors and King's Counsel.
He maintains a deliberately diverse public law practice, although the common theme that runs throughout is the examination of the relationship between the State and individuals/companies and its powers of regulation/control over them. Despite its breadth, Matthew always has “a fantastic grasp of complex, factual cases and a thorough and detailed knowledge of the legal framework, capable of dealing with matters at a rapid pace” (Chambers UK)
Matthew prides himself on “excellent, comprehensive and practical” advice as well as his “exemplar” client care (Chambers UK).
Matthew is appointed to the Attorney General's C Panel of Counsel to the Crown.
Alongside his thriving practice, Matthew sits as a Chairman in the Valuation Tribunal for England and is the Vice Chair of the Board of Thinkspace Education.
Matthew is a widely published legal author. He is a contributing author to the Education Law Handbook, the leading text for education law practitioners and a contributing editor to Clarke Hall and Morrison on Children. He regularly writes for Lexis PSL and Practical Law and has also been published in The Times Higher Education, the Education Law Monitor and the Solicitors Journal.
Matthew is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. Please contact him for a copy of his privacy notice which sets out the basis upon which any personal data he may receive will be protected.
Public and Regulatory
Matthew is a member of the Attorney General’s C Panel of Counsel to the Crown. He regularly acts for Central and Local Government, public authorities and individuals. He accepts instructions for urgent and out of hours applications as well as international matters.
Cases of note that he has been instructed in/involved with include:
For the Appellant in AB v Newport City Council [2022] UKUT 190 (AAC) confirming that there is a right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal against review decisions of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal for Wales.
For Home Office in the leading Country Guidance case on Somalia: OA v SSHD [2022] UKUT 00033 (IAC).
For the Respondent in Nottinghamshire County Council v SF & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 226 considering the meaning of “necessary” under s37 Children and Families Act 2014.
To seek permission to appeal in D v Hampshire County Council [2020] EWHC 2916 (Admin).
DJ v The Welsh Ministers & Ors [2018] EWHC 2735 (Admin) : challenge to the Welsh Ministers Guidance on post-16 education.
Thilakawardhana v OIA [2018] EWCA Civ 13 : application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal and the substantive appeal.
Zahid v University of Manchester [2017] EWHC 188 (Admin) : leading authority on the relationship between the courts and the OIA.
DS v Wolverhampton City Council [2017] EWHC 1660 (Admin) Considering the application of s19 of Education Act 1996.
AC v OIA (unreported) : considering the legality of the OIA’s rules.
More information on Matthew’s specific areas of interest is detailed below.
Media and Communications/ Information Rights and Investigatory Powers
Matthew advises and represents clients in the entire cross section of work dealt with in the Media and Communications List of the High Court. He has a thriving data protection practise and also regularly deals with matters giving rise to claims in misuse of private information, breach of confidence, harassment, defamation, malicious falsehood and breaches of Article 8. He has represented Central Government departments, non departmental public bodies, higher education institutions, schools, companies and individuals.
Matthew approaches his media and communications work with an insight into the media world – outside of practise he is the Vice Chair of the Board of Directors of a music school.
Alongside the more traditional aspects of his media and communications practise, Matthew also advises organisations on the regulatory obligations for obtaining and controlling information and personal data on persons of interest under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and the Disclosure and Barring regime.
Recent examples of work undertaken include:
Advising a regulator on a variety of matters including:
the data sharing protocol between itself and a local authority the data sharing protocol between itself and the police
the legality of requiring a transexual individual to obtain a new DBS certificate following their transition the indefinite retention of safeguarding information
the balance to be struck between data protection rights and the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
B School: Advising a school on the merits of, and response to, a letter before claim alleging defamation.
Re: W: Advising the defendant on and settling the Defence to a claim brought under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
Drafting a comprehensive guide on data protection rights and privacy for internal use by a regulator in relation to the rights for third party contractors.
B v Ministry of Defence: settling the defence in a claim in the Media and Communications List for breaches of the UK GDPR, Article 8 ECHR, breach of confidence and misuse of private information.
S v Department for Work and Pensions: settling the defence on behalf of the DWP in a claim in the Media and Communications List for alleged failures to rectify personal data.
H v ACAS: represented ACAS in the County Court successfully securing allocation to the Small Claims Track for a claim for breaches of the UK GDPR, breach of confidence and misuse of private information.
Re: SN: settling a letter before claim against an international corporation for breaches of the UK GDPR that caused significant financial loss to a law firm.
Re: Mr R BS: advising a potential claimant on the merits of a claim under Article 17 of the UK GDPR (the right to be forgotten) involving the in-depth consideration of the journalistic purposes and archiving exemptions under schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Mrs B v A University: advising the university on prospects and evidence, as well as settling a defence and strike out application for a claim for breaches of GDPR, breach of confidence and misuse of private information.
Re: LL: advising on prospects, quantum and evidence in a claim brought for breaches of the GDPR and misuse of private information.
Re: CG: pro bono advice on whether a cyberattack constituted a breach of contract, as well as associated data protection issues.
Re: CS: advising a leading foundation school on their obligations to disclose personal information.
Re: A: considering a claim for malicious falsehood and breach of copyright arising out of an employment dispute.
Re: XX: advising on the data protection obligations of a social worker in respect of potential childcare proceedings.
Re: TSE: advising on the use of personal information by a music school within course materials.
Administrative and Public Law
Matthew is an expert in public law and judicial review. He acts for both claimants and defendants in all manner of public law disputes, and more recently has been providing strategic advice to a number of regulators. He is a member of the Attorney General’s C Panel of Counsel to the Crown so regularly acts for Central Government, but is equally comfortable advising local authorities, companies, charities and individuals. He accepts instructions for urgent and out of hours applications as well as international matters.
Matthew’s experience in administrative and public law is broad and includes: education, health, social care, immigration, asylum, freedom of information, planning, human rights, pharmaceuticals, professional regulation, commercial judicial review. He is equally comfortable providing strategic advice and support to regulators, as he is drafting and appearing in judicial review matters.
Recently, Matthew has been providing strategic advice and representation to a number of regulators/public authorities including regarding:
The limits of an inspection authority’s vires and the point at which is became functus
The legality and public consultation requirements of amending a regulators complaints process
The risks to the regulator associated with the implementation of a new Bill
Whether a novel business idea would require registration with a particular regulator
Whether a regulator was obliged, pursuant to ‘Managing Public Money’ to seek to recover its costs following a successful judicial review challenge
The prioritization process to consider complaints under an ombudsman scheme
How long a regulator was required to retain various documents under the UK GDPR
The correct interpretation of an ombudsman schemes enabling act and whether it could investigate a company, as well as an individual
Which public body was the correct body to employ a particular individual under the statutory scheme
Whether employees could lawfully consume medicinal cannabis in the workplace and the risks arising to the public authority
The enforceability of a historic covenant contained in an Abstract pre dating 1926
The legal risks associated with a public consultation
The applicability in the jurisdiction of an international certificate of good conduct
Examples of Matthew’s recent judicial review/public law litigation work includes:
R(F) v H Council – advised upon and settled the Summary Grounds of Resistance in this judicial review under s19 of the Education Act 1996
R(U) v H Council – advised upon and settled the Summary Grounds of Resistance in this judicial review under s42 of the Children and Families Act 2014
R(A) v An Ombudsman – settling the Summary Grounds of Resistance in this judicial review challenge to the ombudsman’s preliminary decision that the dispute was more appropriately dealt with by a court rather than the ombudsman
R(L) v An Ombudsman – settling the summary Grounds of Resistance in this judicial review challenge to the legality of the ombudsman’s refusal to consider a complaint due to it being more appropriately dealt with by a court and that there were other compelling reasons not to investigate
R(RN) v An Ombudsman – settling the Summary Grounds of Resistance in this judicial review challenge to the Ombudsman’s decision to refuse to investigate a complaint that was submitted out of time.
Acting successfully for the Home Office in the leading Country Guidance case on Somalia: OA v SSHD [2022] UKUT 00033 (IAC).
Representing the successful Respondent in Nottinghamshire County Council v SF & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 226 considering the meaning of “necessary” under s37 Children and Families Act 2014.
Seeking permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in D v Hampshire County Council [2020] EWHC 2916 (Admin).
Topham v Ministry of Justice – Successfully represented the defendant and secured te strike out of the claimant’s Article 8 Human Rights Act challenge
R(A) v B Council – Advising the claimant on a potential judicial review challenge to the defendant council’s direct payment scheme.
R(H) v X CCG – Advising the claimant in relation to a potential judicial review against the CCG’s failure to secure continuing care provision for a child with a life limiting medical condition.
R(E) v Norfolk County Council (unreported) – Settled the Statement of Facts and Grounds in this judicial review challenge which settled following the filling of summary Grounds of Resistance
X v G College (unreported): representing the college against a leading education law silk in a judicial review against its decision to exclude a student.
YMC v Office of Intercollegiate Studies (unreported): representing the claimant in what is thought to be the first judicial review challenge brought against the Office of Intercollegiate Studies.
EW v S County Council : advising on and settling the response to a judicial review pre action protocol letter concerning alleged breaches of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
E v H County Council : advising the Defendant local authority on an expedited judicial review claim; settled the Detailed Grounds of Resistance; advising on settlement
MA v B University : advising on the grounds for judicial review arising from a university’s failure to grant extenuating circumstances.
JP v IAP : advising on the legality of an Independent Admissions Panel decision.
AT v An Academy : advising on the grounds of challenge to an Academy’s procedure for conducting a managed move which successfully settled at the pre action stage
Re: DR : advising on the merits of bringing a judicial review claim against a London Borough for maintaining a policy on not placing children below 16 in children’s homes.
Cannabis and Life Science Regulation
Matthew Wyard is one of a handful of barristers who specialises in the niche provision of regulatory advice in the life sciences sector. He has a particular interest in the regulations governing CBD products and medicinal cannabis and a working knowledge of the relevant international and domestic statutory regimes.
Examples of recent cases Matthew has been involved in within the cannabis and pharmaceutical regulatory field include:
Re: D – Advising a Government department on the risks and regulatory regime concerning the use of medicinal cannabis on its premises.
Re: A – Providing advice on the domestic regulatory framework to Middle Eastern and African based joint venturers looking to establish a UK distribution company for the worldwide distribution of cannabis seeds
Re: MJH – Providing advice in conference to a financial institution on the framework for advising a Channel Island based investment fund on investing in the UK based medicinal cannabis market, including on proceeds of crime (with Nick Cotter)
Re: KM – Providing advice on the application of the EU Tobacco Products Directive to UK purchasers
Re: L – Advising on liability and quantum arising from a data breach from an NHS Trust
Re: V – Advising upon, settling and drafting the settlement agreement in a dispute between the directors of, and consultants for, an international pharmaceutical company as to the apportionment of liability between the company and consultants upon the consultants’ retirement
He is the author of a number of articles on cannabis regulation including: “Cannabis Based Medicinal Products” on Practical Law which provides an overview of the law; “Novel foods regulation: Getting your product to the UK market (including cannabis-based food products)” which reviews the law regulating novel food products in the UK; “The UK Market Authorisation for new medicinal products” and an “Update on UK tobacco law in light of Article 7 of the EU Tobacco Productive Directive”, which forbids the sale of any tobacco products with a characterising flavour.
Matthew Wyard issued a briefing with the cannabis team at Mackrell Solicitors, for businesses continuing to trade cannabinoid products post-Brexit which was also distributed by the Cannabis Trades Association to its members.
Education
Matthew is a trusted and respected adviser to the education sector and those operating within it, having practised in the field of education law since before his call to the Bar. He is recognised in both of the leading legal directories. Having spent a significant time practicing in Wales, Matthew is experienced in advising on the devolved education settlement in Wales.
Adopting a sector based approach, the kind of areas Matthew advises/represents institutions in includes the following:
Judicial Review: Most of Matthew’s instructions in relation to the education sector involve advising, drafting or representation before the High Court in respect of judicial reviews concerning education. He acts for claimants, defendant and interested parties before the High Court.
Governance and organisation: Having co-authored the school reorganisation chapter of the leading education law textbook, Matthew is regularly sought after to assist local authorities and other proposers with drafting documentation or advising on the process for school re-organisation. He is equally happy to advise and represent those wishing to challenge school re-organisation decisions by way of judicial review. As a non executive director of a higher education institution he is happy to advise on all manner of HEI governance issues, including registration with the Office for Students.
Data protection/information law: Benefitting from an established data protection/privacy practice, Matthew is sought after to advise schools, universities and local authorities on their data protection obligations.
SEN: Matthew regularly appear before the Upper Tribunal, First Tier Tribunal and Education Tribunal for Wales in SEN appeals. He also offers strategic advice and support to local authorities and schools in managing disputes that arise.
Equality Act claims: Whilst defending institutions before the First Tier Tribunal makes up the majority of Matthew’s equality practice, he is equally happy to appear before the County Court defending universities or schools in relation to any matter arising under the Equality Act 2010.
Breach of contract/negligence: Having spent his first few years of practice in the litigation department of a specialist education firm he has a solid track record in bringing and defending civil challenges against educational institutions including universities, and independent schools.
Land/planning issues: Matthew is familiar with the English planning law system, having appeared before Planning Inquiries and given planning advice on a variety of issues. With his knowledge of the education sector he is well placed to advise on these issues within the context of school organization (see Matthew’s property profile for more details).
Transport: Matthew has a working knowledge of the English and Welsh law on school transport and regularly advises on the same.
Regulation/reporting: Having previously been on secondment to an education regulator, Matthew is extremely comfortable advising on regulatory issues arising from school inspections, as well as obtaining urgent interim relief to prevent report publication. He also has experience in challenging Ofsted decision making in the Care Standards Tribunal, and in representing teachers before the TRA.
Examples of recent cases Matthew has been involved with within the education sector include:
AB v Newport City Council [2022] UKUT 190 (AAC) – represented the successful Appellant in this appeal to the Upper Tribunal which clarified the law in relation to appeals from the Special Educational Needs Tribunal for Wales.
Nottinghamshire County Council v SF & GD [2020] EWCA Civ 226 – represented the successful Respondents in the Court of Appeal in this decision clarifying the correct approach to s37 Children and Families Act 2014
D v Hampshire County Council [2020] EWHC 2916 (Admin) – represented the Appellant before the High Court seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal
X v L University – advising and drafting a Defence to a claim for breach of statutory duty under the UK GDPR
M v C University – drafting and representing the defendant university in an application to strike out a claim for breach of statutory duty under the UK GDPR and misuse of private information
F v H Council (unreported) – advised upon and settled the Summary Grounds of Resistance in this judicial review under s19 of the Education Act 1996
U v H Council (unreported) – advised upon and settled the Summary Grounds of Resistance in this judicial review under s42 of the Children and Families Act 2014
X v G College (unreported): representing the college against a leading education law silk in a judicial review against its decision to exclude a student.
YMC v Office of Intercollegiate Studies (unreported): representing the claimant in what is thought to be the first judicial review challenge brought against the Office of Intercollegiate Studies.
H v D School: Successfully representing the school in an educational negligence claim against a leading silk.
Re: BCC – Advising a proposer on a school re-organisation project to change a school from single sex to co-educational and drafting various documentation for the same.
Re: CSDN – Advising the appellant nursery in proceedings before the Care Standards Tribunal
Advising a regulator on the likely enforceability of a historic covenant contained in an Abstract pre dating 1926 Advising on the legal risks associated with a public consultation
Drafting online Government guidance in relation to registration with a regulator
Advising an inspection authority on the limits of its powers and when it becomes functus
Advising on the legality of amending a regulators complaints process
Advising a regulator on the risks associated with the implementation of a new Bill
Advising a regulator on whether a novel business idea would require registration with it
Court of Protection
Matthew is a Leading Junior in Court of Protection and is described as “an excellent advocate” (Legal 500, 2022) whose “encyclopaedic knowledge of both English and Welsh social care law is an advantage” (Legal 500, 2021).
He undertakes the entire range of instructions in the Court of Protection in both the health & welfare and property & affairs jurisdictions and represents all parties to proceedings. More detail on each area is set out below.
In 2023, Matthew started 3PB’s Court of Protection and Community Care Podcast: CopComm.
Property and Affairs
Much of Matthew’s Court of Protection practise falls under its property and affairs jurisdiction. Matthew regularly represents the Office of the Public Guardian, local authorities, individuals, the Official Solicitor, professional deputies and trustees. Representative examples of Matthew’s work includes:
OPG v RL – Successfully representing the Applicant in proceedings seeking an order to cancel the registration of an LPA due to P lacking capacity at the time it was made.
OPG v SLH & Ors – Representing the OPG in proceedings seeking to cancel the registration of an LPA and secure the granting of a professional deputy to protect P from.
OPG v JMG – Representing the OPG in proceedings seeking to cancel the registration of an LPA due to the attorney financially abusing P.
OPG v G – Representing the OPG in proceedings seeking to cancel a deputyship order due to financial abuse on the part of the deputy.
KSC v S Council – Defending an application which proceeded to a contested final hearing seeking to discharge a deputyship order.
Office of the Public Guardian v CE - Advising and representing the defendant attorney in proceedings brought by the OPG to cancel Lasting Powers of Attorney for both property/affairs and health/welfare on the ground that P had capacity at the point of execution.
Office of the Public Guardian v MS - Advising and representing the defendant attorney in proceedings brought by the OPG to cancel registration of a Lasting Power of Attorney for health and welfare on the basis that P had capacity at the point of execution.
G v G - Advising and representing a family member opposed to her siblings application for property and affairs deputyship over their mother due to concerns about financial abuse.
Office of the Public Guardian v LK - Advising and representing the defendant attorney on an application for removal sought by the OPG.
Re: AA - Advising a HNW client in conference and in writing on the options for protecting the assets of an incapacitated family member, including considering the appropriateness of a deputyship order or the settlement of a trust structure.
Re: JS - Advising professional deputies on the proper construction of an indemnity clause within a PPO arising from a £1.7m clinical negligence settlement and on their obligations pursuant to the same.
Re: DS - Advising an attorney on the legalities and procedure surrounding the transfer of property at an undervalue within civil proceedings where the defendant had lost capacity.
GB v SW - Advising and representing the defendant family member contesting a property and affairs deputyship application on the basis of alleged historic financial abuse.
S City Council v KSC - Advising and representing a local authority in a contested application for a deputyship order over P’s property and affairs following his falling victim to online fraud.
Re: LCD - Advising a national law firm’s private client department on the risks arising out of the transfer of property from a PI trust and the appropriate method of making the transfer.
Health and Welfare
Matthew regularly represents the Official Solicitor, family members, RPRs and local authorities in the range of health and welfare matters coming before the Court of Protection. His background in public law and education law, means that he can offer consistency of representation across all areas where the protected party is an adolescent. As such, he is regularly sought after by local authorities to advise on cross over cases where social care and education responsibilities are at the fore.
Representative examples of Matthew’s health and welfare work includes:
H Council v JB - Advising and representing a local authority in respect of a section 16 challenge concerning P’s capacity to engage in sexual relations and make decisions concerning his education.
B CCG v HJ & Ors - Advising and representing P, through the Official Solicitor, in a section 21A challenge concerning a Third Party Personal Health Budget, as well as an urgent issue regarding international travel.
County Council v JAS - Advising and representing a local authority in a section 21A application within which there were issues concerning P’s habitual residence.
B Council v PM - Advising and representing a local authority in respect of a DoLS challenge where P resides at an independent specialist college and the interplay between the education and DoLS schemes.
Re: SB - Advising a family member and corresponding with a local authority on their behalf concerning allegations that the local authority was unlawfully preventing them from seeing their adult children.
Re: MR - Advising and representing P in a dispute over a ward change following the Covid-19 pandemic.
KH v S County Council - Advising a local authority on the interplay between the different regimes under the Mental Health Act 1983, s21A Mental Capacity Act and s39 Children and Families Act 2014.
S City Council v JDC & Ors - Advising and representing a family member in this long running s21A and contact challenge.
CEM - Representing P in a dispute over her end of life arrangements.
Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court/Safeguarding of vulnerable adults and children
Much of Matthew’s work involves safeguarding. Where appropriate, Matthew is happy to represent parties before the Family Division of the High Court in proceedings under the Inherent Jurisdiction. Recent examples include:
Re: DN – representing an independent school in emergency proceedings issued under the Inherent Jurisdiction to authorize a child’s deprivation of liberty in an unregulated placement. Matthew also advised on the concurrent threatened Administrative Court proceedings against the school.
Re: AA - representing a family member in proceedings issued under the Inherent Jurisdiction concerning International Child Abduction.
Medical treatment
Matthew is developing a medical treatment focus to his practise and is happy to advise parties to medical treatment proceedings on an out of hours/emergency basis. To date, medical treatment matters he has been involved with include:
Re: JC – representing the family members in a dispute concerning whether or not P should receive dental treatment
Property and Estates
Alongside his thriving public law/judicial review practice, Matthew has a complimentary planning and environmental practice.
Matthew sits as a Chair in the Valuation Tribunal for England, which gives him a working knowledge of English ratings and land valuation law, as well as the principles of taxation of land. He is also appointed to the Attorney Generals C Panel of Counsel to the Crown.
Matthew is happy to accept instructions in all areas of planning and environmental law as well as related issues of highways, rights of way, covenants and easements.
Notable experience:
Advising an Action Group on the meaning of “full time students” within a s106 agreement and advising on whether a planning committee had erred in its interpretation of the agreement.
Advising an Action Group on whether it had grounds to challenge a local authority planning committee on Kides grounds.
Land adjacent to HMP Garth and Wymott – Matthew (led by Josef Cannon) represented the Rule 6 party objecting to the proposed development of a new prison in the Green Belt in this inquiry Recovered by the Secretary of State. The main issue within the inquiry concerned whether the need for a new category c resettlement prison in the North West of England constituted ‘Very Special Circumstances’ for the purposes of overcoming the presumption against Green Belt development.
Drafting an objection to a proposed Housing Regeneration Scheme in Westminster City Council on heritage, policy, transport, character and equality grounds.
Advising on a proposed challenge to a London Borough’s proposals to put in place a traffic management scheme that would adversely impact disabled residents.
Advising on a planning application concerning the development of a residential basement.
Advising on a potential challenge to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) against the operator of a telecommunications mast.
Advising upon and settling pre action correspondence in a claim against a London Borough Council under the environmental health legislation.
Regularly acting for and advising both public and private educational institutes on a variety of legal issues, Matthew has a unique insight into these institutions and the pressures they face and is well placed to advise on land and planning disputes that arise.
Melanie De Freitas specialises primarily in child care work (public and private law).
In public law cases she has been instructed by Local Authorities, Guardians and Parents
Recent Public Law cases include:
Representing mother involving allegations of rape on a 4yr old by a 12 year old (11 day hearing)
Physical abuse, neglect and, more recently, factitious illness
A case involving serious NAI injuries to a baby. Complex medical issues resulting in numerous medical experts giving conflicting opinions (20 day hearing)
Case involving serious neglect and sexual abuse involving disabled parents (26 day hearing)
Hearing involving a serious factitious illness case heard in the High Court (8 day hearing)
Section 38(6) application representing long term drug/alcohol user (7 day hearing)
Represent a mother whose already disabled child suffered acute subdural haemorrhages and the central issues resulting in a finding of fact hearing to decide the range of possibilities on how the injuries were caused. Complex medical evidence hearing necessary (9 day hearing)
G and H (welfare of the children) [2021] EWFC B21 (06 April 2021)
OCC v P [2020] EWFC B48 (21 October 2020
OCC v P [2020] EWFC B47 (01 June 2020)
Recent Private Law cases involve:
Private law residence, contact and removal out of the jurisdiction
Involved in cases with particular cultural and religious aspects. An example of such a case involving Kurdistan refugees had a final hearing (12 day hearing)
Complex case involved a convicted murderer seeking contact with child in the High Court before Correride J
Dealt with child aged 14 in a dispute between parents running for 10 years resulting on complex issues of education, residence and relocation before Paulfey J
Instructed by a Pakistani mother dealing with an allegation of serious domestic violence requiring a fact find hearing and then proceeded to deal with relocation within the UK (5 day hearing)
Lecture given on ‘Removal out of Jurisdiction’ after final hearing lasting 4 days in High Court.
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).
.
Michael George is a specialist family practitioner with over 30 years experience. He has a reputation for a good humoured and robust forensic approach with careful analysis.
Reported and Notable Cases
T v T: Medium to medium large asset case. Analysis demonstrated £1.2M of assets not accounted for in the SJE report. Successful submissions on trust issues at FDR. Negotiated settlement.
X v X: Medium asset case where proper analysis of police pensions and retirement dates by counsel increased pension pot for distribution to client by £350,000.
S v V: Jurisdiction and forum issues in context of internationally wealthy family with offshore tax structures. Contested issues of billionaire financial resources. Successful LSPO and MPS appeal leading to successful negotiated settlement covering multiple jurisdictions.
Re T: High net worth member alleged billionaire family issues of offshore trusts, family bounty, jurisdiction, forum, and circumstances of the marriage. Successful MPS and LSPO appeal.
Re T: Asset base circa £6M. Intervener claims whether constructive trusts or estoppel, inaccurate business accounts, liquidity issues. Opposing Leading Counsel.
Re X and Re Y: Two unrelated cases involving topflight motorcycle racers. Issues earnings structure of professional service company. Tax efficient strategies for extracting monies.
Re M: Asset base circa £6M multiple corporate entities in UK and republic of Ireland, dividend accounting irregularities breach of directors’ duties, Reduction of Capital / Liquidation Reconstruction Demerger issues. Opposing Leading Counsel.
Re S: Children private law, international contact issues and historic domestic violence. Opposing Leading Counsel.
Re H: Farming case and commercial operation asset base circa £8M. Multiple plots, synergistic values, easements, demerger of asset base for tax implications.
Re B: Farming case asset base £6M with overlapping family farming partnerships, leases, differential ownership of ransom strips, easements affecting valuations and caravan businesses.
Re H: asset base circa £13M interim property portfolio reallocation before end of tax year to defer £600K of CGT. Opposing Leading Counsel.
Re C: Variation of maintenance application. Husband was major shareholder in 8 private companies that had merged into one under complex and opaque arrangements. In original financial relief Wife alleged Husband had undisclosed offshore funds. No forensic accountant instructed – Wife’s original Counsel had failed to penetrate the web of arrangements and advised there was no evidence to pursue matter. On a variation application under cross examination Husband eventually accepted he was a beneficiary of a hitherto undisclosed Lichtenstein trust and that he had concealed assets from Court in earlier proceedings. Further inquiries revealed the existence of a secret trust to which Husband was a beneficiary and a further trust holding cash and loan notes against Husband’s company and a holding company incorporated in further offshore tax haven in the British Virgin Islands. Given these disclosures Wife capitalised her maintenance claim and the case settled on advantageous terms.
Re L: Family business was valued at about £5m. Negotiated settlement using a variety of tax efficient methods including dividend waiver and share buyback and cancellation. Opposing Leading Counsel – now Judge of Family Division. Post consent order Wife alleged Husband had concealed a £200,000 policy and threatened to reopen proceedings. Persuaded Wife’s advisers that it was not worth the litigation risk to reopen.
Re O: Complex portfolio of vested and unvested share options and LTIP scheme with differential tax regimes depending upon when options exercised. Client relocated from Kazakhstan to India during negotiations. Complex schedules of assets and contingent tax liabilities and international taxation considerations.
B v B: Departure from separation agreement based upon Husband’s false representation that his retirement was imminent.
AK v RB and MB [2011] EWHC 3317: Relocation to Kyrgyz Republic, expert evidence on socio political situation in the absence of international social services or diplomatic relations.
Askey v Woods [2005] EWCA 574: Contributory negligence and causation where there is no evidence that the Claimant’s negligence would have contributed to the accident that did happen.
Finance
Michael George has over 30 years’ experience in big money cases and cases with limited assets, where creative solutions are needed to meet needs be it Divorce, Dissolution, Separation, Schedule 1, Intervener and Inheritance Act Claims.
Michael regularly acts for overseas or internationally based clients where habitual residence, jurisdiction and forum are in issue. He is familiar with the practical and technical challenges these present. His expertise ranges from acting in financial remedy cases, advising on commercial and farming assets, tax efficient settlements for splitting assets as well as negotiating the complexities of undisclosed assets, financial manipulation, offshore funds, international assets, trust and corporate assets. He has a keen forensic and tactical brain and is particularly adept in cases involving company or trust assets and a significant element of his day-to-day practice involves dealing with corporate and trust structures that need unravelling.
Michael is well versed in both civil and family legal procedure.
He regularly lectures on some of the more complex aspects of family finance, trusts and company valuations.
FDR Hearing Service
Michael is available for private remote FDR hearings.
Property
Michael regularly undertakes cases relating to trusts of land both as intervener claims within financial remedy proceedings and as freestanding Civil Proceedings under trust of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act. He also undertakes significant volumes of professional negligence work arising from leaseholder issues.
Michael also undertakes a considerable amount of traditional Chancery work including Inheritance Act Claims, contested Probate and trusts both on shore and offshore with particular emphasis on the interplay with Financial Remedy proceedings.
His extensive financial remedy practice gives him a significant advantage when advising and negotiating on contentious probate matters where the divorce comparator and family dynamics play a significant role in outcome.
Property and Affairs
Michael also undertakes a considerable amount of Court of Protection Property and Affairs work including Inheritance Act Claims, contested Probate and trusts both on shore and offshore with particular emphasis on the interplay with Financial Remedy proceedings. Such experience extends to; revocation of an enduring power of attorney, proper exercise of the powers of a deputy, capacity to create a lasting power of attorney and the contested approval of a statutory Will.
Professional Negligence
Michael is member of the Professional Negligence Bar Association and as a former Head of Chambers Michael has extensive experience of adjudicating on professional standards issues and is on the Chambers’ professional adjudication panel.
He frequently advises and acts in professional negligence matters with a focus on leasehold advice and claims with a matrimonial finance and property focus.
Michelle Marnham is a Leading Junior Barrister with over 20 years experience, specialising in Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence.
Michelle has particular interest in catastrophic injury claims involving CRPS, traumatic brain injury and fatal accident claims. She is regularly instructed in cases with technical aspects on liability and in a wide variety of employers’ liability, Highways Act Claims and Road Traffic Accident claims.
Her Clinical Negligence practice includes expertise dealing with brain; neo-natal and birth defect claims; orthopaedics; product liability and cosmetic surgery.
Michelle is recommend in the Legal 500 as ‘a persuasive and effective advocate who is particularly skilled in dealing with claims involving complex issues.’ .
Michelle’s clients say she has a "charming personality" and a "sharp mind". Her empathy and rapport with clients provides reassurance and confidence that their dispute will be resolved in a timely and cost effective way. Michelle regularly contributes articles for Chamber’s newsletter.
Michelle is Head of 3PB's Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence team.
When not working, Michelle enjoys spending time with family and friends. Her two daughters aged 18 and 10 enjoy their family skiing holidays, which fuels Michelle’s passion for skiing and keeping fit.
Personal Injury
Michelle specialises in personal injury with associated professional negligence and fatal accident claims. Michelle is regularly instructed in cases with technical aspects on liability and in a wide variety of employers’ liability, Highways Act Claims and Road Traffic Accident claims.
Michelle has extensive experience in cases concerning staged accidents/RTA fraud and high value ‘malingering’ PI cases.
Michelle is Head of 3PB's Personal Injury group.
Personal Injury 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
Professional Negligence
Product Liability
Psychological Injury
Public Liability
Road Traffic Accidents
Travel Claims
WRULD
Recent cases
G v. F. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who suffered life changing severe neck injury with the potential to make him tetraplegic: disruption of supraspinous and interspinous ligaments from C2 to C6, disc protrusions at C3-4 and C5-6. Liability agreed 50/50. Quantum in dispute, in particular Ogden Disability and future work capacity. Case settled at JSM in the excess of £2 million, prior to the 50% deduction.
G. Instructed on behalf of the Claimant, who suffered significant head injury at the age of 17 months, now aged 17. Requiring expert evidence from experts in the fields of Neurosurgery, Neurology, Neuro-radiologist, Neuro-psychology, Neuro-psychiatry, Educational Psychology and Care and Occupational Therapy. Experts instructed on behalf of Claimant have identified long term symptoms and that the Claimant lacks capacity. Extent of injury in dispute with Defendant denying the extent of injury, capacity and restriction on earning capacity. Awaiting Approval of settlement in excess of 1 million pounds.
Yv.C. Representing the Claimant who sustained significant injuries in a road traffic accident, including fibromyalgia, injury to her cervical and lumbar spine with chronic pain, and severe bilateral tinnitus. Injury and causation in dispute. Case proceeding in the High Court of Justice.
B v. M. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who suffered a head injury, hearing loss, tinnitus and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after being assaulted during the course of her employment. Liability and injury in dispute.
E v D. Instructed on behalf of the Claimant who suffered significant injuries as a result of the road traffic accident, including 3mm parafalcine subdural haematoma causing a severe head injury, increasing risk, 10%, of suffering epilepsy. Also suffered psychological injuries. Claimant has required significant rehabilitation and has been medically retired. Future prognosis and return to work is guarded. Injury and quantum in dispute. Case proceeding in the High Court of Justice.
Instructed on behalf of the the Claimant who suffered a traumatic brain injury and other significant injuries and now lacks capacity as a result of being run over by her ex-partner, who was subsequently convicted. Liability in dispute. Defence pleads of Ex Turpi Causa, Volenti and Contributory Negligence. Case listed for split trial. High value claim.
Instructed on behalf of the Claimant in respect of a fatal accident claim arising from a Road Traffic Accident. Liability is in dispute. Awaiting approval of settlement.
C. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who suffered a traumatic brain injury with psychiatric overlay as a result of a Road Traffic Accident. Complex issues on causation and impact that it has had on Claimant’s ability to return to work. Value of claim in excess of £300,000.
F v S, Claimant suffered significant injuries including a left talar neck fracture and dislocation of the peroneal tendons and would require a fusion, a significant injury to his abdomen, that involved the loss of 2 inches of ileum from perforations and the removal of the sigmoid colon and an adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. Quantum in dispute, including whether the Claimant was ‘Ogden Disabled’, the appropriate reduction factor and the Claimant’s likely career path ‘but for the accident’. Case settled at a JSM, heard via video link, in excess of £725,000.
T v T and Aviva Insurance. Instructed on behalf of Second Defendant defending significant claim in respect of credit hire, claimed in the sum of £116,000. Judge accepted Michelle’s argument that the Claimant, whilst impecunious at date hire commenced, became pecunious during the hire period and failed to mitigate her loss. As a result the hire claim was reduced to 41% of the amount claimed.
C v. Y. Instructed on behalf of Claimant, aged 18, who sustained significant and life threatening injuries when he was rendered quadriplegic at scene and underwent a C5 corpectomy. The Claimant has been left with permanent residual symptoms and career path altered, resulting in a catastrophic injury claim.
F v. D. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who suffered a left hand crushing injury and developed CRPS requiring amputation of the limb. Catastrophic injury claim. Liability and quantum in dispute.
T v. S. Instructed on behalf of Claimant suffered significant limb-threatening and life changing injuries as a result of the road traffic accident, resulting in a catastrophic injury claim. Liability and quantum in dispute.
W v. Bam Nuttall Ltd. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who sustained significant injuries during the course of his employment. The Claimant’s injuries included left knee multiple ligament injury with PCL reconstruction, soft tissue injury to the left shoulder and Psychological injury – Adjustment Disorder, prolonged depressive reaction. Case complicated by reason that the Claimant suffered a previous severe traumatic brain injury and a mild organic personality disorder.
M v. Ager and M. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who sustained life changing injuries as a result of a road traffic accident, including traumatic brain injury with permanent cognitive difficulties, personality change impaired balance and mobility. Claimant also suffered vertical squint and orthopaedic injuries. As a result of his injuries the Claimant lacks capacity.
G v. C. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who developed mesothelioma based upon exposure during manufacturing employment.
Ahmed v. Richards. Successful defending a claim with the Claim being dismissed for fundamental dishonesty and the consequent removal of QOCS protection.
D v. Boots UK Limited. Michelle was instructed to represent the Claimant at a 2 day quantum only trial in which the Defendant had belatedly raised fundamentally dishonesty. Whilst FD was dropped at the doors of the Court the Defendant was still alleging exaggeration of symptoms. HHJ Berkeley found in favour of the Claimant on all aspects of Claim as advanced at trial and awarded Claimant damages in the region of £148,000. Claimant substantially beat a Part 36 offer that had been made on Michelle’s Advice and received benefits pursuant to CPR 36 but Michelle also obtained indemnity costs from the earlier date when the Defendant had raised the issue of Fundamentally Dishonest.
S v. Gooch and Zenith Insurance. Instructed on behalf of the claimant, a professional musician, who suffered injuries in RTA, including a dystonic tremor of the upper limb, orthopaedic injuries and PTSD/Adjustment Disorder. Complex issues on causation and impact on occupation.
B v. Selleck -Emery. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who was involved in a RTA whilst jogging. Liability in dispute. Claimant suffered significant injuries including fracture of the right tibia bone, requiring a skin graft, facial injuries – including dental injuries and scarring, head injury, discoid dermatitis and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Akande Nike v. Orsula. Instructed on behalf of the Claimant, a French National, in respect of her own personal injury claim and Fatal Accident Claim arising out of the death of her husband and two children in a road accident which occurred in England on M26. Claim raises complex jurisdictional issues as Defendant is Slovakian. Case settled at joint settlement meeting.
Brown v. East Cheshire NHS Trust. Instructed on behalf of Claimant in respect of her claim for complex shoulder injuries, including Neurological thoracic outlet syndrome, sustained as a result of an injury at work. Causation and injury in dispute.
R (a minor). Instructed on behalf of minor in relation to serious and complex injuries arising out of a road traffic accident. Complex causation issues in respect of brain injury, psychiatric injury and behavioural problems.
B v. C. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who developed asbestosis. Case concerned issue of date of knowledge and limitation.
Janjua v Lane. Instructed on behalf of Claimant in respect of complex ankle injury and psychological injury as a result of a road traffic accident whilst Claimant was riding a motor cycle. Liability in dispute. Case settled in excess of £300,000.
Hudson v Wise. Case involved the complex issue on causation in relation to the Claimant’s Cervical Dystonia. Successfully negotiated.
Davis v. X9. Instructed on behalf of the Claimant who suffered traumatic brain injury and trauma-induce blepharospasm in accident. Liability, causation and quantum in dispute.
Brooker v. Akkeron Hotels Group Limited. Instructed at the last hour to represent the Claimant at a 2-day damages only trial involving dispute between orthopaedic and psychiatric experts as to the injuries sustained. Successfully recovered damages on all aspects of the claim.
Robertson v. Gregory. Instructed on behalf of Claimant in respect of serious ankle injuries. Successfully negotiated.
Hubbard v. Tissiman and Royal Sun Alliance, Instructed on behalf of the Claimant who suffered injuries at the age of 16 in a road accident. Injuries include: open comminuted fracture of the right femur; complex Grade III A fracture, with delayed union; open fracture of the right tibia; multi-fragment injury to the right knee; and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. C required a tibial osteotomy. Claimant will require a knee replacement at the age of 28-31 and revision at the age of 48-56. Damages awarded in the sum of £716,000 at Joint Settlement Meeting.
J v. Thomas, M v Thomas. Instructed on behalf of two Claimants in respect of claims in damages for personal injuries and other losses they suffered as a consequence of historical sexual abuse perpetrated against them by their maternal grandfather when they were 3 –8 years of age. Both Claimants were diagnosed as suffering Specified Trauma-and stressor-Related Disorder (DSM-V 309.89) during childhood and continuing, Major Depressive Disorder (DSM-V 296.2); and Panic Disorder (DSM-V 300.01). It was successfully argued at the Assessment of Damages hearing that both Claimants had significantly underachieved at school and suffered a reduced earning capacity as a result. The claim raised issues including whether aggravated damages was appropriate, the correct discount to be applied to the multiplier and the Claimants’ future capacity for work. Both Claimants were awarded in excess of £200,000.
Atkins v. MIB. Instructed on behalf of the Claimant who suffered significant injuries when aged 18, namely closed head injury, open fracture of the right humerus, multi ligament injury with fracture of the right knee [segond fracture] and fracture neck of fibula, Depression of Moderate Severity, Acrophobia with panic attacks. A liability admitted claim with complex issues in relation to quantum and earning capacity. Damages awarded in the sum of £244,000.
Cockayne. Acting for the Claimant in respect of his claim in damages arising out of the catastrophic failure of a hip implant manufactured by leading manufacturer. Claim brought under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. Liability denied. The central issue was whether there a ‘defect’ of the implant within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The claim was successfully compromised.
B v. Thomas Cook and Unlu. Acted for Part 20 Defendant, Turkish Hotelier, in respect of fatal accident claim brought by B in respect of the death of his wife whilst on holiday. The Claim was successfully defended by the Part 20 Defendant.
B v. J Sainsbury PLC. Acting for the Claimant in respect of her claim in damages for personal injuries suffered as result of an armed robbery. All aspects of the claim in dispute. The claim was successfully compromised.
Whitmore v. Sunrise Senior Living Limited. Acting for the Claimant who sustained personal injuries as a result of an assault by a resident which occurred during the course of her employment with the Defendant. Liability for the assault was denied. Issues of contributory negligence and causation were also raised. The claim was successfully compromised.
X v. The Royal Parks Agency. Acting for the Claimant who suffered significant injury when he collided with unlit dark coloured bollard in a Royal Park. All aspects of the claim were disputed. There were issues of liability, contributory negligence, causation and quantum. Liability was finally agreed 80/20 in favour of the Claimant and the claim was successfully compromised for an award of damages in excess of £100,000.
Chambers v. The Steel People. Acting for the Claimant who suffered significant injuries to his leg. Successfully opposed Defendant’s application to resile from admission and claim was successfully compromised in excess of £350,000.
Sampson v. Robore Cuts Limited. Acting for a 37 year old diamond driller who suffered a crushing injury to his left [dominant] hand leading to Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type II; Depressive Disorder; and an Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety. Despite significant treatment to the left hand including neurolysis of the digital nerve and local flap to cover the nerve and also further surgery to bury the neuroma the Claimant continued to suffer pain in the hand with reduced grip and pinch strength. The Claimant underwent full implant of spinal cord stimulation which helped to reduce the pain. The need the spinal chord implant Claimant was permanent and the Claimant suffered permanent neuropathic pain of the most severe form. The claim was successfully compromised at a joint settlement meeting for a figure in excess of ½ million pounds.
Reddin v. May. Acted for Claimant, a minor, in a personal injury claim in respect of multiple injuries including head injury, personality change, fractured pelvis and psychological injuries.
Draycott v. Drury. Acted for Claimant in respect of catastrophic injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. Injuries included a traumatic below-knee amputation through the right leg, a traumatic amputation of the right arm, a significant brachial plexus injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder of moderate to severe type. Damages awarded in excess of 1 million pounds.
M v. C. Acted on behalf of Claimant who developed asbestos related disease as a result of husband’s exposure to asbestos in factory.
Junior Counsel to Colin Edelman QC in which they successfully acted for a large corporation (quoted on AIM) against a leading worldwide insurance group in respect of a dispute concerning a Public Liability Insurance Policy in the context of asbestos related disease. Involved detailed understanding of the cause of asbestos related disease and development of the disease.
Clinical Negligence
Michelle’s clinical negligence practice, perfectly complements her personal injury and professional negligence practice. Her reassuring, tactile and empathetic approach with clients in conference builds a strong rapport and confidence. Michelle is an excellent advocate and excels in litigation and mediation and is highly praised for her written work.Clinical Negligence Areas of Expertise
Dental Negligence
Brain
Neo-Natal and Birth Defect Claims
Orthopaedic
Product Liability
Cosmetic Surgery
Cases of interest include:
A claim arising out of the delay by GP in referring Claimant to a gastroenterologist for an urgent OGD leading to a delay in diagnoses in respect of oesophageal cancer and the development of advanced esophageal cancer.
A claim relating to the negligent treatment of left foot and leg pain with a non-healing foot ulcer, which led to the Claimant requiring a left above knee amputation.
A claim arising out of the failure to recognise that the Claimant was suffering from infection following circumcision and bilateral vasectomy, leading to the Claimant developing Fournier’s gangrene requiring repeated debridement and skin grafting. The claim was also advanced upon the basis of lack of informed consent.
A claim arising out of the failure to obtain the Claimant’s informed consent in respect of an open inguinal hernia repair. As a consequence, the Claimant developed ilioinguinal neuralgia, increased pain, discomfort and erectile dysfunction.
A claim arising out of the delay in diagnosis of Claimant’s aortic dissection. Breach of duty not in dispute, causation denied.
A claim arising out of a failure to detect stones within the gallbladder and the common bile duct, causing the Claimant to suffer prolonged pain, vomiting and distress.
A claim in the delay in diagnosis, management, and treatment of cervical cancer.
A claim concerning whether the Claimant was properly consented in respect of splenectomy, in circumstances that the Claimant subsequently developed sepsis and an untimely death.
A claim concerning failure to correctly diagnose the Claimant as suffering from Diffuse B-Cell Lymphoma leading to the development of advanced cancer.
A claim concerning the failure to investigate and treat a lung lesion, resulting in a delay in diagnosis of the Claimant’s lung cancer from which the Claimant subsequently died.
A claim arising out of the failure to monitor the Claimant on admission in respect of hypoglycaemic episode leading to an overdose of insulin causing a further hypoglycaemic episode and seizure.
A claim relating to the diagnosis and treatment of a sessile polyp following a sigmoidoscopy. As a result of the delay an abdominoperineal resection became necessary, and the Claimant lost a large part of his bowel.
A claim in the delay in diagnosing and treating the Claimant’s cauda equina syndrome.
A claim arising out of the failure by an optometrist to investigate abnormality of vision following a sight test that would have revealed the presence of a partial detached retina. As a consequence, the Claimant subsequently suffered a detached retina.
Naomi Webber joined 3PB following the successful completion of her pupillage in October 2019. She is based in the Oxford centre.
Naomi accepts instructions in all areas of civil law, with a particular interest in employment, education and public law.
Prior to commencing pupillage, Naomi worked as a Judicial Assistant in the Court of Appeal, and as a teaching fellow and research assistant at University College London and the University of Oxford.
Outside of law, Naomi enjoys running, cycling and baking.
Employment and Discrimination
Naomi Webber has a busy employment practice, acting for claimants and respondents in preliminary hearings, multi-day final hearings, and judicial mediation, both in person and via CVP. She also regularly drafts pleadings and provides written advice.
Her practice covers a wide range of employment law. She has advised and acted in claims involving:
Unfair dismissal (including automatic unfair dismissal and constructive unfair dismissal)
All forms of discrimination (direct and indirect discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment)
Whistleblowing
Equal pay
Unlawful deduction from wages
Holiday pay
Worker status
Redundancy
National Minimum Wage
Breach of contract (in the Employment Tribunal and County Court)
She recently acted as second junior counsel for the Respondent in Harpur Trust v Brazel (appeal to the Supreme Court, concerning holiday pay for part-year workers).
Naomi’s background in university teaching means she is willing and able to provide training in a range of areas of employment law. She regularly presents case law updates and contributes to the 3PB Employment and Discrimination newsletter.
Prior to pupillage, Naomi worked as a judicial assistant in the Court of Appeal, where she worked on a number of ground-breaking employment cases, in areas including National Minimum Wage, whistleblowing, territorial jurisdiction, and harassment.
Education Law
Naomi Webber has a growing education practice. She regularly advises and acts for parents, local authorities and schools. Her experience includes:
Regularly appearing in the First-tier Tribunal for parents and local authorities in EHCP appeals, including refusal to issue EHC plans and appeals of sections B, F and I.
Acting for parents and schools in disability discrimination claims in the First-tier Tribunal
Clerking school admissions panels and independent review panels (school exclusions)
Advising on breach of contract claims against independent schools
Acting for students and universities in discrimination and breach of contract claims in the County Court
She also regularly provides training to local authorities on admissions, exclusions and EHCP appeals.
Prior to pupillage, Naomi worked as a research assistant at the University of Oxford, examining the effect of the 2012 changes to the law of school exclusions.
Naomi has a particular interest in religion and education and wrote her masters’ dissertation on whether children have a right to a secular education.
Publications
Lucinda Ferguson and Naomi Webber, School Exclusion and the Law: A Literature Review and Scoping Survey of Practice (Department of Education, University of Oxford, January 2015)
Administrative and Public Law
Naomi Webber accepts instructions through the Government Legal Department junior junior scheme. She has assisted in disclosure exercises for high profile and complex judicial review claims and recently acted as junior counsel in a country guidance case in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). She is currently acting as junior junior counsel to the Undercover Policing Inquiry.
She has a particular interest in public law in the education context.
As a judicial assistant at the Court of Appeal, Naomi worked on a range of public law matters including immigration, asylum, human rights, school transport and the public sector equality duty.
Commercial
Naomi Webber acts in a wide range of contractual matters in the County Court. To date she has advised and appeared for small businesses and individuals in matters including unpaid invoices, disputes over quality of work, consumer credit and costs.
Overlapping with her employment practice, she regularly advises Claimants and Defendants on breach of contract claims in the employment context.
As part of her education law practice, Naomi also has a particular interest in contractual matters in the school and university settings. She has advised on contractual claims in relation to independent schools and out of school clubs, and acted for and against universities in breach of contract and discrimination claims.
Nathalie Bull joined 3PB in February 2019 and is a barrister who practices exclusively in family law.
Nathalie is ranked as a leading junior by The Legal 500 in both of her areas of practice, namely child law and finance. Nathalie is instructed by solicitors across the UK and internationally. Nathalie prides herself on the consistently positive feedback that she receives from both her lay clients and instructing solicitors.
Before joining 3PB Nathalie practiced as a barrister for 12 years at another Midlands based chambers. Prior to that, she worked in a large Solicitors firm as an Advocate. She is regularly instructed in private children proceedings, care proceedings, matrimonial finance and contested divorce/annulment proceedings. Nathalie has acted for parents, grandparents, children and local authorities.
Regardless of whether the case is child or finance related, Nathalie steers each case in a progressive manner with a view to concluding the proceedings efficiently at the earliest stage. She prides herself on her high record of agreed settlements between the parties in her cases.
Nathalie is an accomplished negotiator and advocate and she communicates effectively with her opponents and the judiciary to achieve the desired result. Nathalie has an eye for detail, she thoroughly prepares her cases and she strives to achieve the best possible result for her clients.
In her spare time Nathalie enjoys keeping fit by running and horse riding. She loves travelling and spending time with her family.
Family
Nathalie Bull practices exclusively in family law. Before joining 3PB Nathalie was part of another Midlands-based chambers for 12 years and prior to that worked in a large firm of solicitors as an Advocate.She has a busy practice and is regularly instructed in private children proceedings, care proceedings and matrimonial finance. Nathalie acts for parents, grandparents, children and local authorities.
Regardless of whether the case is child or finance related, Nathalie steers each case in a progressive manner with a view to concluding the proceedings efficiently at the earliest stage. She prides herself on her high record of agreed settlements between the parties in her cases.
Private Law Children, Injunction and Domestic Abuse
Nathalie is instructed in cases involving child arrangement orders, parental responsibility, prohibited steps and specific issues. Many of Nathalie’s cases involve allegations of domestic abuse, emotional, physical, sexual and financial abuse. Nathalie has a particular interest in complex cases of parental alienation and intractable contact disputes where the child may have suffered psychological harm as a result of the high levels of conflict.
Nathalie appears regularly in FHDRAs, DRAs, review hearings, direction hearings, fact-finding hearings, final hearings, enforcement hearings and appeals. Nathalie has considerable experience of fact-finding hearings, she prepares extensively, utilises a forensic approach and leaves no stone unturned.
Nathalie is instructed by both applicants and respondents in applications for non-molestation injunctions, occupation orders and committal proceedings.
During the 2020 COVID lockdown Nathalie held a live online seminar on 'enforcement of child arrangement orders, case law and procedure’, attended by more than 500 clients. In 2022 Nathalie held a live online seminar on Fact-finding hearings, with over 900 registered attendees.
Cases:
P v F (2023): private law (represented the father). The mother made an application for relocation of the children within the UK. At the two day final hearing the father successfully opposed the mother’s application and an order was made that the children must remain at their current educational establishments and the children must continue to live within the locality.
D v D (2022): private law (represented the father). The mother, a practicing GP, alleged the father had sexually abused the child and abused the mother including: rape, physical abuse, emotional abuse, gaslighting and coercive control. The father denied the mother’s allegations and he pursued 63 allegations of physical and emotional abuse against mother. A five-day fact-finding hearing took place and resulted in all of the father’s allegations being found against the mother and none of the mother’s allegations being found against the father. The direct contact between the father and child that had been suspended was then resumed. The mother underwent a psychiatric assessment and therapy.
B v B (2022): private law (represented the father). The mother sits as a judge in family law. The mother alleged the father had injured their two-year old child. The five-day fact-finding hearing concluded that the father had not injured the child. An expert psychological assessment of the family concluded that the mother had negatively influenced the child about the father. An independent social worker was instructed to re-build the relationship between the father and child after 2.5 years of no contact. Direct contact was then ordered to recommence.
T v T (2021): private law (represented the father). Following allegations raised by the parties 11-year-old daughter to the school staff and to the police, the Mother alleged that the Father had physically assaulted their daughter. At the fact-finding hearing the Judge concluded that the Father had not harmed his daughter in any way and the court found that the child had actually lied to a number of professionals about the untruthful allegation. Direct contact was ordered to resume forthwith.
E-I v E-I (2021): private law (represented the father). International case with the father residing in Bahrain, the mother and children living in England and the witnesses residing in America. At the fact-finding hearing the mother pursued findings against the father of coercive control and domestic abuse. The Court did not find any of the disputed allegations proven. The mother had stopped all contact between the father and children without any justification.
K v K (2021): private law (represented the mother). The father was a practicing GP. Both parties made a number of allegations against each other. At the fact finding hearing the Court made findings of domestic abuse and violence perpetrated by the father against the mother in the presence of the child. No findings were made against the mother. The father’s contact with the child was to remain supervised pending completion of a Domestic Abuse Perpetrators Programme.
H v S (2020): private law (represented the father). The father had obtained a ‘spend time with’ CAO in previous proceedings after the mother had made unfounded allegations against the father and his partner. One month after the final hearing, the mother raised further allegations and failed to comply with the CAO. Father issued an enforcement application, a guardian was appointed, the court made cost orders and penal notices. The father ultimately issued a committal application and a ‘live with’ application. At the final hearing the father was granted a ‘live with’ order and the court ordered very limited supervised time to be spent with the mother. The father’s solicitor described this case as one of the worst types of implacable hostility cases that she had encountered in her career.
H v G (2020): private law (represented the mother). A complex Children Act matter involving a number of issues. One interesting issue concerned the maternal family’s Jehovah Witness belief. The father felt the child was being indoctrinated by unhealthy religious views and as a result he sought a PSO to limit the time that the extended maternal family spent with the child on a supervised basis. On behalf of the mother it was argued that such an order would be religiously discriminative. The Court refused to limit the maternal family’s time with the child.
K v B (2019): private law, represented the father at a fact finding hearing. The father was accused of 7 allegations, which included rapes, baby shaking, domestic abuse and controlling behaviour. No findings were made against the father.
K v L (2018): parental alienation (represented the father) – the mother refused any form of contact despite a child arrangement order being in place. A Guardian was appointed to consider a change of residence. Enforcement proceedings were brought which the mother failed to engage in. A committal order was made against the mother, suspended on the condition that she engages in the proceedings and with all orders. The mother only then complied with the child arrangement order. A cost order was made against the mother.
S v S (2018): private law (represented the mother) - following her diagnosis of cancer and the breakdown of her marriage, the mother resorted to alcoholism, which led to her children being removed from her care and her contact being limited to supervised. After some time, the mother’s physical and mental health improved and she was able to evidence her sustained abstinence from alcohol through alcohol tests and the fitting of a SCRAM bracelet. The case resulted in an agreed order of shared care, in accordance with the wishes of the children and the mother.
H v S, H (2017): private law (represented the paternal grandmother) - the grandmother applied for a child arrangement order in order to spend time with her granddaughter. As a result of suffering from mental health difficulties, the father was unable to spend time with his daughter. The grandmother’s application was successful.
P v C (2017): parental alienation (represented the father) – the mother refused any form of contact and alleged serious sexual abuse perpetrated by the father against the toddler. At the fact finding hearing the mother was found to have concocted the allegations in an attempt to cut the father out of the child’s life. A Guardian was instructed to consider a change of residence. Contact recommenced, the mother engaged with and complied with the child arrangement order.
C v N (2017): private law (represented the mother). At a fact finding hearing the Court found that the father had deliberately started a fire in his bedroom with the intention of killing himself and his two children. The Court made a ‘barring order’ under s.91(14) Children Act 1989 to prevent the father from making applications under s.8 of the Children Act 1989 for a term of 7 years, together with a non-molestation injunction for a term of 7 years.
S v S (2011): parental alienation (represented the father) – the mother was incapable of positively promoting contact between the children and their father. A Guardian was instructed and recommended a change of residence. The children were ordered to live with their father.
Care and Adoption
Nathalie is instructed by parents, grandparents, children and local authorities in public law proceedings, including care orders, special guardianship orders and adoption orders. She has experience in cases involving non-accidental injuries, neglect and physical and sexual abuse of children.
Nathalie has experience in representing vulnerable clients and she is particularly sensitive to the needs of such clients.
Cases:
Re G (2022): care proceedings (represented the father). The mother alleged that the father had sexually abused the child. The three-day fact-finding hearing concluded that the father had not sexually abused the child and that the mother was suffering from mental health issues including paranoia regarding paedophiles. Following this, the local authority supported a ‘live with’ order to the father and supervised contact for the mother, which the court endorsed at the final hearing.
Re CD [2021] EWFC 112: care proceedings (represented the father) – Junior counsel led by Queen’s Counsel, appearing at the Court of Appeal on an appeal concerning public interest immunity brought by Warwickshire Police. Junior counsel at the fact-finding hearing before a section 9 Judge. The local authority unsuccessfully sought findings that the father had deliberately inflicted three fractures to his 4 month old baby. A number of expert witnesses from different fields of expertise were cross examined. The Court found that the father had unintentionally caused the fractures through his careless handling. The child was returned to the care of her parents. This is a reported case which is available to view on Bailii.
Re L (2021): care proceedings (represented the father) – Junior counsel led by Queen’s Counsel, appearing at the Court of Appeal on an appeal concerning public interest immunity brought by Warwickshire Police. Junior counsel at the fact-finding hearing before a section 9 Judge. The local authority unsuccessfully sought findings that the father had deliberately inflicted three fractures to his 4 month old baby. A number of expert witnesses from different fields of expertise were cross-examined. The Court found that the father had unintentionally caused the fractures through his careless handling. The child was returned to the care of her parents. The judgment will shortly be made available on Bailii.
Re L & M (2019): care proceedings (represented the local authority) – at a split fact-finding hearing North Yorkshire findings were made against the parents, ruling them out as carers for the children. The parents had made no significant changes by the time of the final hearing, accordingly final Care and Placement Orders were made.
Re R (2018): adoption (represented the adopters) - the mother opposed the adoption application and in the alternative applied for post-adoption contact relying upon the recent speech by Lord Justice McFarlane in promoting post adoption contact. This case involved a noteworthy legal argument concerning the need of an application under s51A when the mother was already a party to the proceedings and therefore s.46(6) provided the mother with the entitlement to propose contact arrangements, which the court must consider. The mother’s application under s.51A was dismissed on the basis that it was unnecessary.
Re H (2018): care proceedings (represented the mother) - the mother had learning difficulties and she required an Advocate to assist her at court. The vulnerable mother had been in relationships with violent men and sexual offenders and she was unable to recognise risks in order to keep herself and her children safe. Towards the latter stage of the proceedings the mother started to engage with the local authority and attend courses in order to learn the necessary skills to recognise risks. Unfortunately the mother’s engagement had started too late and she had not been able to demonstrate a sustained change, which sadly resulted in a Care Order being made.
Finance
Nathalie accepts instructions in finance proceedings, from interim applications, FDAs and FDRs through to final hearings and appeals. Many of Nathalie’s cases involve complexities such as international property portfolios, non-disclosure of assets and acquisition of assets pre-marriage or post-separation.
Nathalie’s strong negotiation skills result in the vast majority of her cases settling with Consent Orders, which often results in her lay clients avoiding significant legal costs. When attending final hearings, Nathalie strives to achieve the best possible outcome for her lay clients by utilising a forensic and persuasive approach.
Private Remote FDR Hearings
Nathalie is available for private remote FDR hearings. For more information on private remote FDR hearings please click here.
Cases:
E v E (2022): finance proceedings (represented the wife). One day hearing before a High Court Judge to determine complex disputed jurisdiction points of law and fact under Brussels II Regulations 2201/2003. The husband accepted the British divorce petition was lodged eight days before the German divorce petition, but the husband argued that the five-month delay in serving the petition meant the German Court was first seised. The wife successfully argued that the British Court was first seised, the wife had not failed to take the required steps, much of the delay was outside of the wife’s control, and the husband had failed to serve a translated petition on the wife in breach of the Regulations.
S v C (2022): finance proceedings (represented the husband). Complex case involving allegations of hidden assets, dissipation of assets, stollen gold, transferring sums to relatives to hold, mental ill-health and ringfencing of non-matrimonial inheritance and liquidated business assets. The husband achieved a favourable outcome, retaining 62.71% of the liquid assets.
B v B (2022): finance proceedings (represented the wife). The husband had failed to engage in the financial proceedings and disregarded all court orders. The wife successfully argued that adverse inferences should be drawn against the husband. The wife was awarded 84.31% of the total disclosed assets. A costs order was made against the husband.
I v I (2021): finance proceedings (represented the wife at the final hearing and on appeal). Complex case involving properties abroad, hidden assets, hidden income and non-disclosure, resulted in the commissioning of a private detective’s report. The Husband was found to be dishonest and adverse inferences were drawn against him. As a result, the Court ordered the FMH to be transferred to the Wife and ordered the sale of the foreign properties, with the sale proceeds being applied to discharge the FMH mortgage. Any remaining sums from the sale proceeds were to be retained by the Husband. The Husband appealed but the Wife successfully defended the appeal.
A v A (2021): finance proceedings (represented the wife at the final hearing). Complex case due to the Husband living in Germany, the Wife living in the UK and the FMH being in an uninhabitable state, having been ‘gutted’ by the Husband many years prior to the final hearing. The Wife and children had lived in a small converted garage annex for years. The FMH had not sold due to its state of disrepair. The Wife achieved a favourable outcome of 90% of the FMH net equity.
H v H (2020): financial proceedings (represented the wife at FDR). The wife was the primary carer of the children of the family. The parties both had good income levels, but they had significant debts of c.£126,000 between them, which the wife argued was due to the husband’s frivolous and reckless spending. Settlement was reached at FDR by way of sale of the FMH with 65/35 in the wife’s favour, plus a 46% share of the husband’s pension.
H v I (2020): financial proceedings (represented the wife at final hearing). A complex case involving properties abroad, hidden assets, hidden income and non-disclosure, resulting in the commissioning of a private detective’s report to uncover the truth. The husband was found to be dishonest and adverse inferences were drawn against him. As a result, the Court ordered the FMH to be transferred to the wife and ordered the sale of the foreign properties, with the sale proceeds being applied to discharge the FMH mortgage. Any remaining sums from the sale proceeds were to be retained by the husband.
O v O (2019): financial proceedings (represented the husband) – this complex final hearing involved multiple properties, allegations of fraud, disposal of assets and hidden assets abroad.
R v T (2019): divorce (represented the husband) - the parties had a civil ceremony with the intention of having a religious ceremony two months later. They had planned to consummate their marriage after their religious ceremony. Unfortunate the parties separated before the religious ceremony had taken place. As the marriage had not been consummated the husband applied to annul the marriage under s.12 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 on the basis of ‘wilful refusal’. The factually similar case authority of A v J (Nullity Proceedings) [1989] 1 FLR 110 was referenced. The wife consented to the husband’s application, however the husband was unable to bring himself to apply for Decree Nisi in order to bring the marriage to an end. The husband applied for the dismissal of his nullity application, the wife opposed this application. The Court allowed the husband’s application on the basis that the husband could not be forced to apply for Decree Nisi.
B v B (2019): financial proceedings (represented the wife) - the complexities concerned calculating a teacher’s final salary pension, the instruction of an pension actuary was required before settlement could be reached.
D v D (2019): financial proceedings (represented the wife) - short marriage without properties or children, settled at FDA, the arguments concerned the possession of valuable wedding jewellery and other gifted items including a brand new Mercedes.
P v P (2018): financial proceedings (represented the husband) - this case involved successful multiple-site estate agency businesses and a large number of properties within and outside the UK. Settlement was agreed between the husband and wife over the ownership of the properties.
L v L (2018): financial proceedings (represented the husband) - long marriage, settled at FDR, larger lump sum agreed in lieu of a pension share.
S v O (2018): financial proceedings (represented the wife) - concerned multiple investment properties and parcels of land. The complexities included the husband’s failure to engage in the proceedings, impending possession proceedings and conduct arguments.
Nicholas Cotter specialises in regulatory law (including HSE, EPA, CQC, Sports and business regulations), fraud, serious crime and disciplinary law.
Nicholas has advised and represented various prosecuting and regulatory authorities (CPS, Complex Crime Team, NCA, RASSO, UKAD and a number of Council Regulatory authorities)
Nicholas is often instructed to represent companies and directors in relation to alleged regulatory or criminal fault and is on hand to provide assistance for compliance, pre-charge advice and during potential prosecution.
He seeks to provide strategic and client centered approach to his advice and brings a forensic eye and assured and calm presence to his advocacy.
Crime
Nicholas has extensive experience of criminal law, including:
Serious crime consisting of murder, manslaughter, drugs importation, organised crime and sexual offences
White-collar crime consisting of fraud, MTIC matters, Bribery, compliance advice, and asset recovery matters
Regulatory / Quasi-Criminal matters involving particularly sports law, disciplinary hearings, maritime and food standards matters.
Recent cases:
Serious crime
R v X - Instructed Prosecuting Counsel in an ongoing matter involving a significant drug syndicate operating along the South Coast.
R v X - Instructed Prosecuting Counsel in an ongoing matter involving kidnap and the infliction of serious violence.
R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in an ongoing matter involving a campaign of stranger rape.
R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in an ongoing matter involving a campaign of arsons across the County of Hampshire.
R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in ongoing large multi-handed drugs nationwide importation conspiracy.
R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in a multiple victim rape allegation at a music festival.
R v X - Instructed Defence Junior Counsel in a multiple death dangerous driving case on the M3.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-38001454
R v F - Defence Junior in a 6 handed murder case at the Old Bailey resulting in an acquittal on the murder charge.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29849274
R v Parker et al - Prosecution Junior in “Operation Elevdon" on behalf of the CPS Organised Crime Unit arising from press corruption discovered during the Leveson Inquiry.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/18/sun-labour-mpphone-siobhain-mcdonagh-nick-parker
R v B - Defending at the Old Bailey in a historic rape case dated from the 1960s involving a teacher accused by seven former pupils of repeated and systematic sexual abuse.
R v X - Defended in a case involving fraud and linked arson values in excess of £2million.
R v L - Successfully overturned a conviction before Lord Chief Justice Fulford for alleged historic sexual matters in the 1970s. The appeal was in relation to the unsafe admission of a Defendants previous sexual conviction in the 1980s.
R v B - Successful prosecution of a stranger rape case in which the Defendant received a 16 year sentence with an 8 year extension period.
R v X - Successful defence at the Old Bailey of a young man implicated in a significant cocaine importation conspiracy. Involving legal argument over evidence procured from Columbia.
Financial crime / Asset Forfeiture & recovery / MTIC matters
R v H - Instructed Junior Counsel for the in £140 million VAT ‘Missing trader’ fraud (MTIC), Croydon (VHCC PANEL).
R v P - Instructed Defence Counsel in relation to an alleged £65,000 false accounting matter, Portsmouth.
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/benefit-cheats-stole-66-000-from-hampshire-councils-in-eight-year-scam-1-4130546
R v P - Instructed Defence Counsel in an internet Conspiracy to defraud, Isleworth. This matter involved an alleged Nigerian internet cash scam targeted at very elderly people.
R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in significant hidden assets POCA matter involving six figure sums.
R v X - Instructed Counsel in multimillion pound POCA matter, Portsmouth. This fully contested matter concerned a convicted loan shark.
Violence/Organised crime
R v B - Instructed Defence Counsel for a 13 year old boy charged with manslaughter and robbery, Old Bailey.
http://www.guardian-se-ries.co.uk/news/9871168.WALTHAMSTOW__Two_teenagers_guilty_of_killing_student/
R v M - Instructed counsel in the large 'gang' gun seizure in South London.
R v K - Instructed Defence Counsel in drug importation case, Canterbury. This case involved a group of Latvian males who were charged with smuggling drugs hidden within the engine of a vehicle.
R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in a large conspiracy to kidnap matter. This matter involved a Lithuanian gang who were alleged to be involved in the extortion, violence and kidnap of low-skilled immigrant workers.
R v S - Instructed Counsel in an arson with intent to endanger life.
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/local/court-arson-attack-toget-friend-a-new-house-1-3621216
R v B - Instructed Defence Counsel in murder trial, Winchester.
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/the-men-who-killed-brettcarpenter-lee-bevan-1-1232623
R v B - Instructed Defence Counsel in attempt murder s18, Woolwich. This matter concerned a male from Romania who was observed on CCTV planting a carving knife into the neck of a male and concerned issues of mental health and intention.
R v E - Instructed Defence Counsel in large scale violent disorder, Woolwich. This matter involved a large pre-arranged gang fight the case demanded detailed disclosure matters and sensitive part eight applications.
R v S - Instructed Defence Counsel in organised high value jewellery robbery, Chichester. This matter concerned a highly organised gang from Liverpool who as a team committed a daylight robbery on the shop before undertaking a high-speed getaway from the police.
R v S - Instructed Defence Counsel in an attempt murder in Cambridge.
R v Y - Currently instructed Defence Counsel in a gang kidnap, extortion and torture case in South London.
R v Aylett - Instructed Defence Counsel in road rage violence, Court of Appeal, reported. This matter concerned an appeal of sentence passed in relation to the actions of a male involved in road rage.
R v C - Instructed to represent the defence in a highly reported case involving the defence of a lorry driver accused of causing the death of an elderly lady at a crossing within the grounds of Luton airport.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-11390936
Fraud, Business and Financial crime
(including VAT and MTIC), Compliance advice, and Proceeds of crime)
Recent cases include :
R x X - Currently instructed Defence Counsel in significant company VAT fraud and linked POCA.
R x X - Instructed Defence Counsel in six figure POCA matter linked to illegal use of farm land for unlicensed activity.
R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel representing Dutch nationals being pursed in a six figure POCA matter (life style).
R v X - Instructed Junior Counsel for the in £140 million VAT ‘Missing trader’ fraud (MTIC), Croydon (VHCC PANEL).
R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in relation to an alleged £65,000 false accounting matter, Portsmouth. http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/local/benefit-cheats-stole-66-000-from-hampshire-councils-in-eight-year-scam-1-4130546
R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in an internet Conspiracy to defraud, Isleworth. This matter involved an alleged Nigerian internet cash scam targeted at very elderly people.
R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in significant hidden assets POCA matter involving six figure sums.
R v X - Instructed Counsel in multimillion pound POCA matter, Portsmouth. This fully contested matter concerned a convicted loan shark.
Public and Regulatory
Regulatory Law (including maritime, fire regulation, CQC, environmental law and Heath and Safety matters)
Nicholas undertakes instructions in a wide variety of regulatory and quasi-criminal matters.
Nicholas has prosecuted for a number of local and national authorities and has extensive experience representing employers, employees, directors and companies often charged with complicated and offences that carry profound reputation damage.
Nicholas is often instructed by insurance firms and risk assessors to provide pre-charge advice on the merits of a matter before action and is well versed in providing realistic, swift and cost appropriate advice to both those insured and self-funding. As such he provides advice and assistance targeted to avoid, challenge or minimise the effects of any regulatory investigation or prosecution whilst maintaining a commercial eye to an individual means and ultimate business reputation of the client.
Recent examples:
Environmental Law
R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in an environmental prosecution of a company director for alleged chemical air pollution.
R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel in an environmental prosecution of a farmer for breaching of the clean air act.
R v X - Representing a nationwide Salvage and building demolition Merchants charged with exceeding their landfill license. This case involved advising on the merits of a dismissal argument and the tactical approach this may have on the merits of the protection. The Environmental Agency upon consideration of the potential submission accepted a lower sanction resulting in a significantly lower fine with reduced reputation damage.
R v X - Representing a large property development firm and its primary directors charged with significant TPO breaches.
R v X - Representing a Defendant in relation to a POCA matter linked to light valuation post breach of a TPO.
Food Safety
R v X- Defence Counsel Representing a firm of nationwide food suppliers who were accused of breaching the EU Regulations on food hygiene involving the storage of milk and the production of cheese. This highly complicated matter met with success in avoiding findings in relation to the storage and hygiene of the primary functions of the business.
R x X - Defence Counsel representing a restauranteur charged with hygiene offences.
R x X - Defence Counsel representing a chain of patisserie charged with hygiene offences.
R v X - Provided advice on Alcohol licensing requirements for a large international warehousing and packaging company.
Care Quality Commission
R v X - Advising positively on the merits of a Care Quality Commission Appeals tribunal involving the cancellation of a service providers registration across a large and well established care home business.
R v X - Successfully advising and representing a care provider facing sanction from the CQC and potential corporate manslaughter charges.
Disciplinary Work
R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel representing a nurse before the NMC in relation to fitness to practice allegation.
R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel representing a solicitor sanctioned in relation to dishonesty.
R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel representing a therapist sanctioned for undertaking an unprofessional relationship with a client.
Trading Standards
Dorset Trading standards v X - Instructed to prosecute on behalf of the council in relation to breaches of trading by this subsidiary of a large nationwide plumbing business. Mr Cotter advised on the instruction of experts plus the digging up of a garden in order to demonstrate that the defendant had undertaken otiose and incompetent work. The trial was ultimately successful against both the company and its employees.
Berkshire Trading Standards v X - Instructed Defence Counsel to defend a vintage clothing company selling items including a substantial number of Converse trainers. The trainers were fake and to compound matters this was a second offence. Mr Cotter negotiated guilty pleas which avoided a prison sentence for his client. However the real impact of the case was POCA. The BTS sought a figure in the high hundreds of thousands. In the end the figure was reduced to close to a hundred thousand albeit after a full hearing and the use of forensic accountants.
Trading Standards v X - Mr Cotter was instructed to advise a management level employee who had been implicated in a large and global mis-selling allegation. Full advice and guidance was given or representations and the Prosecution against the employee was not pursued.
Health And Safety
HSE v X - A canal garage was being dismantled when a side of the boat fell over and led to an employee being trapped. Sadly he lost his legs. Mr Cotter was instructed as Defence Counsel and was heavily involved in negotiating a plea package, ensuring that only the company was prosecuted and in providing full mitigation to keep the company operational.
HSE v X - A lift engineering company working on the Cross rail project did not ensure appropriate safe guards were in place. The lift fell unexpectedly and severed the thumb of an employee. Mr Cotter was instructed late but negotiated a plea package for the company and provided full mitigation to reduce the impact of a fine.
Lincoln Council v X - A care home was prosecuted under the HS regulations. Three person died and the home was charged that it did not properly safeguard for risk for the HS of the residents of the home. Nick successfully challenged the issue of causation (via a quasi-newton hearing) and ensured that a limited package of pleas in this complex case was advanced plus substantial mitigation.
R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel representing the manager of a care home who was charged with failing to ensure the safety of her residents under the Fire Reform Act. This case sadly in solved the loss of the lives of two residents in a fire but thankfully led to the acquittal of the manager.
R v X - Currently Instructed to Prosecute as Junior Counsel a large holiday nationwide home company charged with failing to ensure the safety of its employees.
R v X - Currently instructed to Defend a construction company accused of failing to ensure the safety of its non-employees on a building site which resulted in a loss of life.
Sports
Nicholas regularly appears before sports regulation / disciplinary hearings and provides advice on rules, compliance and the consequences of infringements.
Nicholas has a significant background in malfeasance, bribery and fraud and is well placed to deal with these matters arising from corruption and criminality in sport. He has a particular specialisation in anti-doping law both Defending and Prosecuting.
Recent cases:
UKAD v X - Instructed Counsel for UKAD in a unique body dimorphism case pertaining to reasonable excuse and failing to supply.
UKAD v X - Instructed Counsel for a professional regional rugby player who fell foul of the use of banned supplement. UKAD conceded that some evidence existed which supported lack of doping education and no intentional use and the panel in turn were convinced of the merit of early return permission to training despite the imposition of a disqualification period. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/31552990
UKAD v X - Instructed Counsel for UKAD in a case that resulted in the first UK lifetime ban for a member of the “support team” for an athlete and impacted on the issue of who could be included within the definition of support personnel (namely an athlete's parent). www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-28641672 https://www.ukad.org.uk/sites/default/files/2019-05/ukad_vs_tinklin.pdf
BHA v X - Represented a professional flat racing Jockey before a full disciplinary panel accused by the BHA of the offences of sample tampering and bringing the sport into disrepute. The issue resolved around the use of illicit substances and the athletes attempt to use /acquire another individuals sample to mask the primary offence.
UKAD v X- Providing advice to a basketball player charged with a drug tampering offence namely that the athlete tried to pass off another athletes name when providing a sample. The case reached the tribunal and the athlete was given a significant reduced sentence in light of his mitigation and early advice.
UKAD v X -Representing a cyclist who had refused to provide a sample when requested after competition. The athlete was advised early in the matter and the key issues argued before the tribunal were primarily “compelling justification” and “no significant fault” for failing to provide a sample. The tribunal recorded a finding of no significant fault in favour of the cyclist and a much reduced ban. Nicholas also subsequently advised on the implications of disqualification upon prize money.
NADP (APPEAL) v LLEWELLYN - Representing a young boxer who had taken a sports supplement. The supplement contained a substance banned during competition and the existence of the substance within the supplement was not known to the athlete.
Marine and Fisheries Law
Nicholas has expertise that focuses on the maritime sector and linked Regulatory and Heath and Safety spheres.
He has significant experience in providing pre-charge advice and guidance for both Defence and Prosecution teams and is regularly instructed to represent owners, employees and companies.
He has provided advice in actions brought by the Maritime Coastguard Agency (‘MCA’) (HSE) and has also defended a number of cases prosecuted by the Marine Management Organisation (‘MMO’).
Recent cases:
R v X - Instructed Defence Counsel representing the Master of a cargo ferry being prosecuted under the Merchant Shipping Act (Collisions) for a significant accident involving another large cargo ferry.
R v X - Instructed Defence counsel representing an international captain accused of removing salvage from shipwrecks within British waters without an appropriate licence.
R v X - Representing an international salvage operation after being boarded by the Royal Navy and subsequently prosecuted for salvage work conducted within the Economic Zone (including a significant POCA element).
R v X - Advising the MCA in relation to a fisheries/harbour licensing prosecution.
R v X - Representing the Company owners of a private harbour in relation to a significant industrial accident that occurred during the dismantling of a barge.
R v X - Representing a ferry taster charged under the collision regulations.
Nicholas Leviseur specialises in chancery and common law disputes with particular emphasis on professional disciplinary and regulatory cases, including medical negligence. He also regularly undertakes serious personal injury claims, particularly those involving serious disputes between experts about causation, or in high value cases where quantification of damages raises difficult issues of principle. He has considerable experience in bringing actions against the M.O.D.
Recent chancery and commercial cases have included an indemnity claim arising out of the sale of heavily polluted land (itself the subject of litigation in the House of Lords) and defending a claim for run-off damages flowing from the sale of an offshore telecommunications company.
Nicholas Leviseur is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. Please contact Nicholas for a copy of his privacy policy which sets out the basis upon which any personal data he may collect about you, or that is provided to him, will be processed by him. He will provide a copy of this policy to you within 2 working days of its request.
Commercial
Nicholas Leviseur has an extensive practice in and considerable experience of commercial litigation in the High Court and Court of Appeal in London and in the negotiated and arbitral resolution of profit sharing, commercial development and buy out agreements and partnership disputes. He is also instructed in arbitral appeals to the High Court.
A significant proportion of Nicholas practice encompasses claims of defamation and malicious falsehood, privacy and data protection. He regularly advises in relation to all aspects of defamation cases, including territorial jurisdiction and serious harm. In addition, Nicholas advised potential defendants in relation to the various defences open to them, and the level of likely damages.
Nicholas Leviseur’s practice also extends to disputes including passing off, telecommunications, rectification, gas supply solus agreements, land development and mineral extraction contracts, director and shadow director share and bonus agreements, commercial hold harmless clauses and avoidance of liability in commercial insurance contracts.
He is regularly instructed in disputes involving entrepreneurs, businesses and banks and in partnership disputes between doctors, dentists and veterinary surgeons, restaurateurs and solicitors, as well as in negligence actions against solicitors and other professionals.
He has considerable familiarity with pre-action remedies and injunction relief and, in appropriate cases, with the grant and discharge of Anton Piller, Mareva, Norwich Pharmacal, and Khanna orders and in working knowledge of the methods commonly used to place funds in offshore jurisdictions.
Nicholas Leviseur accepts instructions under the CCG’s Standard Contractual Terms for Professional Services.
Clinical Negligence
Nicholas Leviseur has an extensive practice and considerable experience in serious personal injury and clinical negligence claims particularly those involving disputes between experts as to causation and high value cases where quantification of damage raises serious issues of principle. He is regularly instructed in brain injury cases and has a particular expertise in managing multi disciplinary teams of experts from an early stage in the litigation process.
Clinical negligence cases of interest have included genital surgery, general practitioner want of care, obstetric disasters, neurological misdiagnosis and those in which there has been a real absence of consent to surgical intervention. He has also appeared in a number of important cases in which very real issues of contributory negligence have been addressed by the Court of Appeal.
He has considerable familiarity with issues which commonly arise in whole life loss of earnings and care cases and is a contributor to the PNBA publication Facts and Figures.
Nicholas has considerable experience in multiparty and lengthy inquest hearings both with and without juries involving the examination of experts particularly in cases of public interest. His expertise includes: death in care homes, workplace deaths, toxicology, systems analysis and structural failure, public space deaths, cases involving the police and armed forces and multi vehicle collisions. He has a particular interest in inquest work as a necessary preliminary to the issue of civil proceedings and associated costs protection.
Notable Cases
Akers v Heald and the MIB The Times 14 January 2003 CA
Eagle v Chambers (No 1) [2004] RTR 9 CA
Eagle v Chambers (No 2) [2005] 1WLR 3081 CA
Roe v Novak and Manchester City Council The Times 27 November 1998 CA
Stacey v Joint Mission Hospital Equipment Board The Times 5 November 2001
Personal Injury
Nicholas Leviseur has an extensive practice and considerable experience in serious personal injury and clinical negligence claims particularly those involving disputes between experts as to causation and high value cases where quantification of damage raises serious issues of principle. He is regularly instructed in brain injury cases and has a particular expertise in managing multi disciplinary teams of experts from an early stage in the litigation process.
Clinical negligence cases of interest have included genital surgery, general practitioner want of care, obstetric disasters, neurological misdiagnosis and those in which there has been a real absence of consent to surgical intervention. He has also appeared in a number of important cases in which very real issues of contributory negligence have been addressed by the Court of Appeal.
He has considerable familiarity with issues which commonly arise in whole life loss of earnings and care cases and is a contributor to the PNBA publication Facts and Figures.
Nicholas has experience with marine accidents to include off shore rig cases, falling into holds and two liner holiday cases.
Nicholas has considerable experience in multiparty and lengthy inquest hearings both with and without juries involving the examination of experts particularly in cases of public interest. His expertise includes: death in care homes, workplace deaths, toxicology, systems analysis and structural failure, public space deaths, cases involving the police and armed forces and multi vehicle collisions. He has a particular interest in inquest work as a necessary preliminary to the issue of civil proceedings and associated costs protection.
Notable Cases
Akers v Heald and the MIB The Times 14 January 2003 CA
Eagle v Chambers (No 1) [2004] RTR 9 CA
Eagle v Chambers (No 2) [2005] 1WLR 3081 CA
Roe v Novak and Manchester City Council The Times 27 November 1998 CA
Stacey v Joint Mission Hospital Equipment Board The Times 5 November 2001
Public and Regulatory
Nicholas Leviseur is a well-known regulatory barrister with considerable experience of appearing in regulatory tribunals both as an advocate and as a legal assessor. His experience extends beyond the formally regulated sectors to include the disciplinary bodies set up by private organisations to control the conduct of their membership including political, trade and professional bodies.
He has considerable experience in advising at an early stage before proceedings are instituted, in helping to negotiate consensual disposals, and of appearing at interlocutors and final hearings. His experience covers all the medical, dental, nursing and ancillary medical professions as well as accountancy, education, ecclesiastical, environmental, health & Safety and the legal services professions. He also has considerable related experience of judicial review proceedings before the High Court.
Nicholas is regularly appearing in the first and upper tier tribunals and the High Court in relation to all aspects of local authority work and ancillary criminal enforcement proceedings brought by a variety of government agencies.
Over the years Nicholas has built a reputation and solid practice working for and against many regulators and is often found as an opponent to KC’s and leading counsel. Nicholas has recent experience working for and against the following regulators: NMC, CQC, GMC, SRA, UKCP, GPHC, BACP, OFSTED, GDC, CIMA,
Recent significant cases have included:
Medical/Care
Advising on the admissibility of highly prejudicial medical evidence given before a coroner and of the narrative verdict of the coroner itself, and subsequently successfully excluding both evidence and verdict
Negotiating successfully with the SRA as to the terms of a compromise agreement not involving the striking off of either client in a case involving the misuse of client funds totalling more than £500,000 over a 4-year period
Representing a distinguished practitioner at the end of her career before 3 separate tribunals and professional bodies in cases involving probity, clinical judgement and root and branch attacks on competence, resulting in complete acquittals in all cases.
Defending a primary school teacher against allegations of physical violence against young children, cross examining hostile teaching assistants, analysing data and social media records and securing acquittals in respect of each allegation.
H v GMC: Successfully appealing to the High Court against a striking off decision made by the General Medical Council in a case, against a KC as opposing counsel, involving financial dishonesty and the improper use of reserved medical qualifications
D v GMC: Successfully appealing to the High Court to force the reconsideration of orders made against a doctor by the General Medical Council
General Pharmaceutical Council v A: Representing a pharmacist accused of long standing sexually motivated conduct towards a junior member of staff and avoiding strike off
General Pharmaceutical Council v B: Successfully resisting an application for an interim order against the managing director and owner of a pharmacy chain accused of supplying and facilitating the improper transfer of the active ingredients of new wave recreational drugs to unqualified persons
Professional Discipline
Pearson v SRA: Successfully representing a solicitor in the evening of his professional career before his professional regulator against allegations of misuse of client account funds, over charging and accounts irregularities such that strike off was avoided
CQC v Oakdene: Representing a nursing home, its owners and manager against charges brought by the CQC for significant failings in care resulting in serious harm to an elderly disabled resident under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014
D v Association of Dance Movement Psychotherapists UK Ltd: Acting for the successful claimant in the High Court against striking off decisions made by her professional body in breach of its internal procedures
Licensing / Animal Welfare
H v Crawley Borough Council: Advising, representing and successfully overturning a local authority decision to close kennels on animal welfare and fit and proper person grounds in aa case in which the documentary evidence exceeded 10,000 pages.
Health and Safety
C BC v N: Advising, appearing and successfully striking out charges brought against a night club for significant breaches of covid regulations.
Ecclesiastical Law
Van der Zyl v Sizer: Appearing as prosecution counsel in the only Church of England Bishop’s Disciplinary Tribunal to be heard in public. Prosecuting allegations that a clergyman provoked and offended the Jewish community and engaged in anti-Semitic behaviour.
Environmental Law
Low v Z and H: Representing landlords in court in respect of statutory nuisances under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and successfully negotiating agreed outcomes before judgement.
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.
Nick Davies is a specialist barrister practising exclusively in family law with a strong emphasis on financial remedy proceedings.
His busy finance practice sees him representing clients at all stages from first appointment to final hearing and appeal including preliminary issues concerning the beneficial ownership of assets and maintenance as well as TOLATA matters. Nick is also experienced in dealing with divorce proceedings themselves including defended divorce; and is experienced in dealing with related applications such as preventing the grant of decree absolute.
Nick’s practice regularly involves private law children work in all areas of arrangements for children, particularly intractable contact disputes including those requiring the appointment of a Guardian. He also appears regularly in care proceedings at all stages from EPO until final hearing. He acts for all parties including local authorities, parents, grandparents and children as well as intervenors and special guardians.
Nick is based between the Oxford and London centres of 3PB and practises throughout England and Wales, appearing mainly in the courts on the South-Eastern, Midlands and Western Circuits. He appears at all levels of the Family Court as well as in the High Court and Court of Appeal.
Nick is qualified to undertake work on a direct access basis and regularly represents clients in this way.
Family
Nick specialises in family law and practises across the full range of this area at all levels of the family court as well as the High Court and Court of Appeal.
Nick is qualified to accept cases under the direct public access scheme. He accepts direct access instructions in family cases to advise generally in respect of proceedings or proposed applications, assist in the preparation of paperwork, and represent clients at Court from the beginning to the end of a case.
Finance
Nick also has extensive experience in financial remedy proceedings, at all stages from first appointment to final hearing and appeal, including preliminary issues concerning the beneficial ownership of assets.
He has particular experience in dealing with cases involving the following issue:
Assets located overseas and disputes over their ownership and valuation, particularly in India and South Asia
Land, including third-party interests and the effect of planning permission on valuation.
Companies, their valuation and ownership including family-owned companies
Family and other trusts
Maintenance pending suit, interim periodical payments and school fees
Share options and other deferred compensation scheme
Emergency remedies such including search and freezing injunctions
Disabilities and their impact on earning capacity including personal injury awards including structured settlements
Pensions, particularly police and military pensions
Nick also undertakes case under schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989. He also acts regularly in TOLATA matters and other beneficial ownership disputes, including those involving boats.
Nick has worked with clients from a wide range of backgrounds and is experienced in dealing with various cultural issues that arise from divorce proceedings. He is experienced in working with clients with disabilities particularly the deaf and blind/partially sighted.
Nick also provides representation at Child Support Tribunal, both at First Tier and Second Tier level. His experience in this context includes issues of contested jurisdiction and habitual residence.
Nick is also experienced in dealing with divorce proceedings themselves including defended divorces and related applications such as preventing the grant of decree absolute.
Recent cases include:
P v H [2023]: Successful maintenance pending suit application. Obtained an order for maintenance together with costs. Case involved issues of declining incomes on rental property portfolio resulting from interest rate rises.
K v K [2022]: Successful application for maintenance pending suit on behalf of the wife. Obtained full sum sought together with costs.
F v M [2022]: Resolution of a financial remedy application through arbitration, avoiding substantial delay.
K v K & K [2022]: Negotiated resolution of an intervenor’s claim in financial remedy proceedings.
M v S & S [2022]: Application on behalf of a wife to set aside transactions intended to avoid claims for a financial remedy by transferring proceeds of sale to a third party. Successfully obtained funds from third party to meet the original award together with costs. The underlying proceedings had been particularly complicated and long-running involving a factual dispute as to the duration of the marriage, requiring the intervention of the Queen’s Proctor. The factual issue was resolved in the wife’s favour.
B v B & A [2022]: Acting on behalf of the intervenor in financial remedy proceedings. Case resolved with the husband withdrawing their claim to the intervenor’s assets and paying intervenor’s costs.
S v S & S [2022]: Acting on behalf of an intervenor in financial remedy proceedings involving questions of US Law. Successfully obtained repayment of loan made by the intervenor to the husband and wife together with costs.
Y v N [2022]: Schedule 1 Children Act case concerned centred around issues of housing needs, mortgage capacity and childcare costs.
E v E [2021]: Successfully resisting application for variation of periodical payments orders.
K v K [2021]: Financial remedy case involving multiple properties and civil service pensions. Resolved by negotiation and agreement at FDR.
J v J [2021]: Financial remedies case involving the role of the needs and potential dependence of an adult child with special needs.
D v O [2021]: Representing a wife in financially remedy proceedings brought by a husband over 10 years after the divorce proceedings. Successfully resolved without any substantive orders being made against the wife’s assets and with a pension sharing order being made against the husband’s pension. Case involved consideration of how to approach compensation provided by the Thalidomide Trust.
S v S [2021]: Representing the husband in a case concerning an alleged post-nuptial agreement. Whilst the court accepted that factually a verbal agreement had been reached the husband’s case that it should not be taken into account was accepted.
S v S & S Ltd [2021]: Representing the wife in proceedings concerning the husband having transferred property to his brother’s company. The court was considering both the company’s application to intervene and the wife’s application for setting aside the transactions under s.37. The case was concluded by agreement with the wife receiving satisfactory financial provision from the brother.
G v G [2020]: Representing husband in financial remedy proceedings. The issues included the recovery of the husband’s pet which was being withheld by the wife at an undisclosed location. The case was resolved with the pet being successfully returned to the husband.
S v S [2020]: Successfully obtaining freezing injunction on behalf of the wife in financial remedy proceedings.
S v S [2020]: Representing the mother in complex and high value Schedule 1 proceedings. Issues involved concealed assets; the extent of the father’s profit from companies and transactions in various European countries; concurrent divorce proceedings abroad and the value and liquidity of shares.
Private Remote FDR Hearings
Nick 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
Nick has extensive experience in private law children in all areas of arrangements for children, appearing for parents, grandparents and Guardians. Nick has extensive experience of all stages of proceedings from FHDRA to final hearing and appeal. His experience includes the following areas:
Fact finding hearings concerning both domestic abuse and child abuse
Intractable contact disputes including those requiring the appointment of a Guardian
Parental alienation and change of residence
Disputed medical treatment
Relocation cases both internal and international
Change of name case
Representation of grandparents following the death of a parent
Nick provides representation in injunction proceedings relating to domestic abuse including non-molestation orders, occupation orders and transfer of tenancy.
Recent cases include:
M v S [2023]: Application on behalf of the mother to relocate with the child to Wales. Application successful at final hearing despite a change in position by CAFCASS from supporting the application to adopting a neutral stance.
C v C [2022]: Successfully defended a father in fact finding hearing resulting in all allegations against him being dismissed.
S v A [2022]: Successful resistance of a costs application in child arrangements proceedings.
W v W [2022]: High Court wardship proceedings concerning alleged wrongful removal to multiple countries. Acted on behalf of a father who was made subject to a without notice freezing injunction where the jurisdiction of the court to make that order was challenged.
S v S [2021]: An issue within child arrangements proceedings concerning the necessity of keeping the mother's address confidential for reasons unconnected with the proceedings. Successfully obtained orders for confidentiality of mother’s address.
M v M [2021]: Fact finding hearing in child arrangements proceedings. Successfully defended client against all allegations and obtained a finding the other parent had made false allegations and deliberately sought to frustrate contact.
Y v A [2021]: Representing mother seeking to relocate with child to Australia
D v R [2021]: Representing mother in domestic abuse fact finding hearing. Case had a complex history including involvement of multiple local authorities. Successful in obtaining findings against the father.
A v A [2021]: Representing mother on successful internal relocation application.
F v A [2020]: Representation of children in complex and long running wardship proceedings concerning wrongful removal to Dubai.
Care and Adoption
Nick appears regularly in care proceedings at all stages from EPO and ICO until final hearing. He acts for all parties including local authorities, parents, grandparents and children as well as intervenors and special guardians. He has experience in matters involving serious allegations of sexual and physical abuse, including non-accidental injuries, and in dealing with complex medical evidence of these.
Recent cases include:
Re: B [2023]: On behalf of the father, successfully resisted interim removal of 5 children in the face of a negative parenting assessment and Guardian supporting removal. Case resolved finally by agreement of all parties that the children remain in their parents' care.
Re: S [2023]: Representing a father in care proceedings in which it was alleged that father had been domestically abusive when father asserted that he was sleepwalking. It was further alleged that father had used drugs during a residential assessment on the basis of the results of hair strand testing. Successfully resisted the making of both findings.
LA v D & J [2022]: Acting for a mother disputing the basis on which threshold was met. Court accepted the basis put forward by the mother.
LA v A & Others [2022]: Acting for an intervenor in a case of alleged salt poisoning.
LA v D [2022]: Acting for a learning-disabled mother in care proceedings. Successfully resisted the making of final care and placement orders on the basis of the inadequacy of local authority assessments and evidence.
LA v R, U & K [2021]: Acting on behalf of a local authority in a High Court case concerning significant difficulties in obtaining a suitable placement for a teenager in their care.
A County Council v (1) X (By her Guardian Official Solicitor) (2) Y (3) J (By her Guardian) [2010] EWCA Civ 581: Court of Appeal judgment concerning post-adoption contact and social media.
Nick Kaplan specialises in commercial and contractual disputes, with a particular emphasis on construction and engineering.
Nick has detailed knowledge of the full range of construction issues and has dealt with a wide variety of both contentious and non-contentious matters. His experience includes: payment disputes, delay claims, claims for defective works, claims arising from defective construction materials and associated product liability, construction professional negligence, enforcement of adjudicators’ decisions and recovery of adjudicators’ fees and expenses.
Prior to joining Chambers, Nick worked in the Construction and Engineering Department of a leading City law firm. His work was particularly focused on advising and preparing submissions in relation to complex and high-value construction adjudications. In that capacity Nick also gained experience defending clients in a number of Health and Safety prosecutions by the HSE, and is familiar with the range of health and safety challenges that those in the construction sector face.
Pro-bono
During his GDL and BPTC years Nick was involved with a number of legal advice clinics where he advised clients on a range of matters including employment and housing management issues.
Articles
Grove Developments: - Unloosening or tightening the Construction Act’s Gordian Knot?, May 2019, Adjudication Society
Construction and Engineering
Nick is familiar with all standard forms of construction contract and regularly advises employers, contractors and subcontractors in relation to disputes that arise under them. Nick also has extensive experience in advising clients in relation to large-scale maintenance and supply contracts, particularly in the social housing sector.
Nick has particular experience running, and drafting submissions in, construction adjudications ranging from low-value to multi-million pound disputes. Nick both brings and defends adjudications and is well versed in the particular strategic and legal challenges that the adjudication process gives rise to. He has both brought and defended a number of challenges to adjudicators’ decisions in the courts, and has advised and acted for adjudicators looking to recover their fees.
Recent Cases
Nick is currently instructed by the Government of Montserrat in a high value arbitration concerning allegations of repudiatory breach of a construction contract and associated claims and counterclaims.
In Hog Construction Ltd and Hog Group Limited v Michael Paul Langridge (2018) EWHC 2889 (TCC) Nick successfully acted for the claimants in a Part 8 claim seeking declarations that the defendant was not entitled to adjudicate against either of the two claimants.
Nick is currently instructed by a well-known adjudicator looking to recover his fees and expenses following a series of contested adjudications.
Nick was involved with the preliminary ‘desk-top’ investigations into the fire at Grenfell, consequently he is familiar with the particular challenges faced by building owners and contractors in relation to fire-safety regulations, cladding and construction defects.
Nick referred an adjudication in relation to a contractors application for a 700+ day extension of time, successfully arguing that on proper assessment of the EOT claim the contractor was entitled to no extension of time.
Nick successfully defended a client in a prolonged £12 million adjudication arising under a large maintenance and supply contract which covered thousands of properties across the country. After several rounds of submissions, the Referring Party was awarded just 5% of the sums it had claimed. Nick subsequently advised on the settlement negotiations between the parties.
Nick advised and represented a well-known adjudicator in a successful summary judgment application for the recovery of the adjudicator’s fees. Summary Judgement was granted and the adjudicator’s fees and his expenses in pursuing them were recovered.
In The Vinden Partnership Ltd v ORCA LGS Solutions and Others (2017) EWHC B24 (TCC), Nick advised and represented the well-known adjudicator Peter Vinden in a successful summary judgement application for the recovery of Mr Vinden's fees.
Nick resisted enforcement of an adjudicators’ decision, successfully arguing that the adjudicator had lacked jurisdiction to determine the dispute.
Commercial
Nick's commercial practice focuses on complex contractual disputes and payment claims, the supply of goods and services, product liability and professional negligence. A significant proportion of the matters in which he acts raise questions of conflicts between international jurisdictions.
Nick regularly acts for clients at both interlocutory and final hearings and his experience at a law firm prior to joining chambers ensures that he has a strong client- focused approach, with a ready grasp of the wider strategic objectives that can drive commercial disputes. In each of his practice areas he represents parties in arbitration, the High Court, and the County Court.
In each of his practice areas Nick represents parties in arbitration, the High Court and the County Court.
Recent cases
Microlise Limited v (1) James Kemball Limited (2) Uniserve Holdings Limited High Court (KBD) dispute between a Transport Logistics group of companies and the supplier of transport telemetry devices fitted into cabs of lorries raising several issues as to (i) contract formation; (ii) incorporation of terms; (iii) allegations of breach and misrepresentation; (iv) causation and quantification of loss. The Case also raised issues of what is necessary in terms of a clause to exclude the statutory implied terms of “fit for purpose” and “satisfactory quality” from the transactions. Nick was led by David Parratt KC. Awaiting Judgment
High Court (KBD) dispute involving the purchase of 1930s Italian Racing car at auction for the then record price for a car of its kind of c.£1,200,000. The case raised several issues including (i) precontractual representations and contractual warranties; (ii) provenance; and (iii) value. Settled on favourable grounds. Nick was led by David Parratt KC.
LMAA Arbitration proceedings in 3 inter-related disputes concerning the supply of security systems and devices on four Yachts. Nick was Instructed by the Claimants in a Claim for c.£1,000,000 in outstanding fees owing under the contract. The case raised several issues including various setoffs allegedly due under other contracts. Nick was engaged at pleading stage, and after raising various ‘requests for further information’ arising from the Defendant’s pleadings Settled on favourable grounds.
Acting for the Claimant in a claim against multinational logistics company for alleged overpayments made under a Contract for services where charges had been applied on the wrong basis. The case raised several issues as to the meaning and effect of various clauses, in particular the pricing mechanism and various limitation and exclusion clauses. Settled at mediation.
Instructed on behalf of the Defendant in a dispute between a well-known supplier of coaches (and associated financing as well as repair and maintenance services) on hire purchase terms (the Claimant) and its customer (the Defendant), following termination of the hire-purchase agreement. Both parties alleged that the other was in repudiatory breach. There are substantial disputes as to (among other things) the meaning and effect of various contractual documents and provisions, including what (if any) terms are implied and what entitlement (if any) the Defendant had to make time of the essence under the contract.
Nick successfully resisted an application to set aside a statutory demand arising out of a c.£10,000,000 commercial fraud claim.
Medsted Associates Ltd v Canaccord Genuity Wealth (International) Ltd [2017] EWHC 1815 High Court (Comm) dispute between a Broker and Investors relating to fiduciary duties owed. Nick acted in a junior capacity on behalf of the Defendant, which successfully avoided an award of substantial damages against it.
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).
Nicola (formerly Simpson) Martin, former Head of the Family Law Group, is one of a minority of experienced family lawyers who not only conducts high net worth ancillary relief proceedings but also complex care cases (involving death or serious injury to a child) and sensitive private law children matters, including abduction and relocation.
With experience over 30 years spanning from appearances before magistrates to the Privy Council, Nicola brings a pragmatic and helpful approach to her cases and is renowned for skillful cross examination, retaining an empathy with clients from all walks of life.
Family
Nicola (formerly Simpson) Martin, former Head of the Family Law Group, is one of a minority of experienced family lawyers who not only conducts high net worth ancillary relief proceedings but also complex care cases (involving death or serious injury to a child) and sensitive private law children matters, including abduction and relocation.
With experience over 30 years spanning from FPC to Privy Council Nicola brings a pragmatic and helpful approach to her cases and renowned for skillful cross examination, retaining an empathy with clients from all walks of life.
Private Remote FDR Hearings
Nicola is available for private remote FDR hearings. For more information on private remote FDR hearings please click here.
Recent notable cases include
Q v R (intractable contact) [2017] EWFC B35 (28 June 2017)
Ancillary Relief high net worth involving assets worldwide and allegations of hidden assets and non disclosure [2014]
Care proceedings involving serious injuries, including fractures and brain injuries to a baby. Consideration of whether the extended family were implicated and if not whether the children could be sufficiently safeguarded within the family [2014]
Contested residence and internal relocation contact proceedings with background of serious assault, alleged assault on a child with social services and Police involvement [2014]
High value ancillary relief involving pre martial assets and disputed dissipation [2014]
Representing young mother in care proceedings. Difficult issues in relation to extended family, history of removal of previous children, parents abusive relationship [2014]
Representing father in relation to high net worth Sch 1 Children’s Act claims, including overseas trusts. Application to strike out and variation of child arrangements. International elements [2014]
Complex Ancillary Relief case with allegations of hidden assets. Previous intevener proceedings. Future ownership of joint business [2014]
Representation of a young mother in care proceedings resulting in return to her of 3 year old child and retention of unborn baby. Allegations of drug taking and chaotic lifestyle [2014]
Family barrister Nicola Brown, who joined 3PB in December 2020, specialises in care and placement proceedings and acts for local authorities, parents, guardians and grandparents/other interested parties, in cases involving serious non accidental injury, sexual abuse, chronic neglect, death of the child and fabricated and induced illness (FII).
Nicola practiced from another chambers in Manchester until 2010, where she specialised in personal injury and clinical negligence. She therefore has considerable experience of analysing and simplifying complex medical evidence. She is experienced in the handling of expert witnesses, particularly medical experts and she readily gets to grips with questions involving the causation of injury.
Prior to joining 3PB, Nicola worked as an in-house advocate for Staffordshire County Council for a number of years, a role in which she has undertaken many cases involving allegations of neglect, emotional, sexual and physical abuse, child death, FII and spousal killing. She has a particular interest in jurisdictional issues having studied international law including conflicts of jurisdiction and law as part of her LLM. She has also conducted cases involving arguments of designation between Local Authorities.
Nicola has always considered client care to be of the highest importance. She has always been commended for the way in which she puts her clients at ease and ensures that they understand their case. She is approachable, hard working and empathetic.
Nicola has lectured in law at LLB level and has also been employed as a trainer on both the LPC and the BPTC. She has used her experience of teaching and training in the creation and delivery of bespoke training courses for solicitors, barristers and social workers.
Family
Care and Placement Proceedings
Family barrister Nicola Brown now practices exclusively in care and placement proceedings, in which she represents all parties. She has a particular interest and expertise in cases involving non accidental injuries and fabricated/induced illness, due in part to her background as a clinical negligence lawyer but also to her experience of representing the Local Authority in such cases.
She undertakes fact finding hearings. She has been involved in cases in which children have given evidence and also where vulnerable adults are alleged to have caused significant harm. She has been involved in many cases where placement orders have been sought and cases beyond care proceedings, notably contested adoptions and adoption breakdowns.
Private Law
Nicola undertakes private law cases, particularly when these involve finding of fact hearings. Her role as a local authority advocate increasingly frequently crossed the threshold between public and private law and she has a particular interest in case where there are allegations of harm.
Legal training
Nicola created and delivered a two day training course for Social Workers, entitled Courtroom Skills, to assist with the process of giving evidence. She has created and delivered advocacy training and bespoke training on interim removal hearings. She has delivered a lecture on the use of expert witnesses at a CAFCASS conference.
Nicola will create and deliver bespoke training courses for clients to provide training on specific areas of interest.
Notable Cases
A County Council v A Mother & Ors. [2021] EWFC 104 (reported): Represented a local authority in an unusual and difficult High Court case involving an allegation of spousal murder by poisoning. Ultimately the authority sought supervision orders in respect of the children, who had undoubtedly been harmed by the death of their father, the allegation, the family conflict and the criminal investigation but not any parenting deficiency on the part of their mother.
Re Y [2020] (unreported) : Acted for a LA in case involving protracted discharge of care order proceedings brought swiftly after care proceedings. The case featured successful applications for non molestation orders and high court injunctions, the termination of PR agreements, declaration of parentage and a section 91(14) order preventing further applications being brought without the leave of the court for 2 years.
Re S [2020] (unreported) : Finding of fact hearing in which a child gave live evidence about allegations of sexual abuse against a step parent.
Re D + Ors (Children) 2017 EWFC B87 (reported)
Re DS [2017] (unreported) : Acted for a LA in a case involving the death of a child by drowning. Finding of fact hearing to establish parental culpability for the death. Press interest in light of ensuing criminal proceedings.
Re T [2016] (unreported) : Acted in care and placement proceedings involving a large sibling group; allegations of sexual abuse. Earlier proceedings resulted in findings that male children were not at risk of sexual harm in parents’ care. Subject proceedings necessitated the challenging of those findings.
Re Z [2016] (unreported) : Acted in protracted care and placement proceedings involving allegations of physical harm, international jurisdiction (several applications to transfer proceedings pursuant to Article 15 Brussels 11) prohibition of contact orders, assessment of potential careers in other jurisdictions, how such assessments can proceed particularly when the host country asserts sovereignty to control any such assessments.
Nicole is a specialist Intellectual Property (IP) barrister. She is regularly instructed in cases in the High Court, IPEC and the UKIPO. Nicole’s practice covers all areas of IP and she has recently been instructed in claims concerning trade marks, designs, copyright, passing off, patents and breach of confidence. Nicole has also recently appeared in the Company Names Tribunal.
Nicole’s IP practice is complemented by her extensive experience in commercial litigation. She is regularly instructed in a wide range of commercial matters, both independently of and in conjunction with IP disputes.
Examples of recent work
Alyssa Smith Jewellery Limited v Alisa Goodstone t/a Alyssa Jewellery Design [2021] EWHC 1482 (IPEC). Claim for passing off relating to jewellery brands.
Scott Hallsworth v Kurobuta Limited - KUROBUTA (O/359/19). Successfully opposed appeal to the Appointed Person.
DPA (London) Limited v Andrea D’Aguanno, Gretel Muller and MUDA Architecture Ltd [2020] EWHC 2374. Claim for copyright infringement and breach of contract.
Muckle Brig Limited v Gleann Mor Spirits Company Limited - LEITH GLASS WORKS (O/244/20). Successfully opposed appeal to the Appointed Person.
Grundfos Holdings A/S v Abcot UK Limited and another (IP-2019-000187). Ongoing dispute concerning trade mark infringement and passing off relating to the sale of parallel imports.
Lease Comparison Limited v Carparison Limited (IP-2019-000052) - IPEC claim for passing off.
Visual Foods Limited v New Harvest Wholesale Limited and another (IP-2019-000182) – IPEC claim concerning trade mark infringement.
Examples of copyright cases: alleged copying of a crime fiction novel; use of rap lyrics by another artist; and ownership of architects’ plans and models.
Examples of trade mark cases: skin care brands; international magazine; Chinese martial arts; coffee shop branding.
Examples of design right cases: sports kit; safety harness; domestic utility cupboard; lunch box.
Examples of patent cases: construction device involved in the manufacture of roads; construction tool involved in building walls.
Kirk Silo Installations Limited v Mansfield Garage Doors Limited (0/676/19) and(0/012/20) – successfully obtained an order for the change of the Respondent’s company name.
Commercial
Nicole has a wide range of experience in commercial matters including advising, drafting and representing clients in a range of general contractual and commercial matters. Nicole has extensive experience representing clients in the following matters:
Breach of contract
Agency
Insolvency & bankruptcy
Sale and supply of goods & services
Misrepresentation, undue influence & duress
Professional negligence
Intellectual property
Non-contentious
Nicole also accepts instructions in non-contentious matters and has experience in drafting and advising on:
Share holder agreements
Manufacturing agreements
Standard terms and conditions
Data protection notices
The limits and exceptions to issue estoppel: Nicole analyses Thomas v Luv One Luv All Promotions Ltd and another [2021] EWCA Civ 732 for Practical Law's Dispute Resolution blog.
Recent cases
Advising and drafting a skeleton argument in relation to a claim concerning the restriction of a former employee’s use of a personal LinkedIn account which involved issues of restrictive covenants and general contractual arguments.
Advising on a claim in relation to the ownership of a domain name which involved issues of undue influence and mistake.
Successfully obtaining an interim injunction to restrain the presentation of a winding-up petition.
Drafting a defence to a claim for breach of contract and misrepresentation concerning the sale of a dentist practice.
Advising in respect of solicitor’s negligence in advising on settlement.
Instructed in relation to a claim for a preference under s.239 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Acting as a junior in an arbitration concerning the installation of industrial fittings.
Intellectual Property
Nicole’s Intellectual Property practice includes copyright, trade marks, passing off, designs and confidential information. Examples of Nicole’s recent work includes the following:
Achieving a favourable settlement in a claim for infringement of a sports kit design
Advising in a trade mark dispute concerning an international magazine
Advising in relation to the copying of music lyrics
Drafting pleadings in a design case in connection with a toy
She also has experience of advising and acting in matters concerning domain names and database rights.
In August 2017 Nicole attended the Cambridge University Intellectual Property Law Summer School. Hosted by well-known senior IP lawyers the one week course included lectures and various practical exercises including an application for injunctive relief.
Nicole completed her pupillage under the supervision of IP specialist Victoria Jones, and continues to work closely with counsel in a broad range of intellectual property matters including copyright, trade marks and passing off.
Recent IP cases
Alyssa Smith Jewellery Limited v Alisa Goodstone t/a Alyssa Jewellery Design [2021] EWHC 1482 (IPEC). Claim for passing off relating to jewellery brands.
Scott Hallsworth v Kurobuta Limited - KUROBUTA (O/359/19). Successfully opposed appeal to the Appointed Person.
DPA (London) Limited v Andrea D’Aguanno, Gretel Muller and MUDA Architecture Ltd [2020] EWHC 2374. Claim for copyright infringement and breach of contract.
Muckle Brig Limited v Gleann Mor Spirits Company Limited - LEITH GLASS WORKS (O/244/20). Successfully opposed appeal to the Appointed Person.
Grundfos Holdings A/S v Abcot UK Limited and another (IP-2019-000187). Ongoing dispute concerning trade mark infringement and passing off relating to the sale of parallel imports.
Lease Comparison Limited v Carparison Limited (IP-2019-000052) - IPEC claim for passing off.
Visual Foods Limited v New Harvest Wholesale Limited and another (IP-2019-000182) – IPEC claim concerning trade mark infringement.
Examples of copyright cases: alleged copying of a crime fiction novel; use of rap lyrics by another artist; and ownership of architects’ plans and models.
Examples of trade mark cases: skin care brands; international magazine; Chinese martial arts; coffee shop branding.
Examples of design right cases: sports kit; safety harness; domestic utility cupboard; lunch box.
Examples of patent cases: construction device involved in the manufacture of roads; construction tool involved in building walls.
Kirk Silo Installations Limited v Mansfield Garage Doors Limited (0/676/19) and(0/012/20) – successfully obtained an order for the change of the Respondent’s company name.
Property and Estates
Nicole practices in all areas of property law and is regularly instructed to advise and represent clients in the High Court, County Court and First Tier Tribunal as well as at meetings within the ADR sphere. Nicole's experience covers the broad spectrum of real property, including nuisance, trespass, boundaries and easements. Nicole also has good expertise in landlord and tenant matters, including: commercial leases, possession hearings, rent arrears and service charges, disrepair and forfeiture. Nicole regularly advises and represents clients in matters involving TOLATA (Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustee Act) issues, and is known for giving clear strategic advice to resolve matters as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Nicole has substantial experience in cases involving right to light, property damage, access injunctions (including those for utility services), mortgages and charging orders.
Recent cases
Advising on numerous claims for nuisance, arising from rights of way and rights to light.
Advising in relation to the parties’ respective beneficial interests in a property owned solely by one party, which involved considering TOLATA claims and proprietary estoppel.
Successfully defending a claim for breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment.
Obtaining an interim injunction in the High Court to prevent interference with the right of way of a property developer.
Obtaining an interim injunction requiring a landlord to allow a commercial tenant to re-enter the property.
Obtaining an access injunction to allow a utility company to access their services on farm land where the landowner was refusing access.
Nigel is a Barrister, Chartered Quantity Surveyor, Chartered Arbitrator and Panel Registered Adjudicator with over 35 years’ experience of the UK and international building and civil engineering industry. He has a unique blend of academic standing and wide ranging experience in this specialist sector. Nigel is a member of 3PB’s pre-eminent Construction and Engineering Group.
Construction and Engineering
Nigel has over 35 years’ experience of the building and civil engineering industry including over 20 years’ experience of UK and international dispute avoidance/resolution techniques. Nigel was a Director in one of the UK’s leading and internationally renowned specialist firms, providing expert forensic quantity surveying, programming and dispute management services, before setting up his own practice in 2004 to focus on private tribunal work and expert opinion evidence on quantity surveying matters. Nigel has represented many clients in an advisory and/or testifying capacity giving opinion evidence to various tribunals including the High Court, QBD, Technology and Construction Court (TCC). He is also an accomplished and well respected arbitrator and adjudicator earned by conducting over 100 references on issues such as contract formation, contract interpretation, repudiation, termination, quality of work, cause and liability for delay, payment notices, valuation of complex work, loss and/or expense, additional cost, interim and final payments and damages.
Projects
Nigel has worked on many high profile projects including, Beirut International Airport; Bishops Square, Spitalfields, London; Ascot Racecourse Redevelopment; The Arena & Conference Centre, Liverpool; T5 Heathrow; Dubai Festival City, UAE; The Sage Music Centre, Gateshead; Media City, Salford Quays; Crossrail, London and Project Omega, Northern Ireland.
Family barrister Nigel Hawkins qualified as a solicitor in 1994 and has over 25 years’ experience of advocacy in family matters and specialises in public and private children proceedings. A prolific advocate already, Nigel has now been granted full exemptions to practise as a barrister by the Bar Standards Board. He transferred to the Bar and joined chambers in early April 2023.
He has a reputation as being a hard-working, thorough and professional solicitor who developed a very busy practice in the area of Children Law. He is a member of the Law Society Children Law Accreditation Scheme. He works to exceptionally high standards and prides himself that judges and other professionals regularly compliment the high standard of his position statements and skeleton argument documents. His knowledge and understanding of procedure is second to none; and he regularly makes Part 25 Applications for the appointment of experts and has made applications for parents to undergo residential assessments pursuant to section 38 (6) of the Children Act 1989.
A regular favourite of court-appointed Children's Guardians - and former head of the Child Care Department at a well-known law firm - across the south coast of England, Nigel brings his skill and pragmatism to both lay and professional clients alike. Nigel acts regularly for Children’s Guardians, children, parents, extended family members and local authorities.
Nigel deals with the full range of hearings about children, including the following:
All hearings within care proceedings including Interim Care Order Hearings, Case Management Hearings, Issues Resolution Hearings and contested Final Hearings
Emergency Protection Order hearings, representing children and parents
Finding of Fact Hearings in both Public Law and Private Law Proceedings, including complex cases of alleged non-accidental injuries, including fractures and significant bruising injuries
Deprivation of Liberty and Secure Accommodation Orders, including separate representation of children when there has been a conflict of interests with their Children’s Guardian and representing a local authority in Secure Accommodation Order applications
Placement Order and Adoption hearings
Final hearings where the court has had to consider arrangements for children, including who they should live with and who they should spend time with
Applications seeking permission to remove children from this jurisdiction to another jurisdiction or to relocate
Hearings to determine if Care Orders may be discharged
Special Guardianship Order hearings
Mediation and training
Nigel is a trained mediator and has also been a Collaborative Lawyer in the past and has an exceptional reputation as a highly-effective negotiator on behalf of his clients. He is also a popular speaker on family law and procedures and a recent well-received talk of his was to CAFCASS professionals about rule 16(4) Children’s Guardian’s Cases, the appointment of experts and Practice direction 12J relating to domestic abuse.
Outside of chambers, Nigel's interests range from reading and history to football, music, walking and spending time with his family.
Care and adoption
Nigel Hawkins represents clients at all stages of care proceedings. He regularly acts for Children��s Guardians, children, parents, extended family members, local authorities and intervenors.
Nigel has a particular interest in NAI cases and has represented children and parents in cases involving brain and skull injury, limb fractures, rib fractures, retinal injuries and significant bruising.
Nigel has represented clients at all stages of care cases involving:
Non accidental injury
Neglect
Domestic abuse
Drug and alcohol addiction
Sexual abuse (including inter-sibling sexual abuse)
Jurisdictional issues
Significant mental health problems
Separate representation of children
Expert evidence
Parents or children with cognitive impairment and capacity issues/special needs
Adoption
Special Guardianship
Discharge of care order
Reported cases
Dorset County Council v M & Ors (Removal: Balance of Harm) [2021] EWFC B43 (o6 August 2021): Represented three children aged 10, 7 and 11 weeks and their Children’s Guardian. The court decided that the test for immediate removal of the children from their mother’s care was not met and that their needed to be further assessment.
Dorset Council v E (Unregulated placement: Lack of secure placements) [2020] EWHC 1098 (Fam) (05 May 2020): Acted for a sixteen year old boy and his Children’s Guardian, successfully arguing that Local Authority should apply for a Secure Accommodation Order and that judgment should be sent to the Secretary of State for Education and to the Children’s Commissioner.
Re: MA (a child) [2016] EWFC 46: Acted for baby girl and her children’s guardian in the High Court. The child’s eight siblings were made subject to Care Orders in previous proceedings. Care and Placement Orders were made.
Re: IB (a child) [2014] EWFC 16: Represented the Children’s guardian on an application of the mother for Latvia to assume jurisdiction. The mother’s application was refused.
Unreported cases include:
Re: S: represented eighteen-month old boy and his Children’s Guardian where child had sustained a significant number of unexplained injuries. His cross-examination of mother’s partner was instrumental in the court being finding that the partner inflicted the injuries with the mother failing to protect his client.
Re: W: represented three children aged nine years, six years and four years of age in Care proceedings. Cross-examined paediatrician, both parents and various other professional witnesses and findings were made that the mother had inflicted the injuries on the six year old.
Re: L: arranged and chair a meeting of over forty professionals and represented a teenage boy who had been convicted of sexual offences against other young persons. Judge ordered meeting to explore the options re future care, therapy, support, education provision and participation where other young persons would be present. Proceedings were concluded by agreement, with the child living with his grandmother.
Re: M & R: represented four children aged nine years, seven years, five years and two years. Made a successful application for a psychologist report which showed major parenting issues with respect to the two older children, who were made subject to Care Orders, remaining in a specialist placement. Cross examination of the parents demonstrated that “nothing else would do” and Care and Placement Orders were made with respect to the five year old. A Special Guardianship Order was made in favour of the paternal grandfather and his partner for youngest child.
Children
Family barrister Nigel Hawkins has represented clients at all stages of private law disputes throughout his career. He regularly represents parents, extended family members, children and rule 16.4 Children’s Guardians in disputes about living arrangements, contact arrangements, removal from the jurisdiction/relocation and about the exercise of parental responsibility (e.g. education and medical treatment).
Nigel has significant experience conducting Finding of Fact Hearings and final contested hearings.
Nigel is experienced in representing parties in cases involving:
Domestic abuse
Drug and alcohol addiction
Alleged sexual and physical abuse of children
Finding of Fact hearings
Mental health problems
Intractable disputes/recalcitrant parents
Parental alienation
Removal from the jurisdiction and relocation
Recent cases
Re B [2023] (unreported): Acting for three children and their rule 16.4 Children’s Guardian. The eldest child who was seventeen years and an older sibling aged nineteen years made allegations of historical abuse against both parents. Significant findings were made following the older two siblings giving evidence, resulting in a final order for the mother’s contact with the younger children to be supervised.
Re: M [2022] (unreported): Represented a seven year old girl and her rule 16.4 Children’s Guardian. The child had sustained multiple bruises and burns on separate occasions. Following a Fact Finding Hearing the father and his partner, who was an intervenor, were found to be possible perpetrators of the injuries and/or having failed to protect the child.
Re: B (2022): Private Law proceedings, representing a ten year old girl and her Rule 16(4) Children’s Guardian. Child Arrangements Order applications, a Specific Issues Application re schooling and a relocation application to move to Australia. Made an application for the Final Hearing to be adjourned to allow an alternative expert as there were significantly concerning issues arising from the initial expert’s evidence. The judgment agreed with the Children’s Guardian’s recommendations about shared care arrangements and that the relocation application should not be granted.
Re T (2022): represented a nine year old boy with special needs, who lived with his grandparents who were his special guardians. The mother applied to discharge the Special Guardianship Order and, in the alternative, sought more contact. The mother was a possible perpetrator of significant injuries and argued she had made changes that would enable her to now care. The mother’s application was dismissed and arrangements as to future contact agreed.
Nikolai Lazarev specialises in international commercial litigation, arbitration, corporate finance, capital markets and sovereign wealth, and provides a broad range of specialist legal and commercial transactional advice. He advises some of the world's largest enterprises and leading financial institutions, as well as ultra-high-net-worth individuals and family offices in complex, often high-value, multi-jurisdictional and culturally sensitive disputes, projects and transactions. Throughout his professional career, Nikolai has advised on, and in many cases coordinated and been instrumental in arranging, capital raises in excess of $10bn of debt/equity financing across a wide range of sectors in multiple jurisdictions.
His diverse commercial litigation practice includes contractual, tortious, joint-venture, partnership and shareholder disputes, trusts and offshore structures, supply of goods and services, jurisdiction and conflict of laws, international crime and civil fraud (including conspiracy, deceit, bribery, constructive trust and restitution issues), worldwide asset tracing and recovery in multi-jurisdictional commercial and high-value matrimonial cases, urgent procedural applications (including stay of proceedings, anti-suit injunctions, worldwide freezing, search and disclosure orders), enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards.
Nikolai is an experienced corporate finance and capital markets lawyer (solicitor) who, before being called to the Commercial Bar, worked with a leading global London City-based law firm. Driven by his clients’ needs, Nikolai’s unique legal practice combines traditional contentious and advisory work (including commercial negotiations and dispute prevention) across a wide range of sectors, encompassing industry-shifting and first-to-market emerging technologies, blockchain, AI, renewable energy, corporate finance and capital markets (including M&A, pre-IPO restructurings, IPOs, rights issues, private placements and follow-on offerings of all sizes), media, banking, real estate, infrastructure, natural resources, commodities and taxation.
Nikolai is passionate about seeking innovative solutions to his clients’ most challenging legal and business needs. He has experience of coordinating and leading multiple legal and consulting teams worldwide, requiring creative strategic vision and an in-depth understanding of jurisdictions where cases may be won or lost. In complex cross-border matters, solicitors and clients value Nikolai’s astute commercial pragmatism, practical judgement, his appreciation of strategic (and cultural) nuances, combining his legal knowledge with the ability to think laterally to achieve his clients’ business objectives. Clients also appreciate his personable nature, responsiveness, versatility, attentiveness to their needs and ability to articulate highly complex legal concepts in simple and understandable terms.
International Arbitration
Nikolai is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb). He has advised and acted for clients across multiple industries and jurisdictions in matters requiring a high degree of commercial awareness in culturally sensitive environments. Nikolai accepts instructions to sit as arbitrator in commercial arbitrations or to act as arbitration counsel in ad hoc and institutional arbitrations (e.g. ICC, LCIA, SCC, SIAC, ICAC). He acts in arbitrations under the principal arbitral rules, including ICC, LCIA, SCC, SIAC and UNCITRAL.
Selected Experience
Advising Kazakh and Chinese state oil firms on the acquisition of one of the largest Kazakh upstream enterprises as part of a $10bn ‘loan for oil’ deal.
Acting for a co-defendant in a $6bn dispute involving a state-owned Central Asian Bank.
Advising a multinational renewable energy enterprise on a $1bn IPO with a private placement and subsequent rights issue.
Advising the government of Turkey on its sovereign note issuance programme.
Advising a prominent billionaire investor on the takeover of a leading European football club.
Advising a leading international bank on a €400m Sukuk issuance.
Advising an art dealer on the acquisition of several Old Masters, raising complex issues around Nazi-looted art, provenance and title.
Advising the ex-wife of a prominent billionaire in connection with obtaining (an additional) financial remedy by ‘re-opening’ her foreign divorce under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.
Advising numerous ultra-high-net-worth individuals worldwide on various ‘private client’ matters, including wealth management, trusts, taxation, investments and philanthropy.
Public Engagements
A regular public speaker and media commentator, Nikolai often addresses audiences at leading international forums. He is available for interview via his chambers.
Publications
Nikolai has written articles on international corporate governance, international commercial arbitration, human rights, legal philosophy and bioethics which have been published in leading legal journals, including International Company and Commercial Law Review (Sweet & Maxwell) and the Journal of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. Regarded as an authority on a variety of subjects, he is often cited in law books and renowned legal journals, including Harvard International Law Journal, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Society of Legal Scholars (Cambridge University Press).
Interests
Nikolai’s leisure interests include running (he is known as ‘the fastest barrister’ and was the winner of the 100m Chariots of Fire Sprint hosted by the Inner Temple to celebrate Harold Abrahams’ iconic win at the 1924 Paris Olympics), travelling, hiking, mountain climbing, speed skating, as well as the English countryside, oriental ceramics, music and art.
Commercial
Nikolai has extensive experience in a broad spectrum of complex cross-border commercial litigation, with particular expertise in joint ventures, civil fraud, banking & finance, contractual disputes, commodities, various injunctive relief, asset tracing and recovery, company and partnership (including insolvency), trusts and claims against fiduciaries and trustees, and commercial property disputes.
International Commercial Litigation
Acting for a co-defendant in a $6bn dispute involving a state-owned Central Asian Bank.
Acting for a leading German re-insurance company in various re-insurance claims.
Advising an international entrepreneur in his claim against a trading house in respect of losses arising from FX trading.
Acting for the owner of a leading Russian supermarket chain in a breach of contract action against former business partners, including advice on obtaining a worldwide freezing order and other interim relief.
Advising a leading Irish bank in a dishonoured Letter of Credit dispute with an Indian counterparty.
Advising an Icelandic bank on obtaining freezing injunctions.
Corporate Finance
Advising Kazakh and Chinese state oil firms on the acquisition of one of the largest Kazakh upstream enterprises as part of a $10bn ‘loan for oil’ deal.
Advising a multinational renewable energy enterprise on a $1bn IPO with a private placement and subsequent rights issue.
Advising a $1bn+ investor on the takeover of a leading European football club.
Advising a London-listed Russian mining and exploration company on the acquisition of a major gold mine in South-eastern Russia.
Advising a London-listed South American petroleum production and development company on fulfilling compliance requirements on the London Stock Exchange.
Advising a London-listed media technologies corporation on an issuance of loan notes.
Banking & Finance
Advising a leading international bank on a €400m Sukuk issuance.
Advising the government of Turkey on its sovereign note issuance programme.
Advising on a major financing of twenty fixed-wing aircraft for a Middle Eastern airline.
Advising a leading UK bank on the financing of three fixed-wing aircraft and two Eurocopters.
Art & Artefacts
Advising an art collector on the sale of a painting by Amedeo Modigliani raising complex aspects of provenance.
Advising an art investor on the acquisition of a painting by Anthony van Dyck and dealing with issues of attribution and provenance.
Advising an art dealer on the sale of a famous Andy Warhol artwork.
Advising an art dealer on the acquisition of several Old Masters, raising complex issues around Nazi-looted art, provenance and title.
Advising an art collector and investor in his title dispute with a leading international gallery concerning two semi-precious stone sculptures.
Advising a leading international art gallery in its joint venture with an art collector and artist.
Advising an artist on the recovery of his artworks following a dispute with an international gallery.
Advising an art investor on the acquisition of a rare Persian carpet and rare blue diamond.
Taxation
Advising a consortium of leading European banks on tax implications relating to a number of aircraft sale and leaseback arrangements.
Advising a major international corporation on corporate reorganisation and setting up tax-efficient business structures.
Advising a Russian zinc producer on taxation aspects relating to its winding-up process.
Advising various ultra-high-net-worth individuals on setting up tax efficient business- and asset-holding structures.
Construction and Engineering
Nikolai’s legal practice includes litigation, arbitration, advocacy and advisory work in disputes and commercial projects relating to technology, construction, engineering, energy and renewable resources.
Advising a private consortium on the syndication of a €2.2bn loan for the Elefsina-Korinthos-Patras-Pyrgos-Tsakona toll road, one of Greece's largest infrastructure projects.
Advising a major Asian electricity distribution company on the restructuring and relocation of assets.
Advising a major global hotel chain on a real estate portfolio restructuring, including advice on new property development projects.
Advising a Namibian desalination plant on its decommissioning process and international asset sale.
Advising a real estate investor on the acquisition of a multimillion-pound London-based commercial real estate portfolio, including units under construction.
Family
Nikolai has extensive experience of representing parties in the full range of financial remedies arising out of the breakdown of relationships between married and unmarried couples. These matters often involve complex international asset tracing and recovery, and working with forensic accountants and detectives in locating and freezing hidden matrimonial assets held through complicated webs of corporate entities, trusts and family members. He is often instructed to represent high-net-worth parties seeking to protect their assets on divorce or separation, which requires emotional sensitivity combined with robust tactical arguments to achieve the client’s objectives.
Advising the wife of a Russian billionaire in respect of her entitlement on divorce, as well as complex aspects relating to matrimonial asset tracing and recovery.
Advising the common-law wife of a Middle Eastern billionaire and securing a successful multi-million US dollar settlement following his initial refusal to undertake paternity testing to prove his fatherhood of her son.
Advising a prominent international entrepreneur on protecting his financial interests following aggressive demands made by his wife during their divorce.
Advising a wife in a high-profile multimillion-pound divorce settlement following successful tracing and recovery of assets belonging to her husband.
Advising the ex-wife of a prominent billionaire in connection with obtaining (an additional) financial remedy by ‘re-opening’ her foreign divorce under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.
Advising numerous prominent clients on complex issues pertaining to pre- and post-nuptial agreements before, during and after divorce.
Crime
Nikolai often represents reputationally-sensitive, high-net-worth individuals (and their family members), company directors and international corporations in domestic and international crime, complex cross-border corporate crime and fraud, corruption, bribery, money laundering, serious financial crime, asset freezing orders and confiscation proceedings.
Successfully defending (with Iain Morley QC) a foreign client who was charged with murder as a co-defendant and securing his full acquittal while the other co-defendant, represented by another QC, was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Advising a Russian party on procedural issues in a prominent CIS banking criminal fraud litigation.
Successfully defending a foreign client accused of rape, resulting in all charges against him being dropped without the case going to a full trial.
Advising an African mining company in a dispute relating to a bribery allegation.
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.
Oliver Ingham is an experienced trial advocate in both the Chancery and Family Division of the High Court, and specialises in the broad range of traditional and commercial Chancery work. In particular, Oliver regularly appears in both divisions representing parties to claims brought under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 “The 1975 Act”.
Oliver is widely recognised for his expertise and is highly regarded as a leading junior/leading individual in the three main Directories/League Tables and Rankings as recommended counsel for matters that include Chancery (particularly claims brought under the Inheritance Act 1975 and estate-related litigation under CPR 64), Tax, Probate and Private Client work.
Legal 500 (London Bar) - Private Client - Trusts and Probate - Tier 1), Oliver was named a “Rising Star”.
Legal 500 (Midlands Bar) - Chancery, Tax and Probate, Oliver is likewise ranked highly (Tier 1) and again was also named as a “Rising Star” by them.
Chambers and Partners, High Net Worth Guide (Chancery: Traditional - London Bar), Oliver is ranked/recommended as “up and coming” by them.
Chambers and Partners, UK Bar, London (Chancery: Traditional) - Oliver is recommended as “up and coming" in this field.
Recent highlights include acting in the widely covered Kaur v Estate of Karnail Singh & Ors [2023] EWHC 304, the widely reported/significant appeal in the Supreme Court Hirachand [2022] 1 WLR 1162, and tangentially similar case/appeal in Jassall v Shah [2021] EWHC 3552 (Ch) which significantly changed the law regarding the treatment of costs during as opposed to after the event.
In Kaur v Singh [2023] EWHC 304 Mr Justice Peel said of Oliver that he presented the case with "impeccable efficiency, enabling the court to get to grips swiftly with the factual background, issues, legal principles and suggested outcome", and described his conduct of the case "exemplary". In Baxter v Todd [2019] EWHC 1959 the Court noted that “[His] performance was first class…really first class” and that “[He] argued [his] case with very considerable skill”.
Oliver predominantly practices in London, as well as the Midlands (particularly from our Birmingham Centre) insofar as his Probate/Islamic Finance practice is concerned and has appeared in the Business and Property Courts in Bristol, Birmingham and Manchester. Oliver is therefore also used to appearing in the Chancery Division in District Registries other than London. Oliver specialises particularly in representing Sikh and Muslim communities in probate disputes, and many of his cases have a strong cultural/ religious component to them.
Oliver has a keen interest in the Muslim and Sikh faiths, which inform his work. Most recently, Oliver studied Shari'a Law at the University of Edinburgh and is increasingly instructed on matters concerning Islamic finance (particularly as it pertains to Inheritance) and can represent claimants and defendants at the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal and at Court on a wide variety of matters related to Shari'a Law.
Oliver is an affiliate of the Society of Trusts and Estates Practitioners and can advise on non-contentious probate matters, including in relation to estate planning.
Oliver also undertakes a wide variety of commercial chancery work, including commercial disputes where there is a strong emphasis on equitable relief/ breach of trust.
Oliver also has an interest in costs-only probate, insolvency and commercial proceedings, (particularly detailed assessment proceedings in the Senior Courts costs office).
Reported cases
Kaur v Estate of Karnail Singh & Ors [2023] EWHC 304; [2023] 2 WLUK 214
Oliver acted for the successful Claimant in the case Kaur v Estate of Karnail Singh & Ors [2023] EWHC 304 (Fam) where the Mrs Kaur was excluded from her husband’s Will notwithstanding a marriage of 66 years. The Deceased excluded his wife and four daughters because the he wished to leave his estate solely down the male line. The Judgment secured is worth nearly £1,000,000.
Riaz v Riaz and Ors (Insolvent Administration Order) [2022] EWHC Ch 229
Oliver successfully obtained an Insolvent Administration Order on behalf of the petitioning creditor/beneficiary of an Estate. The proceedings were contentious, and involved five Counsel. Clarification was given on the legal principles, including when the lower or higher burden of proof viz Insolvency applies.
Hirachand v Hirachd [2021] EWCA Civ 1498; [2022] 1 W.L.R. 1162; {2022] 1 F.C.R. 757;[2022] W.T.L.R. 185
This case found for the first time that a Court could order an estate to pay for a CFA uplift as part of an award under the Inheritance Act 1975. Further, an award was made by video link in circumstances where the defendant (who was unrepresented) a profoundly deaf and disabled 87 year old woman who could not hear or see what was going on. The defendant had been debarred from defending the claim.
Since this decision was handed down, it has become commonplace for claimants to now claim entitlement to be paid a CFA uplift in most 1975 Act claims that come before the chancery or family division of the High Court. Oliver was instructed to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found that CFA uplifts were recoverable from an estate.
Gitto Estates Ltd (t/a Horizon Properties) v Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC (QB) 1997; WLUK 175
Oliver acted for the successful application for an injunction restraining interference with the proprietary rights of the claimant.
Hanger Holdings v Perlake Corporation SA & Anor [2021] EWHC 81 (Ch)
Oliver represented the defendant pre-trial (including settling the pleadings) in relation to the allegation that a website domain name (blackjack.com) was held on trust by the defendant. The case confirmed for the first time that a domain name is intangible property which can be subject to equitable interests/held on trust.
Williams v Nu Design and Build [2021] EWHC 197; [2021] 1 WLUK 148
Oliver successfully defeated an application for summary judgment in circumstances where the claimant sought to persuade the court that a clause of a contract was unreasonable pursuant to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. The court held that it was generally inappropriate to summarily determine reasonableness before liability had been established, because the court would necessarily need to know what liability was sought to be excluded under the term.
Re H [2020] EWHC 1134 (Fam) ;[2020] 2 F.L.R. 561; [2020] W.T.L.R. 479 [2020] C.L.Y. 1773
Oliver is instructed in the appeal of this decision to the Court of Appeal on behalf of the appellant/beneficiary. The Court of Appeal will consider whether the High Court erred in law when awarding the claimant her CFA uplift.
HCQ Sarl v Terre Primitive Limited [2019] EWHC 2556 (Ch); [2019] WLUK 385 (before Norris J)
Oliver successfully represented the claimant in obtaining an injunction restraining the holding of a meeting/placement of the company into members voluntary liquidation (MVL). The case set out the principles to be applied when one seeks to injunct a company's members from placing the company into MVL.
Premiair Areospace v Foley [2019] EWHC 1805 (QB) (before Whipple J)
This case concerned the extent to which summary judgment should be available in cases involving dishonest assistance/knowing receipt when breach of trust is alleged.
Baxter v Todd [2019] All ER 194 (Jul); [2019] EWHC 1959 (Ch)
Oliver successfully represented the defendant in the trial of a will claim involving undue influence, the illegality defence and constrictive trusts.
Trustees of Haie Estate v Maass [2019] All ER 175 (Jan); [2019] EWHC 95 (Ch)
Oliver successfully represented the defendant trustees in a claim based in acquiescence estoppel.
Pantiles Investments v Winckler [2019] All ER 134 (Mar); [2019] 2 BCLC 295
Oliver acted for the defendant in a fraudulent trading/breach of trust claim.
Popely v Drukkers Solicitors [2019] EWHC 187 (QB); [2019] 2 WLUK 224
Oliver acted for the claimant in a claim for breach of confidence (and application for injunction) against solicitors who intended to use e-mails allegedly stolen from the claimant in a trial of a separate action commencing in the Chancery Division.
Unreported/ Other High Court cases
Re K [2021] EWHC (Ch)
Oliver is acting for the Defendants to a Claim brought against an alleged Islamic Wife of the Deceased who claims to have a void marriage, and is therefore entitled to Claim against the Estate of the Deceased as if she were a spouse. The primary dispute concerns whether the Claimant had a "non-marriage" or whether the Claimant had a "void marriage". Again, this case forms part of Oliver's general Islamic Finance caseload given his specific interest in the overlap between Sharia Law and Probate. Oliver is likely to act as sole Counsel in respect of both a preliminary issue trial regarding eligibility, as well as any substantive trial which come before the High Court should the Claimant be found to have a "void Marriage".
Re T [2021] EWHC (Fam)
Oliver is acting as sole Counsel instructed by Adamas and Remer LLP for the Claimant minor children in a Claim brought under section 10 of the Inheritance Act 1975 to set aside transfers made by the Deceased to his Father deliberately before death (with a view, it is said, to putting his assets beyond reach of the Claimants). Oliver will represent the Claimants in a preliminary issue trial in respect of the application under section 10, and any Judgment is likely to be of interest given that it will be the first time the power under section 10 of the 1975 Act is specifically considered along-side the remedies provided by the Insolvency Act.
Premiair v Privaero [2019] EWHC 197 (QB) (Queen’s Bench Division, led by Lord Marks KC)
Oliver acted as junior counsel for the claimant in a fraud/dishonest assistance/knowing receipt claim.
Vitillo v Riddiough [2020] EWHC 187 (Ch)
Oliver acted for the successful spousal claimant in respect of a claim brought against a £1,400,000 estate (in which the claimant obtained nearly all the assets in the estate).
A v I and Ors [2020] (Chancery Division)
Oliver represented a defendant beneficiary in a claim brought against a £2,000,000 estate by cohabitant claimants.
J v P [2020] (Chancery Division)
Oliver represented the claimant in a will challenge (capacity) brought against a £800,000 Estate.
Corona v Corona [2019] (Family Division)
Oliver acted for the successful spousal claimant in respect of a claim brought against a £750,000 estate.
Deutsche Leasing Limited v Zaskin College [2018] EWHC 110 (QBD)
Oliver acted for the defendant in respect of a claim for breach of contract concerning the supply of CNC machines.
Wilson v Lassman (No 2) [2017] EWHC 957 (Ch)
Oliver acted for the adult child claimant in a claim bought out of time under section 4.
Kapadia v Falayie [2017] EWHC 2030 (Ch)
Oliver acted for the successful defendant in a claim regarding relief from forfeiture (which also contained allegations that the claim was an abuse of process).
W v F [2017] EWHC 291 (Fam)
Oliver acted as sole counsel on behalf of the claimant in an adult-child claim under the 1975 Act brought in respect of a £1,700,000 estate.
Gao v Atwal [2017] EWHC 2011 (Ch)
Oliver represented the successful defendant in a claim concerning prescription/rights of way.
Hume v Jackson [2017] (Chancery Division, Manchester)
Oliver represented the sole beneficiary of a £1,300,000 estate in his defence of a claim brought by a co-habitant under the 1975 Act.
Ball v Jackson and ors [2016] EWHC 88 (Ch)
Oliver represented the successful claimant in a Part 64 claim concerning the construction of a will, as well as a dispute over the propriety of a prospective costs order.
Work as a Junior:
Oliver has regularly worked as junior counsel being led by a variety of King's Counsel. Oliver was recently led by Brie Stephens-Hoare KC in Hirachand (Court of Appeal) and in a dispute in the Chancery Division regarding a claim worth £7,000,000 brought by one estate against another estate.
Oliver is also currently being led by Geoffrey Cox KC in a high value property matter.
Oliver has previously been led by Geraint Jones KC in a Chancery Division claim regarding allegations of tortious conspiracy by a chain of gentleman’s clubs. Oliver has previously also been led by David Berkley KC in a partnership dispute, and by Lord Jonathan Marks KC in a high-value Breach of Trust Claim.
Property and Estates
Probate
Oliver is an experienced trial advocate insofar as litigation under the Inheritance Act 1975 is concerned (the core focus of his practice) both in the Chancery and Family Division". Oliver has been described as a "go-to" junior Counsel in respect of Claims litigated under the Inheritance Act 1975, and was named as Junior Equity and Trusts Lawyer of the Year in the ACQ5 Legal Awards (UK) 2020. Oliver is also recognised and highly ranked in traditional Chancery/Property and Estates by the Legal 500 (Tier 1), Chambers and Partners and C&P High Net Worth, as well as being named a 'Rising Star" in London and Midlands (Chancery Tax and Probate).
Recent representative examples include:
Hirachand v Hirachand ("Re H") [2020] EWHC (Fam) 1134
This case found for the first time that a Court could order an estate to pay for a CFA uplift as part of an award under the Inheritance Act 1975. Further, an award was made by video link in circumstances where the defendant (who was unrepresented) a profoundly deaf and disabled 87 year old woman who could not hear or see what was going on. The defendant had been debarred from defending the claim.
Since this decision was handed down, it has become commonplace for claimants to now claim entitlement to be paid a CFA uplift in most 1975 Act claims that come before the chancery or family division of the High Court. Oliver was instructed to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal. Oliver is acting for the Appellant who obtained permission to appeal on all grounds raised. Oliver is led by Brie Stevens-Hoare KC.
SL v JL (Family Division, Ongoing) - Spousal 1975 Act claim in circumstances were will only provided for life interest in FMH.
Re A (Inheritance Act Claim)(Family Division, Ongoing) - Defending a 1975 Act claim by a spouse on behalf of an adult child sole beneficiary.
H v H (Family Division (Leeds)) Ongoing - Adult Child 1975 Act Claim where claimant has severe mental health difficulties.
CA v BD (Chancery Division, Ongoing)
Derivative claim brought by beneficiaries of one estate against the executor of another. claimants are adopting the Vanderpitt procedure. Also concerns S50 application to remove executor.
Trustees of Haie Estate v Christian Maass [2019] EWHC (Ch) 1129
Successfully represented the trustees in a four day trial before Mr Richard Meade KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) concerning a claim brought on the basis of acquiescence estoppel. The judgment resolved some uncertainty regarding the circumstances that such a claim might be made out, and clarified the exceptionality of this nature of relief.
Washington v Downie [2018] EWHC 2210 (Ch) (Falk J)
The judgment concerned the extent to which estate accounts should be disclosed to third parties who are not beneficiaries under the will, but who claim to be under other rival wills. It was held that estate accounts need not disclosable in this circumstance. A person who wishes to prove a different will and revoke a grant of probate can do so without sight of estate accounts.
Wilson v Lassman (No 2) EWCH Ch 85 (Master Bowles) (Adult Child/Section 4 application)
Abbasi v Abassi [2017] EWCH Ch (s50 application to remove an executor)
Ball v Jackson [2016] EWCH Ch (Pelling J) (Detailed assessment of executor-solicitor’s costs)
Green v Green [2017] EWCH Ch (Application under Section 50 to remove executor)
P v S (Ongoing) (Chancery Division) (Application under s116 to pass over/Beddoes Relief/third party breach of trust claim arising out of an alleged abuse of lasting power of attorney)
Salmon v Green [2017] (Non-family dependent (Carer) 1975 Act claim)
Hulme v Estate of Anthony Ball [2016] EWCH (Fam) (Defending beneficiaries against a co-habitant 1975 Act claim against a £1.3mil estate)
F v A (Ongoing) (High Court, Chancery Division) (Co-habitant 1975 Act claim against a £2,000,000 estate)
V v A (Ongoing) (High Court, Chancery Division) (Spousal 1975 Act claim against a £1,500,000 estate)
Smith v A (Ongoing) (Chancery Division) (Adult Child 1975 Act claim involving section 4 and 9 application)
W v Y (Ongoing) (High Court, Family Division) (Adult Child 1975 Act claim, 4 day trial before MacDonald J)
A v B (Ongoing) (Central London CC) (Adult Child 1975 Act claim, 5 day trial before HHJ Madge)
C v C (Ongoing) (Central London CC) (Defending Minor Child 1975 Act claim against £500,000 estate)
Re M (Ongoing) (Central London CC) (Adult Child 1975 Act claim, section 4 application)
Re G (Ongoing) (Central London CC) (Co-habitant 1975 Act claim against £700,000 estate)
RE H (Ongoing) (Manchester CC) (Defending Co-habitant 1975 Act claim against £1,200,000 estate)
RE A (Ongoing) (Winchester CC) (Adult Child 1975 Act claim against a small estate (£400,000)
Re PNG Trust (Ongoing) (High Court, Chancery Division) (Part 64 claim/construction claim)
Re X Estate (Ongoing) (High Court, Chancery Division)(Part 64 claim/account and inquiry)
Kaur v Dhaliwal [2014] EWCA 1991 Ch; [2014] All ER (D) 164 (Jun) (Co-habitant 1975 Act appeal concerning the interpretation of “2 years” (as Martin Young’s Pupil assisting post-appeal)
Personal Representative of the Estate of ED v Personal Representative of the Estate of JF [2018] EWHC (Ch)
Acting for a personal representative in a claim to set aside a loan agreement, along with various claims under the Solicitors Act 1974
RC v BC [2018] EWHC (Fam)
Acting as sole counsel for a spousal claimant against a will which disposed of her husband’s entire estate (including the matrimonial home) without making any provision for his wife
Re T, Central London County Court (ongoing)
Acting for a co-habitant claimant in an application under Section 9 (to sever a joint tenancy of the quasi-matrimonial home) and 10 (to set aside transfers intended to defeat her claim)
Re C, High Court, Family Division (ongoing): Acting for a severely disabled adult child claimant in a claim for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance Act 1975
Re O, Central London County Court (ongoing)
Acting for a co-habitant claimant under the Inheritance Act 1975, where a preliminary issue concerns the claimant’s eligibility to make a claim under section 1(1A) due to allegations that the relationship was “polyamorous” and therefore not akin to marriage
Estate of A v Estate of S, High Court, Chancery Division (ongoing)
Acting for the claimant in a constructive trust/estoppel claim/ claim to remove an executor, where it alleged that a trust existed over property owned by two deceased persons. The claim is by beneficiaries of the estate of A, who bring a derivative (or “Vanderpitt”) claim against the estate of S, on the basis that the two estates share the same personal representative.
Oliver also has a keen interest in costs-only probate work. In particular he has acted in relation to the detailed assessment of executor-solicitor costs in the Senior Courts Costs Office and enjoys advising about the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs of estate administration. In particular, Oliver has an interest in the assessment of third party costs by way of account and inquiry (using the procedure in Tim Morris Interiors v Akin Gump) and in the application of the "one fifth" rule to SCCO proceedings.
Oliver occasionally acts on a CFA basis (usually in 1975 Act Claims involving Spouses or Co-habitants) and is always pleased to discuss options.
Commercial
Oliver’s primary commercial interest is in financial services and banking. Prior to coming to the bar Oliver worked as a Risk Analyst with a particular focus on AIM and secondary markets.
Oliver is currently instructed on two commercial court matters in his own right:
A £1,000,000 commercial fraud claim against a former de facto director relating to the illicit diversion of business away from the company to a competitor
A £1,200,000 claim (brought under FSMA 2000) in relation to a dispute over unsecured bond agreements (more particularly a civil action for breach of the COBS rules)
Oliver is also currently acting on a number of matters in the Chancery Division, including:
Defending a £1,000,000 claim relating to a secured finance agreement on the basis of illegality and FSMA 2000
A claim against a private share market for damages exceeding £1,000,000 relating to a refusal to list shares.
Oliver occasionally appears in the Queen’s Bench Division, most recently in relation to a claim involving breach of confidence/privacy/libel (in a commercial context). Oliver has also appeared in the Technology and Construction Court in disputes where there is a “chancery” element to the case.
The following cases are examples of Oliver’s recent/on-going commercial work:
Hangar Holdings v Perlake [2021]
Oliver represented the defendant pre-trial (including settling the pleadings) in relation to the allegation that a website domain name (blackjack.com) was held on trust by the defendant. The case confirmed for the first time that a domain name is intangible property which can be subject to equitable interests/held on trust.
Toucan Energy Holdings Limited Toucan Gen Co Limited v Wirsol Energy Limited [2021] EWHC 895 (Comm); [2021] 4 WLUK 35
Oliver acted in a junior capacity assisting in relation to the litigation of a dispute worth £7,000,000 within the context of the telecoms industry.
Avonwick v Azito Holdings [2020] EWHC 1844 (Comm) | [2020] 7 WLUK 188
Oliver was instructed by Quinn Emanuel LLP to assist in a junior capacity in relation to litigation arising over a multi-billion pound deal in which fraud and misrepresentation/and unjust enrichment were relied upon. This case was described by The Lawyer as "one of the top cases litigated in 2020" as part of their annual publication of "Top 20 Cases of the Year".
Premiair Areospace v Foley [2019] EWHC 1805 (QB) (before Whipple J)
This case concerned the extent to which summary judgment should be available in cases involving dishonest assistance/knowing receipt when breach of trust is alleged.
HCQ Sarl v Terre Primitive Limited [2019] EWHC 2556 (Ch); [2019] WLUK 385 (before Norris J)
Oliver successfully represented the claimant in obtaining an injunction restraining the holding of a meeting/placement of the company into members voluntary liquidation (MVL). The case set out the principles to be applied when one seeks to injunct a company's members from placing the company into MVL.
ROVOP v Install Sarl [2017] (Mercantile Court) (Moulder J)
Proceedings relating to the interpretation of a settlement agreement in a £700,000 claim over international supply agreements
Greenland Mining Management and ors v Persons Unknown [2017] EWHC (QB) 18 (King J)
Injunction in the context of financial services
X Market Technologies v Davies [2016] (Chancery Division)
Abuse of process/dispute as to enforceability of contractual/liquidated damages clause
Along with the cases listed above, Oliver is being lead by David Berkley KC on a solicitor/partnership dispute and assisting as one of many juniors in a large international litigation regarding the oil and gas sector.
Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Oliver is instructed in the upcoming trial of two Companies Court actions relating to preferences, director misfeasance and alleged fraud. More generally:
Oliver regularly attends Winding-Up Court (including the trial of disputed debt petitions) and attends the Interim Applications Court to obtain injunctions restraining presentation of a petition
Public examinations
Bankruptcy petitions (including the trial of whether offers have been unreasonably refused, and petitions with an international element)
Insolvency claims in the context of probate
Oliver has a keen interest in costs-only insolvency work. Recently Oliver has advised in relation to an application to set aside default costs certificates issued in insolvency proceedings and has advised on the subsequent detailed assessment proceedings (inter-parties and trustee costs) before the SCCO. Oliver is happy to advise on the drafting and preparation of costs proceedings (points of objection/precedent A/R etc).
Oliver Hirsch handles all areas of criminal and personal injury law and takes instructions on specialist regulatory cases. He is based at 3PB’s Winchester office, but operates across the South of England and London.
In his criminal practice, Oliver accepts instructions in both defence and prosecution work, appearing in the magistrates’, youth and Crown Courts. As a defence advocate, he regularly secures crucial results for his clients, whether that be an acquittal or a fair sentence. He is also well-versed in Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings, where he is able to draw on his expertise in civil law as well as the relevant statutory provisions. He has a growing practice in regulatory matters, including taxi licence appeals and private prosecutions.
Oliver acts for both claimants and defendants across the spectrum of personal injury cases. He regularly appears in the county court and has a strong advisory practice. He recently finished acting pro bono in a High Court case valued at more than £500,000. The claim was discontinued a few months after Oliver began representing the defendant.
Oliver is particularly keen to build his practice in animal welfare law. He has worked pro bono for the UK's only specialist animal law firm, Advocates for Animals.
Prior to commencing practice at the Bar, Oliver achieved a First in History at the University of Oxford, before completing the GDL and BPTC. He then worked for a national social care provider before starting pupillage. Oliver also received a Princess Royal Scholarship from Inner Temple.
Crime
Oliver Hirsch is a barrister, based at 3PB’s Winchester office, who accepts instructions in both defence and prosecution work, appearing in the magistrates’, youth and Crown Courts.
Criminal Defence
R v T: client acquitted at trial; self-defence to a charge of assaulting an emergency worker.
R v S: conditional discharge for outraging public decency.
R v C: possession of a bladed article; starting point of 18 months in custody reduced to a 6-month suspended sentence.
R v W: client acquitted after exclusion of prosecution evidence under the hearsay rule.
R v G: non-punitive community order for multiple deliberate failures to provide a specimen.
R v B: multi-handed affray; no evidence offered in return for a restraining order.
Criminal Prosecution
R v B: custodial sentence for a racially aggravated public order offence upheld on appeal.
R v D: prolific paedophile given a 12-year extended sentence, after he re-offended when released on licence.
R v P: conviction for driving in charge of a vehicle while unfit.
R v M: conviction in drink-driving case involving expert evidence.
R v W: conviction for failure to provide a specimen, where the defendant had caused very serious injuries by crashing his car. A substantial period of disqualification was imposed.
Proceeds of Crime
R v A: Oliver persuaded the prosecution to settle, after making a novel argument that the defendant’s current account balance was in fact held on trust for his bank. The client paid £16,000 less than the prosecution had been pursuing.
R v C: Oliver negotiated the amount sought by the prosecution down from £15,000 to £3,500.
Regulatory
Oliver acts in all areas of regulatory law. His most recent experience includes taxi licence appeals and a private prosecution under the electric pedal cycle regulations.
Personal Injury
Oliver Hirsch acts for both claimants and defendants across the spectrum of PI and RTA cases.
He also has a strong advisory practice, encompassing all areas of negligence and other tortious claims. Recent work includes advising on potential claims arising from a wrongful conviction, and producing a wide-ranging assessment of the law on pure psychiatric harm.
Recent cases
H v B: successfully argued claim against a well-known national retailer, which failed to conduct due diligence on the safety of an instant boiling water tap sold to the claimant.
G v S: acting for the claimant, Oliver obtained almost double the amount initially claimed, in respect of severe psychiatric injury following a high-speed motorway crash.
D v M: secured £27,500 in compensation for a claimant involved in a serious road collision, after successfully applying for relief from sanctions and conducting a contested quantum trial.
R v V: acting for the defendant, Oliver succeeded on a legal argument about the interpretation of the whiplash tariff, meaning the damages awarded were reduced to a third of those claimed.
T v P: representing a young defendant driver found responsible for an accident, Oliver secured a 50% contribution from the claimant and deprived them of their costs.
S v C: persuaded the court to disregard the account of the claimant, insofar as it departed from the expert prognosis, thereby substantially reducing the award.
Olivia has a busy practice in the Magistrates’ Court and Crown Court. Olivia is a Level 1 Prosecutor on the CPS Advocate Panel General Crime List. She also undertakes work in regulatory and public law matters.
Recent criminal work includes:
Drugs: Possession with intent to supply Class A drugs; Possession of Class A drugs; Cultivation of Class B drugs; Possession of Class B drugs
Offences against the person: S.18 GBH; S.20 GBH: ABH; Assault
Public order offences: Harassment; Stalking; Affray
Breaches of court orders: Sexual harm prevention orders; Domestic violence protection orders; Restraining orders; Suspended sentence orders
Motoring offences: Speeding; Drunk in charge; Driving with excess alcohol; Drug driving; Failure to provide a specimen; Driving whilst disqualified; Careless driving; Dangerous driving causing serious injury
Olivia completed her pupillage with 3PB and was supervised by Gemma White, Thomas Evans and David Richards. She was one of the 2021 “Butterfield Pupils”. This is a scheme of the Western Circuit to part-finance publicly funded pupillages in the South and South West of England. She was awarded the Ann Goddard Scholarship for pupils undertaking pupillage in publicly-funded work.
Prior to pupillage, Olivia worked as a paralegal at the Electoral Commission and volunteered at various charities. This included working for a capital defence office in New Orleans, focusing solely on death penalty cases. Olivia has undertaken a range of pro bono work, working on innocence projects and with IPSEA, a charity dedicated to providing legal advice for children with additional needs. Olivia has also volunteered at the Free Representation Unit where she represented clients in social security tribunals and obtained favourable outcomes.
Olivia is also available to assist law firms and prosecuting authorities on talks and training courses. She was a recent speaker at 3PB's Criminal Law Update seminar in July 2022.
Outside busy work demands, Olivia enjoys swimming and running.
Crime
Olivia McGonigle is a criminal law barrister whose recent cases include:
Offences against the person
R v R (2022) Magistrates’ Court – assault: two-day assault and failure to provide trial with a vulnerable client
R v M (2022) Youth Court – assault: no evidence offered after cross-examination of the complainant
R v J (2022) Crown Court – s.18 GBH: covering the final two days of a trial. This involved dealing with a legal issue regarding jury verdicts for a youth
R v D (2022) Crown Court – ABH: represented a client who had attacked a stranger with a knife, causing lacerations to the face
R v C (2022) Crown Court – ABH: prosecuted in sentencing hearing for serious ABH (kick to girlfriend’s face)
R v P (2022) Crown Court – s.20 GBH: successfully argued for a suspended sentence for a youth in a case where one punch resulted in hospitalisation. This case was covered in the media including the Bournemouth Echo
Public order offences
R v M (2022) Magistrates' Court – harassment: acquittal
R v A (2022) Magistrates’ Court – affray: a non-finding restraining order was accepted and no evidence offered
R v A (2022) Magistrates’ Court – racially aggravated s.4A offence: persuaded the Crown to offer no evidence to the racially aggravated s.4A charge, and a conditional discharge was imposed for the basic offence
R v Y (2022) Magistrates’ Court – aggravated s.4 POA offence: a rare bind over order secured, so no criminal conviction received
R v G (2022) Magistrates’ Court – threats to kill: plea to s.4 POA accepted, and no evidence offered for the threats to kill offence
R v C (2022) Magistrates’ Court – stalking: prosecution accepted a favourable basis of plea limiting the time period and behaviour
R v R (2022) Crown Court – stalking: prosecuted the sentencing hearing in the Crown Court at Southampton with an interpreter
Motoring offences
R v M (2022) Magistrates’ Court – driving with excess alcohol, failure to provide, no insurance, failure to surrender: client was sentenced to a community order for a number of offences as a result of the mitigation that was advanced
R v A (2022) Magistrates’ Court – totting offence: successful exceptional hardship argument based on health concerns and attending hospital appointments
R v P (2022) Magistrates’ Court – careless driving: no evidence offered
R v A (2022) Magistrates’ Court – speeding: interim disqualification from driving suspended pending appeal
R v C (2022) Magistrates' Court – careless driving: client avoided disqualification despite unfortunately causing significant injuries to a cyclist when driving without glasses
R v P (2022) Magistrates’ Court – totting offence: successful exceptional hardship argument based on client’s job and the impact disqualification would have on his family
R v F (2022) Magistrates’ Court – totting offence: successful exceptional hardship argument based on likelihood of losing client’s job
R v C (2022) Crown Court – speeding: successful appeal against sentence to the extent the disqualification period was shortened for a professional taxi driver
R v D (2022) Magistrates' Court – successful exceptional hardship argument, reducing disqualification period
R v B (2022) Magistrates' Court – dangerous driving: the magistrates' court retained jurisdiction and a community order was imposed
Dishonesty offences
R v A (2022) Magistrates’ Court – fraud: client acquitted on s.172 charge and sentenced to a conditional discharge for fraud
R v N (2022) Magistrates’ Court - theft: theft trial focusing on the intention to permanently deprive with a vulnerable client. Sentenced to a fine
R v C (2022) Magistrates’ Court – theft from employer: acquitted
Other criminal cases
R v D (2022) Magistrates’ Court – football offence: successfully opposed the imposition of a football banning order, and the client was sentenced to a fine
R v A (2022) Magistrates’ Court – sexual assault: two-day sexual assault trial with multiple vulnerable witnesses
R v P (2022) Youth Court – possession with intent to supply (main offence): took instructions on PWITS offence from a vulnerable youth and achieved a conditional discharge for the breach of a referral order
R v B (2022) Crown Court – breach of court order: successful appeal against sentence in the Crown Court, resulting in a suspended sentence despite the client having 19 breaches of orders
R v B (2022) Crown Court - breach of court order: cross examination of an expert from the USA regarding alcohol level monitoring.
Public and Regulatory
Olivia McGonigle has already undertaken work in several areas including education, firearms regulation, health and safety and business rates cases. Olivia is keen to continue to develop her experience in these areas.
Recent cases include:
LA v T (2022) – advising Council on Tobacco Regulations
Regulator v P (2022) – representations for a client to deal with allegations in writing rather than through interview
LA v M (2022) – junior counsel on EHCP judicial review case that settled
LA v C (2022) – business rates case, dropped when shown evidence
P v Police (2022) Crown Court – firearms appeal
Education
Olivia McGonigle has experience in education cases acting on behalf of both individuals and local authorities. Olivia has undertaken a variety of cases at both First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and Magistrates’ Court and is keen to further build her practice in this area.
Recent education cases include:
JA (DR) v ELA First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) - Successful B, F & I appeal, with the Tribunal naming the school despite the LA’s opposition.
JA (SA) v ELA First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability)
LS (BS) v SoS First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability)
DCC v AK Magistrates’ Court
DCC v KP Magistrates’ Court
DCC v GL Magistrates’ Court
DCC v KD (V) Magistrates’ Court
DCC v AS Magistrates’ Court
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.`
Patrick Heneghan joined 3PB in April 2022, having previously been a dispute resolution partner in the London office of Skadden Arps, one of the world’s leading US international law firms, specialising in international arbitration, commercial litigation and other dispute resolution procedures.
Patrick has extensive experience acting as counsel in complex private commercial arbitration disputes as well as in investment treaty proceedings. Patrick has represented clients in a wide variety of different seats (including London, Hong Kong, Paris, Geneva, Stockholm and Johannesburg) and under all the major institutional and other rules (including ICC, LCIA, AAA/ICDR, SCC, HKIAC, UNCITRAL and ICSID). These disputes cover a broad range of commercial matters including shareholder agreements, minority shareholder rights, breaches of director’s duties, insurance, aviation, shipping, oil and gas, electricity generation and transmission, telecommunications, mining, finance and pharmaceuticals. Patrick also has considerable experience of engineering and construction disputes, particularly in the energy field.
Patrick has acted for clients in High Court proceedings and advised clients in relation to proceedings in off-shore and other jurisdictions (including the Caribbean, Cyprus, the Channel Islands as well as the Middle East, Russia and Africa), particularly in the context of complex multi-jurisdictional proceedings. These proceedings have frequently involved obtaining interim and final injunctive relief in support of arbitral and other proceedings, including anti-suit injunctions, pre- and post-judgment freezing orders, security for costs, charging orders and other enforcement relief. Patrick’s cross-border litigation experience also includes advising clients in respect of stand-alone and follow-on claims for breach of EU and UK competition law.
More recently Patrick has assisted retired High Court Judge Sir William Blackburne in his appellate role as the independent third party to the review of complaints into the Global Restructuring Group at the Royal Bank of Scotland. In this role Patrick gained extensive experience of disputes relating to SME finance documentation, property development and investment finance, interest rate hedging products, equity participation agreements and bank conduct more generally.
Patrick has significant experience of other alternative dispute procedures including mediation, expert determination, adjudication and neutral evaluation. Patrick accepts appointments as arbitrator, adjudicator and mediator.
Published extensively, Patrick has authored articles on international arbitration and in other related fields and was the joint-general editor of the 4th edition and 5th editions of Thomson Reuters’ Arbitration World. Patrick is regularly invited to speak at arbitration conferences and symposia. Other publications of his include:
“Arbitrator ethics: developments,” Global Arbitration Europe and Middle Eastern Review
"Dallah v Pakistan: vive la différence,” Global Arbitration Review
“Expert Determination,” PLC Website
“Hot Topic: International Dispute Resolution Involving Russian and CIS Companies,” Corporate Disputes Magazine
“Grexit concerns: how to safeguard asset value,” International Finance Law Review
“The Clawback – Can Arbitration Help Greek Bondholders Gain Redress?,” Legal Week
Overview chapter of "Getting the Deal Through", Private Anti-Trust Litigation
“Violating the Confessional Seal – Disclosure of leniency materials in competition law damages actions in the EU,” Law and Finance Magazine
“Disclosure Question Ripples Both Sides of the pond,” Law 360
“Arbitration panel holds the 1994 Energy Charter Treaty protects foreign energy sector investments in former Soviet Union,” Global Arbitration Review
Construction and Engineering
Patrick Heneghan has considerable experience of engineering and construction disputes, particularly in the energy field. He regularly advises and acts in relation to construction disputes, and routinely deals with disputes arising under the common-form contract suites (in particular JCT and NEC contracts).
In each of his practice areas he represents parties in arbitration, the High Court and the County Court. He also acts in adjudications under the 1996 Act and in the enforcement of adjudicator awards.
Construction and Engineering
Representative matters include acting for:
The owner of a 1.2 GW combined cycle gas fired power station, at the time one of the largest non-recourse financed power projects in Europe, in ad hoc arbitration proceedings in London. The owner successfully claimed significant liquidated damages for delay and defended counterclaims for extensions of time and loss and expense
A US company in an ICC arbitration, seated in Paris, in relation to disputes arising out of a contract for the supply of turbine, generator and associated equipment for the construction of a single-cycle dual-fuel power station in Kuwait. Matters in dispute included whether or not the equipment supplied was in accordance with the contractual requirements and the supplier’s other obligations to ensure that the “back starting” and “black starting” equipment worked in the standard voltage in Kuwait
A European electricity company in ICC arbitration proceedings in Stockholm in relation to disputes arising under an energy agreement concerning the commissioning of turbines and associated performance bonuses
The British subsidiary of a US company in High Court proceedings in London in relation to the wrongful termination of the hire of what was, at the time, the world’s largest harsh environment jack-up rig
One of India’s leading real estate developers in a series of LCIA arbitrations seated in London in relation to a slum rehabilitation project in India. The disputes included a claim that the developer had failed to achieve certain milestones for the project by the stipulated dates as a result of force majeure
Acting for a British engineering company in relation to disputes arising out of the delay and costs incurred by the contractor in meeting employer requirements in relation to the construction of the Tsing Ma Bridge in Hong Kong, one of the world’s longest suspension bridges
Acting for an Asian subsidiary of a US company in ICC arbitration proceedings in Singapore in relation to disputes arising from a project to introduce congestion charging
Energy
Representative matters include acting for:
Affiliated Asian energy companies against an oil and gas major in joined ICC arbitrations, seated in Hong Kong, in relation to disputes arising under long-term take-or-pay gas contracts. The disputes concerned two combined cycle gas fired power stations with a joint output of 1.5GW and included claims for force majeure due to the national grid operator curtailing the output of the plants for grid-balancing reasons
A European electricity company in relation to disputes arising under a long-term energy supply and off-take agreement providing for arbitration under the ICC Rules in Stockholm
An African energy company in associated price review arbitrations, under the UNCITRAL Rules, seated in Geneva, in respect of a number of long-term liquid natural gas take-or-pay contracts. These disputes concerned the continuing relationship (if any) between the price of gas in the relevant market and the prices of a basket of alternative energy sources, as well as the purchaser’s own actions in impacting the price for gas in the relevant market
A US energy company in an ICC arbitration, seated in Paris, in relation to disputes arising out of a contract for the supply of equipment for a single-cycle dual-fuel power station in the Middle East
Commercial
Patrick Heneghan’s Commercial practice focuses on aviation, banking, commercial disputes, company law, energy, insurance, international arbitration and shipping.
A significant proportion of the matters in which he acts relate to off-shore and foreign jurisdictions, particularly in the context of complex multi-jurisdictional proceedings. These proceedings frequently involve obtaining interim and final injunctive relief, including anti-suit injunctions, pre- and post-judgment freezing orders, security for costs, charging orders and other enforcement relief. Patrick’s cross-border litigation experience also includes advising clients in respect of stand-alone and follow-on claims for breach of EU and UK competition law.
Patrick has extensive experience acting as counsel in complex private commercial arbitration disputes as well as in investment treaty proceedings. Patrick has represented clients in a wide variety of different seats (including London, Hong Kong and Paris) and under all the major institutional and other rules (including ICC, LCIA, AAA/ICDR, HKIAC).
Recent cases (Commercial)
Obtaining an anti-suit injunction in the High Court to restrain proceedings in Kuwait amounting to a collateral attack on an arbitration award made in England
Advising in respect of arbitration proceedings under a bilateral investment treaty and ICC arbitration under a policy of political risk insurance for a group of bondholders in relation to their investments in a Latin American country and
Acting for the respondent shareholder company in an LCIA arbitration in London in relation to a multibillion-dollar dispute over control of one of the largest producers and manufacturers of titanium products in the world. The disputes concerned the exercise of put and call options in a shareholder agreement and involved obtaining anti-suit injunctions in the BVI to restrain proceedings commenced in New York, Cyprus and elsewhere in breach of an agreement to arbitrate
Acting for a global industrial company in respect of disputes arising from its interest in one of the largest open cast iron ore mines in Africa. The disputes included commercial arbitration against the co-owner, seated in Johannesburg, concerning breach of a joint ownership agreement governed by South African law; judicial review proceedings before the local courts; and a claim for expropriation of the company’s assets under a bilateral investment treaty.
Acting for a South African airline against its Dublin based lessees in relation to the late re-delivery of two Boeing 747 aircraft due to delays arising from the certification of enhanced ground proximity warning systems. Disputes included whether the airline’s delay in redelivery caused the loss complained of by the lessees arising from the significant fall in the market value of the aircraft due to market conditions occurring after the contractual date for redelivery
Representing India’s leading real estate developers in a series of connected LCIA arbitrations seated in London in respect of disputes under Indian law arising out of a slum rehabilitation development project in India. These disputes included claims by the developer for force majeure and a successful application to the English High Court to set aside one of the resulting awards on jurisdiction grounds
Acting for a leading bank in respect of a default by a high net worth individual under a loan agreement. This representation involved successfully obtaining freezing orders in England and Jersey and advising in respect*t of enforcement action in the BVI, Delaware and Jersey
Bringing a minority share-holder action against one of Eastern Europe’s largest social online networking services in parallel arbitration and multi-jurisdictional litigation proceedings. The disputes included claims for breach of director’s duties due to the diversion of certain corporate opportunities in the form of instant messengers; minority shareholder actions (in the BVI); and a claim for breach of a shareholders’ agreement (LCIA arbitration London)
Obtaining an anti-suit injunction in the English High Court to restrain proceedings in the Middle East and elsewhere amounting to a collateral challenge on an ICC arbitration award made in London on behalf of a US company.
Recent cases (Energy)
Representative matters include acting for:
Affiliated Asian energy companies against an oil and gas major in joined ICC arbitrations, seated in Hong Kong, in relation to disputes arising under long-term take-or-pay gas contracts. The disputes concerned two combined cycle gas fired power stations with a joint output of 1.5GW and included claims for force majeure due to the national grid operator curtailing the output of the plants for grid-balancing reasons
A European electricity company in relation to disputes arising under a long-term energy supply and off-take agreement providing for arbitration under the ICC Rules in Stockholm
An African energy company in associated price review arbitrations, under the UNCITRAL Rules, seated in Geneva, in respect of a number of long-term liquid natural gas take-or-pay contracts. These disputes concerned the continuing relationship (if any) between the price of gas in the relevant market and the prices of a basket of alternative energy sources, as well as the purchaser’s own actions in impacting the price for gas in the relevant market
A US energy company in an ICC arbitration, seated in Paris, in relation to disputes arising out of a contract for the supply of equipment for a single-cycle dual-fuel power station in the Middle East.
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
Costs barrister Paul Joseph began his career at Wragge and Co (now Gowling WLG) in Birmingham and then spent nine years in the commercial litigation department at Edge Ellison (now Squire Patton Boggs). After four years as an attorney at law in the Cayman Islands, he returned to the UK in 2005 and transferred to the Bar. He joined 3PB in January 2024 from another large chambers in Birmingham, where he had been practising for 18 years.
Paul has built up a busy practice and is an established and recognised costs specialist, consistently rated by both Legal 500 and Chambers UK. He understands the costs issues facing solicitors and clients in the current post Jackson climate. Paul recently appeared in the Court of Appeal, acting for the Home Secretary, in the landmark case of Isah -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 268 in March 2023 about costs and summary assessment. In August 2021, Paul was appointed a Deputy Costs Judge of the Senior Courts Costs Office in London.
Paul has acted for HM Government since 2010. He was instructed to advise in relation to the costs issues arising out of the many claims against the Ministry of Defence (MoD) brought by Iraqi civilians following the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He has considerable experience of issues arising out of the pre-action Protocols and the fixed cost regime. He is often instructed to appear on appeals and is frequently instructed on costs and case management hearings and detailed assessments. He appears in courts throughout England and Wales and regularly appears in the Senior Courts Costs Office and in the Court of Appeal.
Paul also accepts instructions on a Direct Access basis.
Costs
Paul Joseph is rated as the best costs specialist barrister in the Midlands and one of the UK's top counsel in this specialist field. He is recognised in Legal 500 and Chambers UK as a top costs specialist. In August 2021, he was appointed a Deputy Costs Judge of the Senior Courts Costs Office in London. Paul is one of the senior members of 3PB's dedicated Costs Team.
He works extensively for HM Government and, currently listed on the Attorney General’s Regional B panel, is regularly instructed by the GLD’s costs team on a wide variety of costs matters. He dealt with, for example, all the costs work in connection with claims made by Iraqi civilians against the MoD arising out of the invasion of Iraq in 2003; and similarly in relation to the MoD's actions in Afghanistan and during the Kenyan Emergency.
More recently, Paul acted in AB/X -v- Ministry of Justice in which Paul obtained an Extended Civil Restraint Order and the removal of a solicitor advocate's anonymity as well as over 20 individual costs orders (of which nearly half were indemnity orders) and 10 declarations of totally without merit.
Paul undertakes all types of costs work - across all areas of law except criminal cases - such as:
Case and Costs Management Conferences
Allocation Hearings (and now assignment issues)
Wasted Costs Applications
Security for Costs Applications
Oral reviews of Provisional Assessments
Detailed Assessment hearings (whether in the SCCO or anywhere else)
Drafting Points of Dispute and Replies
Part 36 issues
Appeals relating to costs matters, including appeals to the Court of Appeal
Reported Cases
R (on the application of Jerry Isah) -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 268: the extent and scope of summary assessment of costs.
AB -v- MOJ [2023] EWHC 72 (KB): defending 4 applications for permission to appeal within detailed assessment proceedings, all of which were dismissed and declared to be totally without merit.
AB/X -v- Ministry of Justice [2023] EWHC 1920 (KB): application to remove the anonymity granted to a solicitor advocate whom the MOJ wished to report to the SRA for serious misconduct.
R (Jawad Faqiri) -v- Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 151
AL (Albania) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1183: whether or not the Secretary of State had delayed unreasonably.
R (Gudanaviciene) -v- Immigration and Asylum First Tier Tribunal [2017] EWCA Civ 352: Circumstances in which the court will make an order for costs against a Tribunal or inferior court.
Rohan Ghising –v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 3706 (QB): Appeal concerning the recoverability of a retrospective success fee.
Assaubayevs –v- Michael Wilson and Partners Limited [2014] EWHC 821 (QB) and [2014] EWCA Civ 1491: Extent of the court’s supervisory jurisdiction over bodies which pretend to be recognised legal bodies.
J E Jamaica –v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 192: Operation of CPR Part 52.9A.
G (a child by her mother and litigation friend, M) –v- Kingston upon Hull City Council (Lawtel 01/10/13): applicability of SCCO guidelines on summary assessment to detailed assessments.
Rangos –v- Secretary of State for Innovation [2012] EWHC 3186 (Ch): dismissal of an appeal against Costs Master’s decision to award costs against a receiving party notwithstanding that it beat an offer under CPR Part 47.19.
Tibbles –v- SIG PLC (T/A Asphaltic Roofing Supplies) [2012] EWCA Civ 518: extent of the discretion to vary or revoke an order pursuant to CPR Part 3.1(7).
Mediation
Paul Joseph is a CEDR accredited mediator and is happy to accept instructions to act as mediator in any costs or commercial dispute.
He takes a pragmatic approach to mediations and recognizes that parties may not be able to settle a dispute on the day of the mediation itself.
Peter Aeberli is a Canadian citizen, resident in the United Kingdom. He is dually qualified as Architect and Barrister and is an experienced arbitrator, mediator and adjudicator. Apart from his work as counsel, the focus of his work is dispute resolution principally, but not solely, in the construction industry. He has handled two party and multi-party disputes with values up to £8 million.
He is available for and has received appointments as arbitrator, adjudicator and/or mediator by party agreement and from bodies such as the CIArb (including NHBC), the CIOB, the Construction Confederation, AICA, the RIBA, the ICE, the ICC and the Law Society. He is listed as an adjudicator on high value and prestigious projects including the London 2012 Adjudication Panel and BAA Terminal 5. He is listed on numerous panels including the FIDIC President’s list of dispute adjudicators, the ICC Canadian National Committee Panel of International Commercial Arbitrators, the ICDR (American Arbitration Association) panel of international arbitrators, the International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (USA) Roster of arbitrators and mediators and Engineers’ Ireland panel of arbitrators.
Prior to reading law as a scholar at Hertford College, Oxford, Peter was a project architect with the Building Design Partnership, a large multi-disciplinary consultancy, and gained experience and understanding of the different skills, both professional and contracting, needed to realise complex construction projects, including hospitals, retail development and military installations. He has a good understanding of building technology being, for a number of years, a visiting lecturer in building construction at what is now Oxford Brooks University. He remains involved in the construction industry, having served on a number of client bodies, and has engaged builders on projects of his own from time to time. He was, for a number of years in the mid 1990s a Joint Secretary of the Joint Contracts Tribunal (JCT).
CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING
As counsel, Peter has been instructed to advise on and appear principally on construction and arbitration related matters in the Technology and Court Court (TCC) and the County Courts. He has appeared in the Court of Appeal (TWF Printers Ltd v. Interserve Project Services [2006] BLR 299). He has been instructed to draft contractual documentation including amendments to JCT contracts. He also advises and represents parties in arbitration, adjudication and mediation proceedings.
Overseas work has included advising parties in Latvia and in South Africa on contractual (FIDIC) and arbitration matters.
An experienced arbitrator, adjudicator and mediator, Peter receives appointments by party agreement and from bodies such as the ICC (sole arbitrator and president), LCIA (sole, presiding and wing arbitrator), FIDIC, Engineer’s Ireland, the CIArb, RICS and RIBA. Peter was invited by ICDR (American Arbitration Association) to chair a tribunal, but had to decline, for personal reasons.
Projects on which Peter Aeberli has been appointed as tribunal or instructed as counsel have included port facilities in Ghana and in England; roads, sewers, including in Bulgaria; remediation of nuclear contamination; hotels and office complexes, railway rolling stock, housing; the value of projects ranging in value up to about £100 million and disputes up to about £10 million.
Articles
Peter’s web site, www.aeberli.com, includes a number of papers on construction law, arbitration and adjudication. Published articles, many of which can be found re-printed on the site, include:
2007: What material can an adjudicator consider; Construction Law Journal
2005: Jurisdictional Disputes under the Arbitration Act 1996: A Procedural Route Map; Arbitration International
1993: Wharf Properties and Rolled-Up Claims; Construction Law Journal
1993: Abatements, Set-Offs and Counterclaims in Arbitration Proceedings; ADR Law Journal
MEDIATION
Appointment as arbitrator, adjudicator or mediator:
Peter has been appointed by party agreement and from numerous appointing bodies including the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the RIBA, the Law Society, the RICS, FIDIC and the ICC.
Disputes on which Peter has been appointed as arbitrator or adjudicator have involved:
Legal issues.
Development and partnering agreements.
Technical issues, such as alleged paint, roofing, cladding, and structural defects.
Environmental (including nuclear) issues.
Professional negligence.
Delay and programming issues and disruption and delay costs.
Interim and final account valuation.
Commercial agency agreements.
International disputes, including ICC arbitration and FIDIC dispute board work.
Peter has mediated numerous construction and professional negligence disputes as well as disputes outside the construction sector, including in regard to wills, landlord and tenant, sale of goods, and passing off and is identified in the Bar Council list of mediators under the most experienced category.
Committee work
Peter has served on committees concerned with arbitration, mediation and adjudication. He was one of the drafters of the Construction Industry Model Arbitration Rules and was involved in consultations with the Government on the Scheme for Construction Contracts. He is a member of the ICC Commission Task Force on Reducing Time/Costs in complex arbitrations. He speaks on arbitration, international arbitration, and adjudication for organisations such as BPP Professional Education and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. He is a visiting senior lecturer at Kings College, London and course director for the dispute resolution module of the MSc in Construction Law and arbitration.
Neutrals - Arbitrators
Peter has acted as an arbitrator on in excess of 70 construction disputes in both two party and multi-party matters, a few involving public bodies, conducting hearings from a few days to four weeks or so, disputes of up to about £10 million and projects up to about £100 million.
“We would also like to convey our thanks to the Arbitrator … We look forward to working again with the Arbitrator soon.” - London city solicitors.
A selection of Arbitrations on which Peter Aeberli has been appointed within the last few years include:
LCIA appointment (sole arbitrator UNCITRAL rules): English Consultant; Civil law country local authority, about €200k
LCIA appointment (wing arbitrator LCIA rules): Caribbean developers and contractors, multi-party dispute: Principally declaratory
LCIA appointment (presiding arbitrator LCIA rules): Chinese supplier/developer, English distributor
LCIA appointment (sole arbitrator UNCITRAL rules); Gibraltar and UK commercial parties
ICC appointment (party nominated arbitrator). Construction of Hospitals in Africa, about £25 million in dispute
ICC appointment (sole arbitrator): English motor dealer, Italian organiser of sporting activities, about €120k
ICC appointment (chair): US ship-owner; Eastern European ship yard. About €300k. Withdrawn due to failure to pay advances shortly after provision of Terms of Reference and First Procedural Order
ICC appointment (President): Israeli Power Company, US manufacturer, about US$ 28 million. Appointment did not proceed as before confirmed parties resolved their difficulties
Agreed appointment: English local authority and contractor: About £300k
Agreed appointment: English internationally renowned food emporium and contractor: About £200k
Agreed appointment: English local authority and various tenants of facility subject to local authority closure orders, about £1.5million
Agreed appointment: Joint Venture contractor and English local authority, PFI Schools project, about £800,000
Engineer’s Ireland Appointment. Civil law country train manufacturer and State Entity. Dispute about alleged defective trains and rolling stock: about €10 million
RIBA appointment: Scottish Contractor and English Sub-contractor: Construction Dispute, about £3.5million
RIBA appointment: English Developer and Contractor: about £100k claim, £400k counterclaim
Engineer’s Ireland Appointment. Spanish train manufacturer and Irish State Entity. Dispute about defective supply: about €10 million
Law Society Appointment: English vendor and English purchaser of property in Soho
RICS appointment: English developer and contractor: About £8 million.
In 2018 Peter devised and ran for the BPP law school a five day course on international arbitration for a group of visiting Chinese lawyers.
Neutrals - Adjudicators
Peter has acted as an adjudicator on in the region of 300 construction disputes involving claims up to about £15 million and projects up to about £100 million.
"The adjudicator decided, in what both parties accepted was a thorough and well reasoned decision, …. that the defendant had to pay the claimant the sums for which I have given summary judgment.” Knight v. Urvasco [2008] EWHC 3956. “I would like to express my appreciation of the proficient approach and treatment by the one member DAB ...” (Eastern European State entity).
Peter has been named or listed as an adjudicator in respect of a number of high value and prestigious contracts, including a major development by a top premier league football club, a PFI waste management project in Wakefield, a biomass facility in the north of England, a Project Agreement, PFI Construction Contract, Interface Agreement and Facilities Management Contract for social housing on a number of sites in the North of England, London Crossrail, the London 2012 Adjudication Panel and T5 (Heathrow Terminal 5).
A selection of Adjudications on which Peter Aeberli has been appointed within the last few years include:
CIC nomination: Transnational gas pipeline: NEC 3 amended; about £8 million claimed
LCIA nomination: Station tunnelling: NEC3 amended; Account, about £12 million claimed
RIBA nomination: Professional services. Bespoke terms: About £200k claimed for services
CIArb nomination: Norther Ireland infrastructure: Bespoke design build and operate contract; Declaratory as to long term obligations
RICS nomination: Scottish School: Alleged subsidence, about £4 million claimed; Reported at Transform Schools (North Lanarkshire) Limited v Balfour Beatty Construction Limited [2020] CSOH 19
RICS nomination: Liquefied Natural Gas plant: Bespoke terms: Termination and account About £6.5 million claimed
RICS nomination: Office project: JCT as amended: Alleged glazing defects, about £650k claimed
RICS nomination: Residential accommodation; Bespoke vesting agreements: About £400k claimed as damages
RICS nomination: Central London offices: JCT terms; Post termination account; about £6 million claimed
ICE nomination: Off-shore harbour works: FIDIC Dredging and Reclamation works: €16 million claimed
ICE nomination: Ground and landscaping works: NEC3 amended: Final account, about £4 million claimed; John Doyle Construction Limited v. Erith Contractors Limited [2020] EWHC 2451 [35]
ICE nomination: Airport runway: NEC3 amended: Declaratory as to time
ICE nomination: Tram facility: JCT terms: Declaratory as to alleged defects
ICE nomination: Process plant: Bespoke EPC contract: About £1.8 million claimed for alleged defects
Agreed nomination: Residential and commercial M&E services: Bespoke terms: £6 million claimed
Agreed nomination: £50 million Materials Jetty associated with construction of a nuclear facility: NEC 3 amended. Declaratory
Agreed nomination: £50 million Marine Jetty: NEC3 amended entitlement to levy liquidated damages; about £1.5 million in dispute
Agreed nomination: Higher education facility: Engineering services; Bespoke agreement. About £3 million claimed for delays
Agreed nomination: Nuclear facility: NEC3 amended. Alleged compensation events, about £800k claimed
TecSA nomination: £50 million Data Centre: JCT DB (2011) as amended: £6.5 million claimed
TecSA nomination: Term contract for services: Bespoke terms: Account, about £350k claimed.
Peter also devised and ran a training course for representatives in Construction Adjudication, on behalf of various professional bodes in Ireland including the RIAI, Engineers’ Ireland and the Bar Council, the Adjudication Conversion Course in preparation for the introduction of statutory adjudication of construction disputes in Ireland and, for the Irish Law Society.
Experienced barrister Peter Jennings' practice is principally civil litigation with an emphasis on professional negligence, professional disciplinary and liability cases, property and commercial disputes.
He also accepts instructions in related areas of public law and has acted as an Inspector for the Department of Trade and Industry in insider dealing cases.
He also has considerable experience of criminal work and acts in proceeds of crime and asset forfeiture cases.
Peter Jennings is an editor and author of Facts and Figures: Professional Negligence Bar Association Tables for the Calculation of Damages, was for some years an author of the Inns of Court School of Law textbook on Civil Litigation and has contributed to legal journals. He teaches advocacy, ethics and human rights for his Inn of Court, the circuit and the Bar Council.
He is a former examiner for the Bar examinations and before coming to the Bar lectured at Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria.
Commercial
Peter has advised on and acted in a wide variety of cases in the corporate and commercial fields and handles cases from all parts of the country and in all courts. Peter is an editor and author of books on damages and civil procedure and has contributed to legal journals. His master's degree is in air law, carriage by sea and marine insurance. He is a member of the Professional Negligence Bar Association.
Peter's experience of commercial and business cases includes the following kinds of work:
Banking and guarantees
Agency, from residential estate agents to commission on the purchase of an aircraft
Carriage of goods
Sale of goods, ranging from consumer transactions to agricultural equipment
Work and services, including such areas as domestic interior designers, architects and builders and the development of new dental health products
Copyright and passing-off
Business relationships generally, from the development of golf courses in Portugal to the design of private medical insurance policies
Bankruptcy
Insurance, including avoidance for non-disclosure
Mortgages and brokers
Corporate matters
Peter has acted as an Inspector for the Department of Trade and Industry in cases under the Financial Services Act. His experience of corporate work includes:
Company insolvency
Winding-up on the petition of a contributory
Partnership matters, from restaurants to veterinary practices
Professional negligence in the commercial context
Peter has a special interest in professional negligence and liability. He has broad experience of cases involving the negligence of legal practitioners, both in the conduct of litigation and in handling and advising in property and commercial transactions.
He has acted in cases arising out of underlying matters ranging from criminal injury compensation claims to admiralty proceedings. They include commercial matters such as mortgages and the sale of a private company.
Peter has also handled cases involving the negligence of accountants in the context of tax affairs and company accounts, and has acted in cases concerning other professionals such as insurance brokers and stockbrokers.
Publications and lectures
Peter is an editor and author of Facts and Figures: Professional Negligence Bar Association Tables for the Calculation of Damages, was for some years an author of the Inns of Court School of Law book on Civil Procedure and has contributed to legal journals. He teaches advocacy, ethics and human rights for his Inn of Court, the circuit and the Bar Council. He is a former examiner for the Bar examinations and before coming to the Bar lectured at Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria.
Indicative cases include:
Stalham Engineering v Horner [2001] EWCA Civ 1586 (sale of goods)
Constantinou v Aegon Insurance (UK) Ltd (1997) CA transcript 19.12.97 (insurance)
Board of Governors of the National Heart and Chest Hospital v Chettle and anor (1997) CA transcript 23.10.97 (costs)
Lawrence v European Credit Company v anor (1992) Times LR 29.6.92 (insolvency)
Public and Regulatory
Proceeds of crime and asset forfeiture
Peter Jennings acts in proceeds of crime and asset forfeiture cases. He has experience of:
Cash seizure cases both under the new Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and under the previous legislation
Applications for restraint orders and for the variation of restraint orders
Advising on related questions
Proceeds of crime cases involve the civil as well as the criminal jurisdiction and can give rise to human rights issues. Peter is familiar with all of these areas. He has a principally civil practice and has written on civil litigation. He has experience of criminal work generally, both prosecuting and defending, is a member of the Criminal Bar Association and has acted as an Inspector for the Department of Trade and Industry in insider dealing cases. He is an instructor in human rights for the Bar Council, the Criminal Bar Association and the Circuit.
Regulatory compliance
Professional regulation and disciplinary matters
Peter has experience in the area of professional disciplinary and liability cases in the clinical and legal context and has held appointments as an Inspector for the Department of Trade and Industry in financial services matters. He also has experience of assocated professional negligence litigation.
In clinical cases he has acted in disciplinary matters:
before the professional conduct committee
in internal proceedings before the health service authorities
before employment tribunals
Other areas of public law
Peter has acted, both for individuals and for public authorities, in the fields of:
Food safety
Licensing
Trading standards
He has also dealt with other public law areas such as Election law.
Peter is a dual qualified construction professional and barrister. He has 44 years’ experience in the construction industry and has worked as legal adviser on major projects around the world. According to The Legal 500 UK Peter has acted in several international multimillion-pound disputes, he 'stands out as being a specialist' and is recommended as 'extremely knowledgeable, tactical and reliable'. After 15 years working in the construction industry, Peter was called to the Bar in 1994.
Peter has acted in a wide variety of construction, building, civil engineering, mechanical and electrical engineering, water and sewage engineering, power, clean room and IT disputes, as well as in professional negligence matters involving architects, building surveyors, quantity surveyors, civil engineers, M&E engineers and project managers.
Peter has significant experience of FIDIC, JCT, ICE, NEC, IChemE, IMechE and EPC contracts both in the UK and internationally as well as PFI and PPP experience both in the UK and internationally. Peter negotiated one of the first PFI Hospital projects in the 1990’s and since then has been involved in a number of disputes over PFI and PPP arrangements both in the UK and Internationally.
Specialist expertise
Peter has particular expertise in dispute resolution, acting mainly as an independent neutral (Arbitrator, Adjudicator, Dispute Board and Mediator) and as a party adviser. Peter has had over 400 appointments as an independent third party dispute resolver. Peter spends an increasing period of time assisting parties avoid disputes by combining his legal, neutral and practical skills to understand and then avoid risk.
Other activities
Peter is a visiting lecturer on the MSc in Construction Law at the University of Wolverhampton and the LLM at Nottingham Law School. He lecturers, examines and assesses candidates for the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and the RICS. He lectures regularly for the CIOB, RICS, CIArb and various clients. He is the author of the CIArb’s book “Introduction to Adjudication”. He is a member of the Chartered Institute of Building’s Dispute Resolution Board. He was part of the working party revising the RICS Practice Note on Surveyor’s Acting as Expert Witnesses. He Chaired a Webinair on Procurement Law and co-presented a Webinair on the NEC3 suit of contracts. He lectures around the world on construction administration and construction law issues.
He was awarded the Chartered Institute of Building’s Silver Medal for the Contract Administration Paper of the Membership Examination in 1988. He was given a Distinguished Service Award by the Dispute Resolution Board Foundation at their International Conference in May 2022.
Construction and Engineering
Expert determination
Peter has been appointed by third parties and nominating bodies such as the ICC and RICS on numerous occasions to act as “expert” to determine disputes.
Adviser
Peter provides strategic, detailed and tactical advice to clients, be they employers, contractors, subcontractors or banks, in relation to their rights and obligations under and relating to construction contracts around the world and in the UK. He provides written advocacy and appears as an advocate for his clients in courts and tribunals around the world. He has appeared as advocate in the TCC and the Court of Appeal as well as in arbitrations in the UK and internationally.
Litigator
Peter is licenced to conduct litigation by the Bar Standards Board and provides a full legal service for his clients.
Examples of Peter’s expertise include:
Appointed Sole Standing Dispute Board across 3 Roads Contracts in Georgia by ICC
Adjudicator in a dispute over the design of the work in an EPC Waste to Power Project
Appointed as Sole Expert Review Board by ICC on a US$2 Billion PPP gas-fired power station and desalination plant in Bahrain
Appointed as a dispute avoider on Crossrail projects (TfL CAP)
Appointed as Adjudicator on a £3million professional negligence claim on a roads project in Scotland
Appointed four times as Adjudicator on a housing development in London
Representing a contractor in an ICC Arbitration relating to a PPP Desalination Plant in Saudi Arabia
Representing a government in an arbitration over an Infrastructure project in the Caribbean (FIDIC Contract)
Advising a specialist contractor in relation to several coal fired power stations in South Africa
Appointed Adjudicator twice on a £10 million dispute over Construction Halls in a Dockyard
Appointed Adjudicator in relation to a professional negligence claim on a 5 star Hotel
Appointed Adjudicator four times on a Combined Cycle Power Station in the UK
Appointed Adjudicator on an Olympic 2012 Legacy Project
Appointed as Expert on a Housing Project in Bahrain
Appointed Arbitrator on a dispute in Mauritius
Appointed Adjudicator on a dispute over a Waste to Energy and Composting Facility
Acting as co-arbitrator (DIAC) in a dispute over the termination of a contract for a large water plant (UAE)
Acting as co-arbitrator (DIAC) on a dispute over professional fees and alleged negligence (UAE)
Appointed as Adjudicator on four disputes over a new Football Stadium
Counsel in the first no payment or payless notices dispute enforcement in the UK
Litigation representing a major contractor in a procurement dispute in the UK
Appointed Adjudicator on a dispute over the Media Centre for the London 2012 Olympics
Appointed as Adjudicator five times in relation to disputes under an NEC Contract
Appointed Adjudicator five times in relation to disputes over the construction of a boutique hotel
Appointed as Arbitrator on a dispute over professional fees
Appointed as Arbitrator on a dispute over the construction of a large private residence
Arbitration (FIDIC) - Representing a specialist erection company in relation to a dispute over the erection of wind turbines in the North Sea
Advising a blue-chip client with regard to their contractual entitlement in relation to a large PFI Light Rail Infrastructure Project in a £45 million dispute
Representing a blue-chip client in a £7 million dispute over who caused delays to a major PFI project
Acting as adjudicator on a FIDIC engineering contract in a circa £10 million dispute over the construction of a power station. The dispute included termination and the correct valuation of the works
Sole Dispute Board Member on a dispute over water and sewerage installation in Bulgaria
Representing a contractor in relation to sewage works scrubbing plant disputes
Representing the employer (HAT) in a major claim for breach of contract and professional negligence
Advising a specialist international cladding contractor on a dispute over the supply and delivery of cladding for a mixed-use development, including successfully appearing as advocate to lift an injunction to prevent a bank paying under a Standby Letter of Credit
Advising a main contractor in an adjudication under the NEC form of contract over the measurement and value of the works
Acting as mediator in a five-party dispute in relation to high aluminium concrete structures
Advising on a contract for the construction of an international airport.
Mediation
Dispute Boards (DB, DAB and DRB)
Peter is on the FIDIC President’s Panel of Dispute Board Members. This list is currently limited to 69 people worldwide. He is a member of the Dispute Resolution Board Foundation. Peter is an international adjudicator on Dispute Adjudication Boards, Dispute Resolution Boards and Dispute Avoidance Boards.
He has lectured on the benefits of Dispute Boards in the UK, India, Italy, Mauritius and Dubai. He has been appointed to dispute boards by FIDIC, RICS and the ICC. Peter enjoys acting on standing dispute boards where he can use his construction and legal skills to work with the parties to avoid disputes.
Peter is a member of the TfL CAP (Conflict Avoidance Panel) and has been appointed several times to make recommendations to the Parties.
Adjudication
Peter is an adjudicator under the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and internationally under ICC, FIDIC and DRBF procedures.
Arbitration
Peter is a Chartered Arbitrator and has conducted arbitrations in the UK and internationally, including in Dubai. He has been appointed as arbitrator under the Water Industry Act, DIAC, and CIArb, as well as undertaking party appointments.
Mediation
Peter qualified as a mediator on the CEDR training programme in 1999 and has acted regularly as a mediator having dealt with a range of matters including construction disputes, IT, copyright, internet and professional negligence.
Rachel Bloxwich joined 3PB in April 2021, having spent nearly 15 years practising as a family solicitor with law firms in the West Midlands. Most recently, Rachel worked for nearly four years with FBC Manby Bowdler as an Associate in their top-rated family team in Wolverhampton.
Rachel has specialised since qualification in 2007 in all aspects of family law and has gained extensive knowledge from her focus on financial remedy, private law children cases and domestic violence disputes. This has seen her build up a strong practice in divorce and separation cases, financial matters and advising on the arrangements for children.
Outside her busy work commitments, Rachel is a school governor and chairs their finance committee.
FAMILY
Rachel Bloxwich is a former solictor-turned-barrister who specialises in handling divorce, separation, and financial matters and arrangements for children. Her busy caseload includes the following:
Financial Remedy
Rachel has extensive experience in representing parties in financial remedy disputes, including cohabitation disputes.
Rachel is known for taking a pragmatic and focused approach, understanding the need for cost-effective solutions for clients.
She has experience of dealing with applications where expert evidence is required including actuarial and accountancy reports and where there are disputes concerning pre- and post-acquired assets.
Private Law
Rachel has a wide range of experience in representing parties at all stages of private law disputes, including disputes involving grandparents.
Rachel has extensive experience in complex private law matters involving:
Parental alienation
Implacable hostility
Domestic abuse
Physical abuse
Sexual abuse
Physical abuse
Drug or alcohol misuse
S 91 (14) Orders
Mental health issues
Rachel is adept at dealing with applications where there is an overlap between private law disputes and domestic violence injunctions. Rachel is experienced in dealing with applications for Special Guardianship Orders, including those which have arisen from care proceedings.
Rachel has experience in representing parties where expert evidence is required from independent social workers, psychologists and teachers and where there is social services’ involvement.
Rachel is equipped to deal with applications concerning specific issues such as school placements and internal relocation.
Rachel has experience of representing vulnerable parties, including those where capacity assessments are necessary and intermediaries or other participation directions are required.
Domestic Violence
Rachel has a wealth of experience in representing applicants and respondents in applications for non-molestation and occupation orders. This includes representing parties where extensive police disclosure and other expert evidence is required. Rachel is known for her sensitive approach and understanding of the wider issues of the parties’ needs and circumstances.
Rachel Bale has a diverse practice with a particular emphasis on property, chancery, financial remedies and TOLATA disputes. She also advises on contractual and commercial matters.
Rachel has experience advising private landlords and tenants, local authorities, housing associations alongside local and national businesses. Her analytical approach and command of property and chancery law compliments her growing practice in matrimonial and family finance.
Rachel is thoroughly approachable, calm, and pragmatic when advising clients and offers a strong persuasive manner as an advocate to the matters in which she is instructed. Her ethos is to provide “order to the chaos” of emotionally challenging property and family issues that often arise in her client’s lives.
She also offers a balanced, client-focused approach to negotiations, be it at FDAs, FDRs, mediations, or written correspondence in order to fearlessly protect her client’s interests whilst focussing on reaching a solution where all parties needs are met.
Prior to the Bar, Rachel gained extensive experience as a legal researcher, working on commercial, civil and human rights matters at Matrix Chambers. She also represented vulnerable individuals in housing matters at a London pro-bono clinic and participated in international mediation competitions, globally. Rachel also has knowledge of Family and Administrative French Law having studied at the infamous University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne in 2016. She is fluent in French.
Rachel also has commercial experience of running her own start-up company, having founded “Her Bar” in 2021, the online Hub providing support, resources, and marketing bespoke services for aspiring and practising women barristers. This business demonstrates Rachel’s commitment to equality and diversity at the Bar.
Outside of work, Rachel enjoys speaking French over a glass of Beaujolais, keeping fit through dance, and perfecting her Caribbean dishes.
Recent experience
Success at appeal for possession of residential property, in a matter involving mental capacity issues and disrepair
Facilitating settlement at mediation for multi-million corporation in a large-scale contractual dispute with a district council
Successfully obtaining possession of multiple commercial premises from trespassers and obtaining permission for High Court enforcement
Facilitating settlement in TOLATA claim involving breach of process as determined by the parties’ declaration of trust
Advising potential beneficiaries as to their prospective claim for Inheritance Act 1975
Successfully representing Husband against Wife for breach of financial remedies order, enforcing the terms of the agreed Rose Order
Advising farming family on a claim of unjust enrichment involving a failed agreement as to a plot worth over £4m, with the benefit of outline planning permission
Advising in relation to the existence of a constructive trust and life interest, involving family members residing in a “granny annexe” on the client’s property
Representing corporate and local authorities in residential dilapidations claim and breaches of the Tenant Fees Act 2019
Advising on bailment agreements and corresponding damages in relation to a sales livery agreement.
Property and Estates
Rachel is a specialist property practitioner, with a particular emphasis on the law of landlord and tenant and residential property. Her work spans the breadth of residential and commercial, representing both landlords and tenants in the private and public sector.
Rachel provides advice, drafts pleadings, and offers strong advocacy skills in this area. She is experienced in dealing with a range of claims dealing with repossession, claims for non-protection of deposits, breaches of covenant, dilapidations, and anti-social behaviour.
Rachel’s property practice includes the following areas:
Tenancies pursuant to Housing Act 1985 and 1988
Tenant Fees Act 2019 claims
Rights of way and other easements
Adverse possession
Trespass
Nuisance claims (including floods).
Rachel also has a growing chancery practice in the following areas:
Wills
Contentious probate
Inheritance Act claims
Applications under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996.
Finance
Rachel’s practice covers all aspects of family finance provisions. She undertakes First Appointments, Financial Dispute Resolutions and Final Hearings. She advises and represents families on financial issues following separation or relationship breakdown including, Trusts of Land Act applications and Schedule One applications for children.
With Rachel’s acute knowledge of property and chancery matters, Rachel is able to advise on technical legal matters involving large estates, property management and inheritance claims. She is also well placed to advise couples on pre-nuptial and cohabitation agreements, as a growing trend.
FDR hearing service
Rachel is available for remote private FDR hearings.
Contractual disputes
Rachel advises a range of clients on contractual and commercial matters. In particular she has had the following successes:
Successfully applying and defending strike out & summary judgment applications for commercial matters
Advice and representation on sales livery contracts involving alleged breaches of implied term of care and skill
Pleading particulars and defences for breaches of contract, involving multiple parties with values over £100,000
Representation at CCMCs and direction hearings.
Rebecca is a family law barrister – called to the Bar in 2001 - who practises in all court arenas, advising and providing representation in private law children matters, public law, domestic violence and injunctions.
Rebecca has a down-to-earth manner and assists clients achieve the very best outcome with a sympathetic, yet robust approach. She prioritises thorough preparation and client care, particularly assisting lay clients to achieve an understanding of the legal intricacies of their case and all avenues open to them both within and outside of the court process.
She has a wealth of experience in representing the most vulnerable clients, including those with learning disabilities and mental health difficulties, having been instructed by the Official Solicitor on numerous occasions. Rebecca is also instructed by a number of different local authorities in public law cases, by Children’s Guardians, minors acting by way of a solicitor and parents and other family members.
Rebecca has conducted lengthy and complex fact-finding hearings involving significant injuries (including those of a fatal nature) to children, neglect and sexual abuse. She has presented many legal arguments including subjects such as implacable hostility and jurisdiction and been involved in cases with significant domestic violence. She has expertise and experience in child abduction matters concerning both Hague Convention and non-Convention countries.
Rebecca is able to accept Direct Access instructions and welcomes enquiries in that regard.
Public Law Care and Adoption
Rebecca is instructed by a number of Local Authorities in public law cases and also represents parents, children (by way of their Guardian or personally when age-appropriate) and other connected persons. She is experienced in complex, lengthy proceedings in the High Court of the most serious in nature, including sexual abuse and fatalities.
Reported Cases:
B (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 324
Private Law Children and Domestic Abuse
Rebecca has conducted lengthy and complex fact-finding hearings, legal arguments regarding implacable hostility and cases involving significant domestic violence. She has expertise in child abduction matters concerning both Hague Convention and non-Convention countries.
Rebecca Farrell’s practice encompasses commercial, insolvency, property and estates litigation. She has expertise in contentious insolvency work; commercial matters (including contractual disputes and litigation concerning guarantees) and company claims (such as shareholder and partnership disputes). She also has good experience seeking urgent interim relief and dealing with enforcement matters.
She is Deputy Head of 3PB’s Commercial Group and has been identified as a ‘rising star’ in the 2024 Legal 500 rankings:
‘Rebecca is extremely diligent. Her preparation for each matter is thorough and focussed, and she applies the same discipline and dedication to low-value, fast-track matters through to complex, high-value claims. She has the ability to get on top of difficult issues quickly.’
Commercial
Rebecca Farrell is Deputy Head of 3PB’s Commercial team and has a busy practice advising on insolvency and company matters including partnership and shareholder disputes, financial services litigation and general commercial disputes.
Insolvency
Rebecca regularly advises and acts for insolvency practitioners; creditors and debtors on matters concerning personal and corporate insolvency law. She is often instructed to appear on bankruptcy petitions, winding-up petitions and other substantive applications in both the High Court and County Court. ‘Other applications’ include:
urgent applications/injunctions to restrain presentation or advertisement of a winding up petition;
applications concerning transactions at an undervalue;
preference claims;
misfeasance claims;
applications to remove liquidators;
applications to set aside statutory demands;
applications for income payment orders; and
applications for delivery up of documentation and summonses.
Rebecca has some experience of disputes which have a dimension outside of this jurisdiction and associated challenges to the court’s jurisdiction.
Alongside other members of the Commercial Team during the Pandemic, Rebecca published news items and delivered a webinar on updates to insolvency law and practice in light of Covid-19. This included coverage of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020.
Examples of recent work includes:
Jackson v Ayles [2021] EWHC 995 (Ch) - Successfully supported a trustee’s application for a declaration that the first legal charge over the bankrupt’s matrimonial home was unenforceable in accordance with Section 26 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA 2000”). The application was heard over the course of two days and Chief ICC Judge Briggs’ decision provides useful analysis concerning Section 19 FSMA 2000 (was the loan advanced ‘by way of business’) and Section 28 FSMA 2000 (was it just and equitable to enforce the loan in the circumstances, having regard to whether the person who is carrying on the regulated activity reasonably believed that he was not contravening the general prohibition).
Successfully resisted an application by a bankrupt seeking to set aside a Section 283A notice which would have placed a (previously undisclosed and valuable) property beyond the reach of creditors.
Obtained declarations from the court that certain payments from a pension provider to the wife of a bankrupt were void dispositions.
Secured an order for delivery up of documents and a summons against a director resident outside of the jurisdiction. The case raised interesting issues concerning the extra-territorial reach of the Insolvency Act post-Brexit.
Obtained permission from the High Court to appeal a bankruptcy order on the basis that the Debtor’s Centre of Main Interest (“COMI”) was not within Europe. Also acted on other petitions where the court’s jurisdiction has been challenged based on COMI.
Successfully obtained urgent injunctive relief to restrain presentation of various winding-up petitions in the High Court.
Assisted leading counsel in relation to an application to stay a liquidation and compel the removal of liquidators.
Company Work
Rebecca acts and advises on matters which arise in the lifecycle of a business including:
internal disputes between stakeholders of a business such as shareholder and partnership disputes including unfair prejudice proceedings and derivative claims;
misconduct by employees; directors and shareholders for example breach of director and fiduciary duty matters; issues associated with fraudulent conduct and breach of restrictive covenant claims; and
issues associated with companies in financial distress and director disqualification claims.
Examples of recent work includes:
Successfully obtained an urgent injunction to prevent members of an LLP from closing a hotel arguably in breach of an LLP agreement and fiduciary duties owed.
Successfully defended a breach of contract and misrepresentation claim at trial arising from and in connection with an allotment of shares purchased in a Single Enterprise Investment Scheme (“SEIS”) qualifying company.
Drafted the Points of Defence in unfair prejudice proceedings issued in the High Court. The unfair prejudice proceedings were subsequently consolidated with intellectual property claims and the petition ultimately failed (see Minim v Rahman and others [2022] EWHC 2870 (Ch)).
Assisted senior counsel in a seven-figure partnership dispute.
Provided urgent advice on the merits of seeking a freezing order and other potential relief against a former director and employee accused of wrongdoing.
Provided advice to an executor in a High Court claim which was wrongly commenced against a deceased director accused of defrauding a company of significant sums and successfully enabled the client to favourably exit the litigation.
Advised a director on the enforceability of restrictive covenants within the context of a shareholder agreement and exploration of new business opportunities.
Provided advice on a number of director disqualification matters.
Commercial litigation and contractual disputes
Prior to qualifying as a Barrister, Rebecca worked as a paralegal in an international law firm on a reinsurance matter. Subsequently Rebecca worked as a Legal Editor at FromCounsel, a publishing company that provides an excellent online resource for corporate lawyers.
Rebecca has acted for a range of clients including national and international companies; lenders; education organisations; a European Institution; law firms; and individuals on a range of commercial issues including:
the various forms of misrepresentation;
construction and enforceability of guarantee and indemnity provisions;
breach of contract claims including breach of warranty issues;
agency;
breach of trust issues;
the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and associated legislation including acceptance/rejection issues;
consumer regulations; and
see also ‘company law’ section above for further examples of work undertaken which may also fall into that category.
Recent matters include:
Succeeded in a three-day trial concerning a disputed commercial agreement and purported breaches of obligations owed.
Succeed in a summary judgment application concerning the enforcement of a property development loan worth £1.2 million, tackling issues concerned with an alleged unfair relationship and other consumer rights legislation on a summary basis.
Settled the defence of a claim for outstanding fees associated with an offshore marine project which resulted in the discontinuance of the claim shortly thereafter.
Acted in a high value dispute arising from the pandemic concerning masks and compliance with European legislation and domestic PPE Regulations.
Financial Services
Rebecca has experience of disputes concerning the regulation of financial services and the conduct of investors. She has previously been instructed to settle grounds of appeal to the Court of Appeal in a dispute concerning consumer credit regulation and a procedural issue connected with the dispute.
Examples of recent work includes:
Jackson v Ayles [2021] EWHC 995 (Ch)
Successfully supported a trustee’s application for a declaration that the first legal charge over the bankrupt’s matrimonial home was unenforceable in accordance with Section 26 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA 2000”). The application was heard over the course of two days and Chief ICC Judge Briggs’ decision provides useful analysis concerning Section 19 FSMA 2000 (was the loan advanced ‘by way of business’) and Section 28 FSMA 2000 (was it just and equitable to enforce the loan in the circumstances, having regard to whether the person who is carrying on the regulated activity reasonably believed that he was not contravening the general prohibition).
Property and Estates
Rebecca is a member of 3PB’s Property and Estates team and her practice covers disputes including ToLATA matters including disputes over farms and estates; contentious probate cases; real property litigation and landlord and tenant claims (both residential and commercial).
Property
Rebecca acts and advises on trust of land and proprietary estoppel claims, including those which involve Estates.
Rebecca’s experience of real property litigation includes cases concerning trespass, nuisance, harassment; breach of covenants (including restrictive covenants); adverse possession; proprietary estoppel; rights of way claims and boundary disputes, as well as the associated claims for injunctive and declaratory relief.
Rebecca likewise advises and acts on numerous claims involving both residential and commercial issues. She has specific expertise in possession matters from their infancy to conclusion at trial, including against persons unknown, and associated rental arrears.
Rebecca also has experience appearing in the First Tier Tribunal (Property) Chamber on applications to the Tribunal including those for determinations regarding service charges; administration charges; rent repayment orders and the appointment of managers.
Recent work includes
Successfully obtained possession and defended a tenant’s associated counterclaim for harassment against the landlord. The trial was heard over 5 days in total (including judgment).
Successfully struck out an application in the FTT for a rent repayment order based on an alleged unlawful eviction; harassment and control or management of an unlicensed home by a landlord where the Applicant/tenant failed to participate in the hearing.
Successfully persuaded the Tribunal on the papers not to set aside it’s original decision in the aforementioned matter on appeal.
Acted in case management hearings concerning ongoing lease renewal proceedings under 1954 Act.
Probate and Estates
Rebecca has advised and acted on a number of contentious probate disputes for example Inheritance Act claims (including adult children claims); disputes over testamentary capacity and undue influence and applications to remove personal representatives. In the non-contentious sphere, Rebecca has assisted in the review of the administration of an Estate in order to provide advice regarding the conduct of the administration and next steps.
She has also dealt the interface between this practice area and others, such as proprietary estoppel and constructive trust claims in the context of Estates and the administration Estates involving insolvent beneficiaries. She has advised an executor tasked with managing a fraud claim associated with a deceased company director and employee.
Rebecca McKnight is a criminal barrister who is instructed to defend and prosecute across the spectrum of criminal offences. Recent work includes defending an affray and possession of a blade at trial, a successful appeal against sentence at Bristol Crown Court and defending in a possession with intent to supply Class A drugs matter.
Based in Winchester and living near Reading her practises covers a wide geographical area outside the Western circuit and includes London. She has built a busy criminal defence and prosecution practise, appearing daily in the Crown Court, Magistrates’ Court and Youth Court, and has previously conducted some extradition work, as well as applying for and opposing civil measures such as Stalking Prevention Orders.
Rebecca accepts instructions in general crime, regulatory and court martial work. Her respectful and fair approach allows her to form strong relationships with clients and across the criminal justice system.
Rebecca enjoys working in the youth courts and has a straightforward, personable and patient manner which allows clients to be made to feel at ease and to understand the process. She will always fight for the best result possible for clients.
Rebecca prosecutes on behalf of the CPS, Probation and Police. She will occasionally prosecute lists in the Magistrates Court.
Rebecca is currently on part-time secondment as Disclosure Counsel to the Serious Fraud Office.
Prior to being called to the Bar, Rebecca enjoyed a successful career in the Civil Service where her final role was working as Product Owner at the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). This involved launching a new digital platform for the JAC, as well as being involved in the selection process for judicial candidates.
Outside of life at the Criminal Bar, Rebecca enjoys singing both in the less serious setting of karaoke with friends and in a more formal environment where she occasionally sings with a choir. She loves travelling and spent some time living and working in Vietnam.
Crime
Rebecca accepts instructions in general crime, both prosecuting and defending, regulatory and court martial work. Her respectful and fair approach allows her to form strong relationships with clients and across the criminal justice system.
Rebecca enjoys working in the youth courts and has a straightforward, personable and patient manner which allows clients to be made to feel at ease and to understand the process.
Recent criminal law cases include:
R v AT Goodyear indication would have meant a further period in custody, successfully persuading the judge that given strong mitigation the defendant could be released that day.
R v JS defended in affray and possession of blade jury trial in the Crown Court.
R v HA defended in an ABH jury trial in the Crown Court
R v GB represented a client in an ABH allegation.
R v MN after discussions with the prosecution they agreed to discontinue an ABH case.
R v TDB Successful application for bail following 2 previous breaches of bail.
R v JMC acquittal for threats to kill after half time submissions of no case to answer.
R v JH acquittal for theft from a vehicle.
R v MS acquittal for assault against an emergency worker.
R v SK written submissions persuaded the Crown to discontinue a case.
R v EC sentence for possession with intent to supply Class A drugs, significant role and fell into category 3. Suspended sentence received by defendant.
R v PB successful submission of no case to answer in a breach of Criminal Behaviour Order.
R v LG successfully opposed a bad character application and res gestae argument and then made a successful submission of no case to answer.
R v RE representations successfully made to the Crown to accept an out of court disposal for a youth involved in a serious affray.
R v OL persuaded the Judge to impose a lower custodial sentence for client, compared to the co-defendants, by distinguishing their circumstances and offending from the others in a very high value theft.
R v MS & NC successfully argued to the Crown, YOT and police that a caution could be given for one of my clients and a referral order for the other in a serious ABH.
Motoring Offences
Rebecca frequently represents individuals accused of motoring offences, from defending them at trial to arguing special reasons and exceptional hardship to prevent disqualification or reduce penalty points.
R v NI client acquitted following trial of speeding and failure to provide identity.
R v JW successful exceptional hardship argument prevented disqualification.
R v RW persuaded the court that there were special reasons present on appeal, no points and therefore they retained their licence.
R v SS represented a client in a Newton Hearing for dangerous driving.
Family barrister Ria Herbert joined 3PB in March 2021 from another Midlands chambers, where she had developed her own busy practice in a wide range of family law matters. Ria welcomes instructions in all aspects of family law and TOLATA proceedings.
Ria develops a great rapport with clients and is a popular choice with both instructing solicitors and clients.
Prior to joining the Bar, Ria worked for a family law firm in their Northampton office as a paralegal, giving her a strong foundational knowledge of family law. Ria also gained considerable family law advocacy experience working as an advocate at a mid-sized law firm in Milton Keynes. In this role Ria attended a variety of public law hearings and a large number of private law hearings, allowing her to build significant advocacy experience.
Outside of work, you will often find Ria watching true crime dramas and documentaries. Ria is also very passionate about music and has an extensive vinyl collection. She is also a volunteer with (IPSEA), which helps children and young people with special educational needs and/or disabilities obtain the support and assistance they require; and with the African Caribbean Leukemia Trust (ACLT) which promotes blood and bone marrow donation especially within Black and Asian communities.
FAMILY
Care and Adoption
Ria Herbert is regularly instructed in multi-day final and composite hearings. She has a range of experience in this area including representing clients with limited or no capacity, FDAC proceedings and non-accidental injury and neglect cases.
Ria also has experience in applications for the revocation of care and placement orders.
Recent cases:
Re D: led by senior counsel on a complex non-accidental injury case involving jurisdiction issues
Re F & H: represented a mother with no capacity, through the Official Solicitor, in a 9-day composite hearing involving issues with child sexual exploitation
Re T, U & V: represented a mother who had been sectioned in care proceedings
Private Law Children
Ria has experience representing applicants, respondents and guardians in private child matters. She is frequently instructed on multi-day final and fact finding hearings, including cases involving domestic abuse allegations and parental alienation.
Ria has been instructed on internal and external relocation cases.
Recent cases include:
Re H: successfully represented a mother on her opposed application to relocate to Jersey with her child
Re G: successfully represented a father in obtaining contact with his children after 2 years of parental alienation
Injunction and Domestic Abuse
Ria has considerable experience in representing applicants and respondents in applications for non-molestation and occupation orders.
Having previously worked in the Emergency Proceedings Department at a solicitors firm, she has extensive experience of applications of this nature.
Financial Remedies
Ria has experience of representing applicants, respondents and intervenors in a variety of financial remedies proceedings. She also has experience with Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 2996 (TOLATA) matters.
Ria undertakes both written advisory work as well as advocacy.
Court of Protection
Ria has developed a strong interest in Court of Protection matters having represented clients with limited or no capacity and volunteering at a charity to ensure that children with special educational needs have the correct Education, Health and Care plans.
Ria is happy to accept instructions from local authorities or individuals.
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 Wheeler specialises in personal injury, clinical negligence, public and coronial law. He was appointed a member of the Attorney General’s London A Panel (Treasury Counsel) taking effect from 1 September 2022.
Richard has extensive experience in personal injury and clinical negligence claims acting for claimants and defendants, with particular emphasis upon employer’s liability, military injury claims, industrial injuries and illness litigation. Many claims have been valued in excess of £1m.
As a member of the Attorney General’s panel, Richard frequently acts for Government Departments (e.g. Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office, the Prison Service, the Crown Prosecution Service, and the UK Border Agency) in private and public law cases.
He sits as a Deputy District Judge (civil) and Recorder (private and public law) in Central London and across the South Eastern Circuit.
‘Richard is a brilliant barrister. He is a fearsome and well prepared advocate, who pushes hard for his clients.’ - Legal 500 2023/Personal Injury/Leading Juniors/London Bar
Reported cases:
Emoni v Atabo [2020] EWHC 3322 (Fam).
R (on the application of Antonio Boparan) v Governor Of Stoke Heath Prison [2019] EWHC 2352 (Admin)
Kimathi & Ors v Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB)
Kimathi & Ors v Foreign & Commonwealth [2018] EWHC 1169 (QB)
Yirenkyi v MOD (QB) [2018] EWHC 3102.
Personal Injury
Richard has extensive experience in all areas of personal injury, with particular emphasis upon employer’s liability for accidents and industrial injury and illness litigation (asbestos). Many claims valued in excess of £1m.
Richard is frequently instructed by defendants in civil fraud work. He recently acted for the successful applicant in the High Court in the first reported contempt of court case under the new procedural rules.
He is also regularly instructed by the Government Legal Department in false imprisonment (unlawful detention) cases and claims involving breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Richard is also very experienced in inquest work (including Article 2 and jury inquests). He also accepts instructions in detailed costs assessments.
Recent cases
Claimant Work
B v A: £2.2m (High Court, London) catastrophic injuries claim arising out of road traffic accident. Experts: orthopaedic, general surgery, psychology, psychiatry, neurosurgery, neurology, care. Claimant confined to wheelchair and in need of 24 hour care.
S v A: £1m (High Court, London) brain injury claim arising out of knocked down by a car in London. Experts: educational psychology, neurology, care. Issue: causation of the injuries, whether non-negligent speed would have led to same injuries.
P v P&I (High Court, London): £¾m High Court employers liability claim serious degloving injury of left foot in workplace accident. Multiple experts on both sides.
G v NHS (High Court, Birmingham): £½m clinical negligence, fatal accident claim following hypoxic brain injury consequent upon surgery. Multiple dependants.
W v NHS: clinical negligence during delivery of child, major PPH, lifetime consequences for mother.
B v BN: asbestos fatal accident claim by wife for mesothelioma contracted while washing husband's overalls in the 1960s. Experts: respiratory surgeon, workplace hygienist evidence. Issue: whether exposure was de minimis / in excess of acceptable levels in the 1960s. Settled eve of trial for £150,000.
Many other asbestos cases with issues surrounding exposure levels, multiple defendants, causation and quantum.
Defence Work
Member of senior counsel defence team in Kenyan Emergency Group Litigation (multi-million pound group action by 40,000 “Mau Mau” and related claimants alleging UK Government responsibility for alleged mistreatment during the Kenyan Emergency in the 1950s). Multiple allegations of torture, beatings, rape, breach of international conventions. The litigation involved wide ranging issues of law including personal injury, negligence, vicarious liability, common design, false imprisonment, breach of human rights, trespass to the person.
MOD (Army): many High Court Non-Freezing Cold Injury claims. Claims usually pleaded in excess of £1m for career loss. Richard’s expertise in drafting complex counter schedules involves all aspects of high value loss of earnings and pension personal injury calculations. Many settlements for substantially less than pleaded by Claimants.
RTA fraud & credit hire claims, fundamental dishonesty.
MOJ (CPS) Data Protection Act 2018 / privacy / breach of Art 8 claims.
MOD (Army): workplace stress. Claim brought for loss of lifetime earnings in the army, loss of pension. Settled for fraction of pleaded case.
MOJ: claim brought by a Muslim prisoner alleging endemic racism in a particular prison. Issues: breach of Art 3, Art 8, Art 14 HRA 1998; application for specific disclosure, lifting of redactions; issues of data protection, relevance, proportionality.
Acted for Ministry of Justice in claim brought by life sentence prisoner seeking damages for alleged unlawful restrictions on his licence. He alleged he was unable to visit his relatives or tend wife's grave due to restrictions. Claim pleaded breach of Art 8 and Art 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Costs
Richard has also appeared in many detailed costs assessments in the county court and in the SCCO. He acted for the Defendant in the costs management appeal Yirenkyi v MOD (QB) [2018] EWHC 3102.
Inquests
Richard has broad experience of coronial law. He has appeared on behalf of bereaved families and has acted many times for Government Departments in inquests. Richard has appeared in several inquests where the Coroner has appointed Counsel to the inquiry and has frequently appeared alone where other interested parties having instructing Queen’s Counsel.
Most recently Richard was instructed by the MOD in the Deepcut inquest (Sean Benton) arising from a death from gunshot wounds in alleged mysterious circumstances at Deepcut Barracks over 20 years ago. Richard was instructed to represent three former soldiers accused of bullying Sean Benton prior to his death. The case involved applications for special measures, reporting restrictions and cross-examination of a vulnerable witness.
Several inquests have raised issues such as to whether Article 2 is engaged, whether a jury should be summoned. Richard has frequently dealt with submissions involving allegations of unlawful killing, neglect, and Reg. 28 type issues. Richard has attended many PIRs on behalf of interested parties and bereaved relatives and secured the necessary evidence and directions for an effective inquest. In one ongoing matter cross-jurisdictional issues arise involving disclosure from French, Dutch and German military authorities.
Recent notable cases include:
Acting for MOD in inquest into sinking of French fishing vessel the Bugaled Breizh. The families and boat owner allege involvement of HM naval submarine in the sinking, denied by MOD.
Acting for family in inquest arising from alleged negligent care in a hospital resulting in hypoxic brain injury.
Acted for three former soldiers in Deepcut inquest (Sean Benton). The three were accused of bullying Sean Benton prior to his death from gunshot wounds, in 1995.
14 day Article 2 inquest into death of prisoner at Winchester prison. Neglect, breach of human rights, negligence, ACCT process.
Acted for motorist in 8 day jury inquest into death of undercover policeman in Southampton. Public interest immunity regarding the operation the police were conducting at the time of the fatal accident.
Article 2 jury inquest involving a prisoner suicide in Exeter prison. Alleged early closure of ACCT, safeguarding, and mental health issues.
Article 2 inquest following prisoner suicide in Chelmsford prison.
Acted for family in 3 days, jury inquest. Window fitter killed working at height.
Inquest following death of prisoner, inquiry into use of prisoner restraints.
Clinical Negligence
Richard has extensive experience in all areas of clinical negligence. Many claims valued in excess of £1m.
Richard is also very experienced in related inquest work (including Article 2 and jury inquests). He also accepts instructions in detailed costs assessments
Recent cases include:
Claimant work:
B v NHS: missed diagnosis Acting for man diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, alleged missed diagnosis on several chest images. Breach of duty, causation in dispute. £100k claim.
G v NHS: inquest and civil claim for multiple dependents following hypoxic brain injury. £½ million claim.
H v NHS: facial paralysis following maxillofacial surgery. Causation in dispute. £200k claim.
L v NHS: negligence and breach of Human Rights Act 1998 following death in secure hospital.
M v NHS: missed diagnosis of cardiac problem in neonate. Breach of duty and causation in dispute.
Defence work:
C v MOD: alleged late diagnosis, and incorrect treatment for shin splints. C. £200k claim.
J v MOJ: prisoner contracted HIV in a prisoner on prisoner assault. Alleged negligence in failing to screen for HIV. Causation, prognosis, quantum. £100k claim.
G v MOD: alleged failure to treat back complaint, leading to loss of career: £½ million claim.
Inquests
Richard has extensive experience of related litigation in the Coroner’s Court, for example:
Re Gray; Benton (Art 2): acting for soldiers in two of the Deepcut inquests (families alleged foul play at army base)
Re Bugaled Breizh: Acting for Royal Navy (families allege naval submarine caused French trawler to sink).
Re G: acting for husband in death arising from clinical negligence.
Re L (Art 2): acting for family in self-inflicted death while in care of secure hospital.
Re B & many others (Art 2): acting for Ministry of Justice in self-inflicted deaths in prisons.
Costs
Richard has also appeared in many detailed costs assessments, in the county court and in the SCCO. He acted for the Defendant in the costs management appeal Yirenkyi v MOD (QB) [2018] EWHC 3102.
Public and Regulatory
Richard has extensive experience in public and regulatory law. He has been Attorney General Panel Counsel for 8 years and has acted for Government Departments in a range of cases, often engaging both public and private law issues.
Unlawful Detention Judicial Review & False Imprisonment
Richard has acted in a range of unlawful detention prison and immigration matters engaging Hardial Singh principles and related case law. He has experience in relation to asylum application procedures, trafficking and modern slavery cases, criminal casework, Adults at Risk policy, and issues relating to claims for aggravated and exemplary damages.
Richard has acted in judicial review proceedings brought by prisoners challenging detention decisions See, for example, R (on the application of Antonio Boparan) v Governor Of Stoke Heath Prison [2019] EWHC 2352 (Admin) (challenge to home detention curfew policy).
Human Rights Act
Richard has acted in many claims against Government Departments involving allegations of breach of Art 2 (right to life), Art 3 (torture) and Art 8 (private life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Examples of recent cases:
W v HCC & Ors - instructed in breach of human rights claim brought by estate of deceased prisoner. Alleged breaches of Art 2 (right to life), Art 3 (torture) and Art 8 (private life) European Convention on Human Rights.
S v SoS - Appearing for Secretary of State. Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Defeating appeal of fines imposed for carrying illegal immigrants across UK border.
K v Ministry of Justice - High Court trial, human rights claim by convicted murder. Acting for Secretary of State.
T v SoS - for Justice Life sentence prisoner, restrictions on licence; Art 8, Art 14 European Convention on Human Rights
M v MOJ - Human Rights Art 3 (inhumane treatment), Art 8 (right to life), Art 14 (discrimination) - alleged failure by prison to provide access to medical care.
Data Protection & Privacy
Richard has acted for several Government Departments defending claims of alleged breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and DPA 2018, GDPR, LED and related legislation. He has acted in claims involving breach of Art 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, privacy and breach of confidence.
Many cases involve significant claims for distress and/or psychiatric damage, alleged diminution in house value, costs of moving home, costs of increased security.
Civil Proceedings Orders
Richard has acted in several cases on behalf of the Attorney General seeking an order from the High Court restraining vexatious litigants from issuing civil proceedings.
Inquests
Richard has extensive experience of related litigation in the Coroner’s Court, for example:
Re Gray; Benton (Art 2): acting for soldiers in two of the Deepcut inquests (families alleged foul play at army base)
Re Bugaled Breizh: Acting for Royal Navy (families allege naval submarine caused French trawler to sink).
Re G: acting for husband in death arising from clinical negligence.
Re L (Art 2): acting for family in self-inflicted death while in care of secure hospital.
Re B & many others (Art 2): acting for Ministry of Justice in self-inflicted deaths in prisons.
Mediation
Richard is an Accredited Mediation Advocate.
Richard Onslow began his career at the Bar in London, practising on the South Eastern and Western Circuits. He has dealt with cases before a variety of tribunals, ranging from the Magistrates’ Courts to the Privy Council, including Courts Martial and the Stewards of the Jockey Club.
As prosecution Counsel he has been briefed as a Leading Junior since 1995 in serious and often multi handed criminal cases, including conspiracies to supply drugs, and to incite criminal damage, Human Trafficking, Rape, and Kidnap.
He has defended as a Junior and since the mid 1990s as a Leading Junior, in most fields of criminal work, including homicide, violence, child cruelty, sexual offences, drug importation and supply, dishonesty, blackmail, Merchant Shipping offences, and assorted common law offences.
He also undertakes shotgun and firearms appeals, police disciplinary cases and inquests.
Crime
Richard began his career at the Bar in London, practising on the South Eastern and Western Circuits. He has dealt with cases before a variety of tribunals, ranging from the Magistrates’ Courts to the Privy Council, including Courts Martial and the Stewards of the Jockey Club.
As prosecution Counsel he has been briefed as a Leading Junior since 1995 in serious and often multi handed criminal cases, including conspiracies to supply drugs, to incite criminal damage, human trafficking, rape, and kidnap.
He has defended as a Junior and since the mid 1990s as a Leading Junior, in most fields of criminal work, including homicide, violence, child cruelty, sexual offences, drug importation and supply, dishonesty, blackmail, Merchant Shipping offences, and assorted common law offences.
RASSO approved and Grade 4 CPS prosecutor.
He also undertakes shotgun and firearms appeals, police disciplinary cases and inquests.
Notable Cases - Prosecution
R v P (2017) Prosecution of male for possession of working and loaded Sauer 9mm pistol where evidence consisted of solely finding of minute amount of defendant’s DNA on trigger
R v I (2016) Prosecution of step father for catalogue of historic rapes and other sexual abuse of stepdaughters
R v A (2015) Prosecution of male for possession of firearm where evidence consisted of finding of minute amount of defendant’s DNA on magazine housing within the weapon
R v G-D (2014) Prosecution of 20 year old with appetite for 12 year old girls
Operation Clarion (2012) Leading Junior in prosecution of substantial conspiracy to supply class A drugs
R v S (2010) Prosecution of Gross Negligence Manslaughter of elderly woman
Operation Anteater (2006) - Leading Junior in prosecution of wide ranging 3 handed Conspiracy to Traffic attractive girls from Brazil for Sexual Exploitation
Operation Basking (2007) - Leading Junior in prosecution of multi handed conspiracy to steal contents (including a lot of brandy) of goods vehicles
Operation Elm (2004) - Leading Junior in prosecution of 2 police officers for Rape and Misconduct
Operation Roadie (2003) - Leading Junior in prosecution of 15 handed Conspiracy to Import and Supply tons of cannabis
Operation Washington (1997) - Leading Junior prosecuting multi handed ALF and Anarchist conspiracy to incite criminal damage
R v Guerrine and others (1995) - Prosecution of the girls who robbed Elizabeth Hurley, just after she wore That Dress.
Notable Cases - Defence
R v R (2017) Successful defence of 80 year old grandfather accused of rapes of great grand daughter, aged 6-8
R v F (2017) Successful defence of ‘sex addicted seaman’ accused of rape
R v P (2015) - Successful defence of young Romanian accused with 6 others of gang rape
R v R (2015) - Successful defence of young man with high functioning autism accused of sexual offences against drunk girls after a night out
R v N (2014) - Successful defence of man of impeccable character accused of historical rapes of his wife
R v S (2014) - Successful defence of 43 year old man accused of rape occurring 27 years earlier
Op Vanguard (2014) - Defending one involved in 27 handed conspiracy to supply cocaine
R v Ellis (2014) - Representing one of the Huyton team of ATM gas attack dismantlers
R v Limb (2013) - Representing defendant in first UK ATM gas attack
R v Robie (2011) - Appeal to Privy Council against conviction for Murder
R v S (2008) - Leading Junior defending police officer accused of Misconduct
Operation Benzol (2006) - Leading Junior defending skipper of yacht in Conspiracy to Import large quantity of cannabis into Brighton Marina
Operation Crossbow (2008) - Leading Junior representing unfit defendant first on indictment with seven fit defendants in historical child abuse case
Operation Elmer (2008) - Leading Junior successfully defending in multi handed Vietnamese cannabis growing conspiracy
Operation Silver Eel (2006) - Leading Junior defending in Conspiracy to Cheat Revenue in Hydrocarbon Fuel Oil Rebate Fraud by ancient family of Poole fishermen netting a lot of money
Operation Fabric (2004) - Leading Junior successfully defending in organised football violence conspiracy
R v D (2001) - Defending the Tesco Bomber
R v M (2000) - Successful Defence of skipper of Pleasure Boat charged with Merchant Shipping Act offences said to have occurred in Poole and Swanage harbours.
Shotgun and Firearms Appeals
H v Chief Constable Hampshire Constabulary (2015)
U v Chief Constable Devon and Cornwall Constabulary (2015)
C v Chief Constable Hampshire Constabulary (2016)
M v Chief Constable N Yorks Police (2016)
M v Chief Constable Hampshire Constabulary (2017)
P v Chief Constable Surrey Constabulary (2017)
Disciplinary Proceedings
Hants Constabulary v PC S (2009) - Representing officer in disciplinary proceedings
PC X v Dorset Constabulary (2014) Representing officer in disciplinary proceedings
Dorset Constabulary v PC S (2014) - Representing police in disciplinary proceedings
Inquests
In Re: M.S. (2009) - Oxford Coroner's Court: representing interests of Police Inspector in inquest into circumstances of death following release from custody.
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.
Richard Pratt KC is a door tenant at 3PB, with expertise in prosecuting and defending all types of criminal cases with particular experience in homicide, fraud and money laundering and drug trafficking.
1978: BA (Hons) degree in Business Law
1980: Called to the Bar (Gray's Inn)
1981: Elected to the Northern Circuit and joined 5 Castle Street Chambers in Liverpool
1989: 5 Castle Street merged with 27 Dale Street to become Corn Exchange Chambers
1997: Appointed Assistant Recorder
1999: Corn Exchange Chambers merged with Martin's Bank Buildings to become 7 Harrington Street Chambers
2000: Appointed Recorder authorised to sit in the Crown and County Courts
2002-2006 appointed to the Attorney General's panel (A list) authorised to prosecute the most serious cases on behalf of government departments. (Appointment relinquished automatically upon taking Silk)
2006: Appointed Queen's Counsel
2009: Approved to try serious sex cases in the Crown Court
2010: Elected Bencher of Gray's Inn
2011-2013 Leader of the Northern Circuit
2012- date Head of 7 Harrington Street Chambers
2014: Authorised to undertake Direct Access Work
2015 : Joined 3 Paper Buildings, Temple as a door tenant
2016 : Appointed Tutor-Judge to the Judicial College, participating in the continuing training of both full-time and part time Judges.
CRIME
Notable cases:
Homicide
Over the years both as a junior and in silk Richard has prosecuted and defended in many cases of murder and manslaughter of which the following are a small sample.
R v. Morgan Smith (2000) HL. Junior Counsel for the defendant in case which was at the time a landmark case on the law of provocation
R v. RG (2005) Court of General Gaol Delivery, Douglas IoM. Counsel for the owner of the Solway Harvester (which capsized in the Irish Sea) charged with gross negligence manslaughter of the seven crew members who were lost
R.v O'D (2007) Liverpool Crown Court representing defendant a student charged with murder of a fellow student during brawl outside city centre night club
R.v. SM (2008) Liverpool Crown Court representing 18 year old charged with murder of 11 year old schoolboy Rhys Jones
R.v. MS (2010) Liverpool Crown Court representing defendant charged with murder. Medical causation was a significant feature of the case, involving consideration of PRIS (propofol infusion syndrome) and alleged failures in the victim's medical treatment
R.v F (2010) Manchester Crown Court representing defendant charged with murder of taxi driver who was already terminally ill raising issues of medical causation
R.v B (2010) Liverpool Crown Court defendant charged with manslaughter of baby, raising issues of 'shaken baby syndrome' with the usual confrontation of complex expert opinion
R.v. C (2011) Belfast Crown Court representing defendant charged with terrorist murder, 37 years earlier, of Captain Robert Nairac an undercover soldier who had been posing as a republican militant
R.v GA (2014) Liverpool Crown Court representing defendant charged with murder of drug dealer involving a full blown 'cut throat' defence
R.v TW (2014) Liverpool Crown Court representing defendant charged with murder by shooting said to represent a gangland 'contract killing' execution
R.v. M and S (2015) Nottingham Crown Court seven week trial prosecuting guardian aunt for murder of and child cruelty towards 7 year old girl. The defendant was co-accused with her mother in respect of the child cruelty allegations
R.v. CD (2015) Exeter Crown Court prosecuting man charged with murdering his mother
R.v.JV (2015) Bristol Crown Court prosecuting man charged with murder and section 18 arising out of random night time attacks on members of the public, raising issues of diminished responsibility
R.v. MS (2016) Manchester Crown Court prosecuting man charged with murder of his friend in Cockermouth, Cumbria
R.v MP (2016) Sheffield Crown Court defending man charged with murder and attempted murder of two brothers
R.v. MW (2016) Liverpool Crown Court representing defendant charged with murder of prostitute
R.v. KC (2016) Portsmouth Crown Court representing one of two defendants charged with attempted murder of an alleged criminal associate
R.v. JC ( 2016) Liverpool Crown Court representing one of three defendant’s charged with murder by shooting of innocent 16 year old boy in the context of gang rivalry
R.v. TD (2017) Bolton Crown Court prosecuting man charged with murder by stabbing of popular local man who intervened after defendant had been violent to his sister in public
R.v JM (2017) Mold Crown Court representing one of four defendants charged with murder allegedly arising out of drug ‘turf war’
R. v. CP (2017) Liverpool Crown Court prosecuting defendant who murdered female acquaintance before seeking to dispose of body by carrying her to remote spot and setting fire to her body
R.v. KK (2018) Liverpool Crown Court representing one of four defendants charged with murder of criminal associate after failed drug importation. Case involved torture and destruction of body by fire
R. v. JA (2018) Lincoln Crown Court representing defendant charged with stabbing his friend to death
Operation Satinleaf (2018) Leeds Crown Court defending one of two 15 year old boys, following investigation by the Counter Terrorism Unit charged with conspiracy to murder teachers and pupils at his school by shootings and explosions.
Fraud and Money Laundering
MTIC
Operation V959 (2004) Manchester Crown Court Prosecuted this early MTIC fraud firstly as junior Counsel and then as leader upon the proposed retrial. The case involved far-reaching abuse of process arguments
Operation Gelling (2005-2008) Manchester Crown Court. Represented Prosecution in the trial of six alleged money launderers arising out of the V959 trial. Case was prolonged due to incapacity of principal defendant and major abuse of process arguments
Operation Echogramme (2009) Manchester Crown Court Represented, DH, one of three defendants in trial lasting 10 weeks charged with money laundering of proceeds of MTIC fraud
Operation Vex (2012) Kingston Crown Court. Represented SH, one of five defendants on trial for conspiracy to cheat in multi million pound VAT fraud in trial lasting 5 months
Operation Vaulter (2013) Kingston Crown Court. Represented DM, one of five defendants involved in the freight forwarding limb of the multi million pound MTIC fraud in trial lasting 3 months.
Other Frauds
R.v PK (2009) Leeds Crown Court. Represented defendant PK, the lead defendant in so-called red diesel fraud in trial lasting 2 months
Operation Valgus (2013) Mold Crown Court. Represented principal defendant in what was described as the largest mortgage fraud ever to be prosecuted in the UK. Trial lasted 5 month
R.v RL (2014-2015) Four month regulatory fraud trial in Leeds Crown Court representing defendant charged with conspiracy to defraud the Drivers Vehicles Standards Agency ( formerly VOSA) . The allegation related to an alleged bogus scheme designed to circumvent the law and regulations relating to Operators Licenses in respect of large goods vehicles
Operation Bamburgh (2016) Teesside Crown Court representing solicitor charged with large scale mortgage fraud
R.v. JM and others ( 2017) Chester Crown Court . Prosecuting seven defendants ( including company) in six week trial for conspiracy to defraud, arising out of a substantial and long-running car-ringing fraud
R.v. S (2018) Southwark Crown Court representing defendant solicitor in private prosecution for conspiracy to defraud. Following arguments re abuse of process, inadequate disclosure, mishandling of prosecution witnesses, prosecution ultimately offered no evidence against S when case listed for trial.
Drugs Cases
As a junior, Richard represented defendants in most of the high profile drug trial in Liverpool Crown Court in the late 1990's and 2000s including Operations Ayres Rock, Kingsway, Top, Dolphin and Montrose. In silk, he has prosecuted 13 defendants charged with conspiracy to supply class A drugs
R.v F (2007) Liverpool Crown Court defending man charged with conspiracy to import Class A drugs via light aircraft, R.v McG (2012) Liverpool Crown Court defending lead defendant in high profile case which involved large scale drug trafficking
R.v McG (2012 ) Liverpool Crown Court defending lead defendant in high profile case which involved large scale drug trafficking
R.v KA (2018) Canterbury Crown Court representing defendant charged with importing large quantity of Class A drugs from Belgium.
Miscellaneous
R.v P. (2006) Manchester Crown Court. First case in silk- defending serial rapist in case which raised numerous arguments on the bad character and hearsay provisions
R.v T (2006) Preston Crown Court. Gangland kidnapping and blackmail
R.v A (2008) Liverpool Crown Court. Defending Police officer charged with corruption alongside local authority officers. Prosecution were ultimately driven to offer no evidence in the face of abuse arguments arising out of disclosure issues
Operation Leyden (2011). Prosecuted six defendants charged with conspiracies to supply firearms and to cause explosions with the distribution and use of hand grenades. Described by the Judge who ultimately passed sentence as 'urban terrorism'
Att. General of the IoM v. W (2012) Conspiracy trial - represented defendant who was charged with offences under the Representation of the People Act in the Isle of Man amounting to election fraud
Prosecuting Authority v. H and G (2013) Extraordinary case in the Isle of Man in which the Island's Attorney General and the Deputy Assessor of Taxation (whom Richard represented) were themselves prosecuted for alleged offences of perverting the course of justice
R.v. JS Birmingham Crown Court (2016) Defending former soldier charged with rape and sexual assault raising defence of non-insane automatism arising out of sleep disorder.
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.
Robert Courts is a door tenant at 3PB and a member of the Western Circuit, the Personal Injury Bar Association and the Criminal Bar Association.
Robert has a general common law practice, principally in the fields of personal injury/clinical negligence and public and regulatory law especially Animal Welfare, Aviation, Police and Proceeds of Crime Law.
In 2009, Robert was the winner of a Pegasus Scholarship to Wellington, New Zealand, injury law. He also undertakes Contract, Commercial and Public & Regulatory law, where he worked for Crown Law Office, the Legal Advisors to the New Zealand Government.
Robert is an Accredited Mediation Advocate.
CRIME
Robert Courts is an experienced criminal practitioner appearing for both the prosecution and defence in all Courts up to and including the Court of Appeal.
He is a Grade 2 prosecutor on the CPS Approved List of Advocates for the Western Circuit.
In 2009 Robert spent four months in New Zealand, working for Crown Law Office - the government’s legal advisory department - as part of a Pegasus Scholarship. As part of his stint in the criminal department, which only handles appellate work, Robert drafted submissions for the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of New Zealand, and appeared as a second junior for the Crown in the New Zealand Court of Appeal.
Back in the United Kingdom, he undertakes all areas of criminal work in the Crown Court, has particular experience in dealing with multi-handed trials and accordingly has been led on a number of occasions (R v Ward & others, R v Clarke & Painter; R v Quadri & others, R v Phillips).
He has experience in all aspects of criminal offences, but particular expertise in the following:
Offences Against the Person, including murder;
Fraud;
Road Traffic;
Dangerous Dogs Act;
Animal cruelty;
Theft and other dishonesty;
Sexual Offences;
Child Cruelty;
Criminal Damage and Arson;
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Robert has a particular specialist interest in cases arising from animals and aircraft, in both the criminal and civil spheres. He also has a related interest in animal cruelty cases and RSPCA prosecutions.
He also has a particular specialist interest in trading standards offences, where he has prosecuted and defended in high profile cases, and has experience cross-examining experts.
Robert has experience prosecuting Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and related confiscation proceedings (see R v Ward and others, below).
He also has experience of arguments arising from Risk of Sexual Harm Orders under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Recent notable cases include:
Oxfordshire Trading Standards v Bateman (2011) - Robert defended the first defendant in a three handed case prosecuted by leading Counsel;
R v Ellis (2011) - appeal against sentence in the Court of Appeal;
R v S (2009) – Winchester Crown Court. Second junior in a multi-handed case defending a youth charged with grievous bodily harm;
CAA v Hynett (2009) – prosecuting a low-flying helicopter pilot on the Isle of Wight;
R v Phillips (2008) – Bournemouth Crown Court. 8 week trial, as second junior counsel. An alleged conspiracy to steal high value plant machinery from across the south of England and export it to Cyprus.
R v Ward and others (2007) – Portsmouth Crown Court. Robert was the Prosecution junior in this six week, seven-handed trial, concerning a conspiracy to defraud vulnerable householders. Reports of the case appeared in national newspapers. Robert prosecuted all the POCA proceedings arising from the case in his own right;
R v Clarke & Painter (2006) – Bristol Crown Court. Robert was the Prosecution second junior in this widely publicised case concerning a parental double murder. Robert’s responsibility was for unused material and disclosure. He also appeared to prosecute the matter in his own right when leading and first junior Counsel were unavailable;
R v Quadri and others (2006) – Southampton Crown Court. Robert was a Prosecution junior in this four-handed fraud trial, concerning identity theft.
R v Morrow (2006) – appeal against sentence in the Court of Appeal;
Other cases of note include:
Legal argument of Risk of Sexual Harm Orders under the Sexual Offences Act 2003;
Defending a Youth on a charge of Arson;
Defending a Youth on a charge of Blackmail;
Defending Proceeds of Crime Act confiscation applications.
He is often instructed by various other agencies to prosecute, including local authorities (for example, enforcing vagrancy and begging laws,) the police (in relation to orders relating to sex offenders and confiscation matters), the RCPO, the Department of Work and Pensions and the Civil Aviation Authority.
Robert has recently lectured on various issues arising out of trading standards prosecutions.
Robert is a member of the Criminal Bar Association.
PERSONAL INJURY
Robert Courts is experienced in a broad range of personal injury cases on the multi track and fast track.
Robert has a particular interest in psychiatric injuries, noise-induced hearing loss, travel claims and specialised areas of road traffic law such as cycling and motorcycles.
Robert also has a particular interest and corresponding experience in the complicated area of injuries caused by animals, for example under the Animals Act 1971 but also under other, less well-known causes of action.
Robert has experience of cross-examining, and holding conferences with, experts in many of these areas.
He also has long experience across the wide variety of personal injury work, such as employer’s liability, occupiers’ liability, highways claims, fatal accidents, low velocity impact cases, accidents at work, and the costs issues arising out of them.
Robert also has experience in representing interested parties at inquests, for example arising out of industrial accidents or mesothelioma.
Reported cases from this year:
Hobbs v DGB Windsor Ltd (2012) LTL 29/6/2012 - High Court mesothelioma assessment of damages.
Other recent notable cases include:
A number of noise induced hearing loss cases, involving issues of causation, attenuation, breach of duty, experts, Coles guidelines;
Advising on vibration white finger;
A number of cases involving accidents involving animals, involving issues of strict liability under the Animals Act 1971, causation, expert opinion, nuisance and negligence, arising out of accidents involving dogs, horses and cows;
Advising on a fatal accident claim involving a cyclist;
Advising on an accident whilst boarding an aircraft, under the Convention, Occupiers’ Liability Act and negligence;
Advising on package holiday and other travel claims;
Advising on an infant’s psychiatric symptoms;
Scarring cases, both advising and representing, child and adult, particularly regarding facial scarring;
Advising on Occupiers’ Liability cases, involving for example local authorities and hotels.
Robert is happy to and regularly lectures on various topics including “Animals Act 1971 - Claim or not?” and caselaw updates.
In 2009, Robert spent four months in New Zealand, working for Crown Law Office - the government’s legal advisory department - as part of a Pegasus Scholarship award. As part of his stint in the Social Services and Employment department (whose remit also includes defending tortious claims against government departments,) Robert spent most of his time working and advising on matters arising out of psychiatric injury – nervous shock as it is sometimes called – in which Robert has had a particular interest since University.
Robert has a keen attention to detail and brings a clear-sighted judgment on all matters in which he is instructed, such that he is able to distill complicated matters to their essentials for presentation either to clients or to the Court.
He is instructed by both claimants and defendants and accepts instructions under Conditional Fee Agreements in appropriate cases.
Robert is a member of the Personal Injury Bar Association.
PUBLIC AND REGULATORY
Energy & Utilities
Robert has long experience in energy-related debt recovery matters. He appears in the County Court for trials as well as interlocutory matters such as summary judgment applications, as appropriate. He is familiar with the system-related and documentary problems that arise when representing a large company, particularly when dealing with litigants in person.
Robert has particular knowledge of arguing the “deemed contract” provisions for electricity and gas in front of Courts who are not familiar with the concept, and has dealt with trials arising out of debts owed in relation to individual premises, as well as commercial, be they takeaways, restaurants, factories, hotels, shops or in a landlord & tenant context.
Robert also has an interest in matters arising out rights of entry (under the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954) in the Magistrates’ Court and has provided in-house training in that respect to energy company officers.
Regulatory Compliance & Consumer Protection
Robert has long experience of prosecuting and defending Trading Standards matters.
His most significant case was Oxfordshire Trading Standards v Bateman & Merriman, a five week, three-handed case in 2011. Robert defended the lead Defendant against leading Counsel. This was a factually complex case involving allegations of systematic fraud and breaches of CPUTR against elderly, infirm and vulnerable people with significant financial loss, and issues of expert evidence arising out of technical aspects of building work undertaken.
Building on this experience, Robert’s predominant interest is now in prosecuting for local authorities, be this for Trading Standards departments at County Council level, or similar agencies at District Council level. Robert is currently involved in a major prosecution arising out of extensive investigations on behalf of a local authority that is likely to come to trial within the next year.
He has significant experience of the sometimes complicated issues arising under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, including aggressive and unfair practices, how the same interact with fraud in some cases, as well as the disclosure and tactical issues arising out of long and detailed investigations.
Robert further has experience of and accepts instructions to prosecute under the Environmental Protection Act 1990; fly-tipping being the most prevalent concern in the Oxfordshire area.
Licensing
Robert is an experienced advocate in licensing hearings, for both traditional licensed premises and ad hoc applications, both at committee stage and appeal, in a practice area that is a compliment to his specialised Trading Standards prosecution work.
His licensing practice is largely local to Oxfordshire, but Robert will undertake appropriate cases elsewhere.
Recent notable cases include:
Appearing for applicant in an appeal against refusal to extend licensing hours on the Cowley Road in Oxford;
appearing for the applicant in a first instance application to extend licensing hours for premises in Woodstock;
appearing for the Respondent in an appeal against revocation of an alcohol sales license for a corner shop on the south coast.
Robert is particularly experienced in dealing with the detailed and thorny issues arising out of local authority policy, such as saturation areas.
Commercial and construction barrister Rob Dawson has a broad practice with a particular emphasis on construction and engineering disputes and associated professional liability matters as well as general commercial litigation disputes. He is based in the London office.
Rob frequently appears in County Courts at all stages of litigation proceedings in addition to maintaining a busy advisory and drafting practice.
Before coming to the Bar, he had a successful career in the construction industry. A chartered surveyor, Rob worked for a tier-one main contractor, as a senior consultant for an international consultancy firm and as a party representative acting for subcontractors in adjudication proceedings.
Rob has been appointed as an adjudicator under several CEDR adjudication schemes, including more than 100 appointments dealing with RICS-referred complaints against surveyors.
He has been admitted as a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators through both the arbitration and construction adjudication routes.
Outside of work, Rob is a keen cyclist and runner. He has also recently taken up rowing.
Construction and Engineering
Construction barrister Rob Dawson has an in-depth experience of the construction sector. This has been gained from working in the industry, his Masters in ‘Construction Law, Arbitration and Adjudication’ and his involvement in alternative dispute resolution processes and litigation proceedings.
Examples of recent work include:
Instructed as sole counsel in the Technology and Construction Court to resist enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision on jurisdictional and natural justice grounds.
Instructed as sole counsel to represent a contractor at trial in a claim for wrongful termination of a construction contract by the employer
Instructed as sole counsel at trial in a claim for defective works against a construction contractor
Regularly representing clients at interim hearings in relation to strike out, summary judgment or set aside applications
Drafting pleadings in cases involving payment disputes under construction contracts, wrongful termination claims, delay and disruption claims, claims for damages arising out of defective building works and actions to recover unpaid debt
Drafting an adjudication Referral on behalf of a subcontractor arising from a failure by the main contractor to issue the correct payment notices
Drafting an adjudication Referral in relation to a ‘true value adjudication’ in a final account dispute between a subcontractor and main contractor
Regularly advising on the prospects of success of bringing or defending claims, causation, limitation, remedies, and the quantum of any damages
Advised the management company of a seaside block of flats on the merits of a claim against a construction company arising out of defective remedial works following storm damage
Advised on the prospects of success and quantum of a claim against a contractor arising from the use of inadequate materials in the construction of an agricultural building
Advised a local authority on limitation issues in defending a claim for payment arising out of the construction of a community centre
Advised a contractor on a payment dispute arising under a bespoke contract for the construction of residential property
Advised property owners on the prospects of success and quantum of a claim against a builder resulting from the defective construction of a two-story property extension
Commercial
Commercial barrister Rob Dawson is regularly instructed in a range of commercial matters at all stages of litigation proceedings. He regularly represents clients at interim hearings in relation to strike out, summary judgment or set aside applications. He is already building a strong practice in professional liability claims (see separate tab).
Rob has appeared in the High Court on multiple occasions to present winding-up petitions and has also appeared in the Court of Public Examination.
Rob has a busy advisory and drafting practice. He regularly advises on the prospects of success of bringing or defending claims, causation issues, limitation, remedies and the quantum of damages.
Examples of recent work include:
Advised on the prospects of success and drafted Particulars of Claim in a dispute concerning the repayment of a company loan pursuant to a personal guarantee provided by shareholders
Advised a retailer of luxury homeware products on the prospects of obtaining an order for the delivery up of goods arising from the exercise of a lien by a logistics company
Drafted Particulars of Claim and a Reply and Defence to Counterclaim in a misrepresentation claim on behalf of a contractor arising from the purchase of defective plant and machinery
Regularly instructed to advise on contractual interpretation and exclusion of liability clauses
He has advised and drafted pleadings in cases involving:
Unpaid debts
Sale of goods and supply of services
Misrepresentation claims
Guarantees and indemnities
Shareholder agreements
Restitution claims
Consumer rights claims
Consumer credit agreements
Professional Liability
Rob Dawson is developing a practice in professional liability claims, mainly relating to professionals involved in construction and engineering projects.
Examples of recent work include:
Advising a property purchaser and drafting Particulars of Claim in a claim against a building surveyor arising from property defects that were not identified within a pre-purchase building survey
Providing advice on the prospects of success and the diminution in value of a large manor house in a claim against a building surveyor resulting from major defects discovered following the completion of a pre-purchase building survey
Drafted Particulars of Claim in relation to a professional negligence claim against a firm of solicitors arising out of the wrongful termination of a commercial lease
Providing advice on the merits of a professional negligence claim against a veterinary practice arising out of the pre-purchase examination of a racehorse
A Grade 4 Prosecutor on both the South Eastern and Western Circuits, Robin Leach regularly acts as a leading Junior in serious cases involving fraud, money laundering, drugs and firearms, and has been instructed in many cases involving the National Crime Squad and SOCA.
As defence counsel he has been involved in all types of criminal cases including rape, corruption and large frauds. Robin has represented jockeys and trainers in horse racing disciplinary hearings over the last 14 years and has been involved in many high profile cases in that time.
Areas of experience include:
Drugs, including major Columbian cocaine cases
Fraud (including cases involving solicitors and other professionals, Nigerian advanced fee and passport cases)
International money laundering
Murder, attempted murder and manslaughter
Rape and other sex offences
Corruption and blackmail
Firearms Burglary and robbery
Death by dangerous driving
Confiscation and forfeiture of assets abroad
Legal Services Commission cases
Horse racing disciplinary hearings
Robin is recognised as a Leading Junior at the London Bar in the field of sports law (in the Media, Entertainment and Sports section) and is particularly recognised for his specialisation in horseracing cases.
CRIME
Notable cases include:
R –V- K
Represented main defendant in a complex 5 handed conspiracy to facilitate the breach of immigration laws at Isleworth Crown Court. Complicated legal arguments on indictment and issues with phone and documentary evidence.
Drugs:
R v Johnson and Others. A major police investigation by the Projects Team (Operation Alpington), leading to the prosecution of 12 men in a three-month trial at the Central Criminal Court for conspiring to import cocaine from South America and Europe. The more complex features of the case included heavy reliance on the evidence of a Colombian supergrass who was subjected to intense and highly aggressive cross-examination, and careful consideration of sensitive unused material and major disclosure issues. Led the case, assisted by two juniors. Silks represented four of the five defendants.
R v Padoan and Others. Prosecution of four defendants involved in importing a ton of cannabis from Spain to Dover, at Winchester CC. Main evidence was recorded conversations obtained from probes placed in defendants' cars and by visits to Spain. Led the case, assisted by a junior.
R v Ramadan and R v Costas. The cases, involving the importation and supply of large quantities of heroin, were prosecuted for the National Crime Squad at Southwark CC in linked trials involving five defendants. The main prosecution witness was a co-defendant who had pleaded guilty and turned Queen's Evidence. A major thrust of the prosecution case was based on video evidence of defendants handling drugs concealed in rucksacks. Led the case, assisted by a junior.
R v Umeh and Others. Instructed by SOCA to prosecute five defendants at Snaresbrook CC involved in the manufacture and supply of crack cocaine in London. The defendants, from Nigeria and Zambia, had entered the UK illegally and joined cells already involved in drug dealing. The defendants were linked evidentially by mobile phone evidence. Led the case, assisted by a junior.
Also worked almost full time for a three-year period on cases resulting from a major drugs investigation which led to the prosecution of 12 defendants in three trials. Prevailed on problematic points of law, included a three-month legal argument on the admissibility of using phone tap evidence gathered in Colombia (where the use of intercepts for evidential purposes is legal) in a UK court.
Drawing on analysis of a thousand audiotapes, deployed technical expert evidence from both Colombia and the UK to repudiate the defence's claim that the intercept evidence had been falsified. Complex PII issues were addressed daily, particularly in connection with the Colombian intercept evidence. Led the case, supported by two juniors.
Major fraud
R v Mitchell, R v Marley and R-v Webber. The first two were solicitors running conveyancing practices in London, assisting clients to obtain mortgage advances dishonestly. The evidence against them was obtained from a close analysis of a vast quantity of their files, supported by a conveyancing expert instructed by The Crown. Webber was a chartered surveyor who dishonestly overvalued properties to enable the clients to obtain larger mortgages. These cases were part of a series of mortgage fraud prosecutions at the Central and Southwark CCs.
R v Hassanyeh. Defended a solicitor who (with the firm's partners) was charged with mortgage fraud. The very lengthy nine-handed trial collapsed at the half-way point in the submission of no case. The evidence again rested on close analysis of conveyancing files, from which we were able to show that the defendants had not acted dishonestly.
R v Gladdis. Acted for a builder at Portsmouth CC who was alleged to have colluded with a valuer in overvaluing properties. The case collapsed on a retrial when disclosure issues arose in respect of a conveyancing solicitor known to the defendants. Led the case, supported by a Junior.
R v Higgs. Defended a charity fund-raiser who organised sponsored events in Hampshire villages attended by local sporting celebrities. The prosecution alleged that some of the money never reached the putative beneficiary, the local hospital. Defended as sole Counsel.
R v Oke and R v Okoya. Over a period of two years, prosecuted a series of multi-handed, multi-£m Nigerian advance fee frauds at Wood Green and Southwark CCs. The perpetrators entered the UK for short periods of time to carry out their crimes while the victims were wealthy overseas-based business people. The trials were generally contested, generated a vast volume of written evidence and involved calling witnesses from the US and Far East.
R v Burwell and Cahn-Speyer. This involved the provision of second passports to putative international businessmen. A raid on their offices revealed many counterfeit and stolen passports, mainly of South American origin. Also seized were rubber stamps and other equipment enabling passports to be altered and provide recipients with new identities.
R v Noskova. She had been arrested with a co-defendant as a result of a newspaper investigation into marriages of convenience between East Europeans and UK citizens. Further enquiries revealed involvement in large scale mortgage fraud and international money laundering. Led the prosecution, assisted by one Junior.
International money laundering
Currently instructed to prosecute for SOCA in a serious money laundering case.
Murder, attempted murder and manslaughter
Has prosecuted a number of cases at the Central CC and at Winchester and Bristol. Cases have encompassed a wide range of defences including self-defence, accident, issues of causation and diminished responsibility.
Rape and other sex offences
R v Townsend. Having been found guilty of rape, the defendant subsequently obtained leave to appeal on the basis of new evidence - namely that the victim (his girlfriend) had changed her story. Under cross-examination, it became apparent that the girlfriend had been pressured by the appellant into changing her account and that the original evidence was true. The appeal therefore failed.
Prosecuted as sole counsel at trial and appeal; the defendant was represented by a Silk on both occasions.
Other cases include defending a mother of six against charges of horrific sexual abuse of some of her children, including the youngest aged five and seven. The case collapsed because the children were too traumatised and young to give cogent evidence. Also prosecuted a case via videolink where a school caretaker was alleged to have indecently assaulted four children at the school. The jury could not reach agreement at the trial or retrial.
Corruption and blackmail
R v Harrington. Prosecuted an ex-police officer turned private detective accused of extorting money from a top jockey who had been arrested and was on bail for alleged race-fixing. Harrington had told the jockey that he could bribe the officer in charge of the race-fixing investigation to drop all charges against him. Harrington taped all the conversations he had with the jockey and this was used in evidence.
Firearms
Has prosecuted extremely serious firearms cases as a leading Junior, where the main allegation has been the possession of firearms and ammunition with intent to endanger life. The problem of proving 'specific intent' has been a feature of all these cases.
Burglary & Robbery
R v Wooden. A large-scale burglary operation featuring six defendants. A gang of youths were involved in burglaries of fifty large houses in the Home Counties and also stealing expensive cars from the properties. Prosecuted as a leading junior.
Death by dangerous driving
Defended a number of cases, including R v Bean which revolved around the identity of the driver when the deceased and defendant were in a car that crashed at high speed in a county lane. The car was found upside down, the deceased in the back seat. The defence maintained that the deceased was thrown into the back of the car on impact. Experts were called on both sides and took different views of the evidence. The jury acquitted.
Confiscation
Dealt with confiscation after the conclusion of many trials both under the old drug trafficking legislation and wider POCA. More recently, involved in the enforcement of confiscation orders by civil methods including where the defendants' assets were abroad.
PUBLIC AND REGULATORY
Robin Leach has a wide range of experience in public and regulatory work and is a member of 3PB's Asset Forfeiture team.
Notable cases include:
Legal Services Commission
R v Zahoor Iqbal. Recently instructed by the LSC in respect of the recovery of defence costs from a convicted terrorist, obtaining an order from the judge for the defence to pay over in excess of £90,000. This involved having to successfully arguing that the equity in a property in the defendant's wife's name could be treated as assessable capital belonging to the defendant.
Horse racing disciplinary hearings
Has a wealth of experience in representing jockeys and trainers in connection with disciplinary matters at the Jockey Club, HRA and BHA. Cases have ranged from alleged corruption to safety matters and various types of riding offences.
Most of these have been high profile, beginning with the 'Haydock 21' - a group of flat jockeys who refused to ride because of the dangerous state of the ground. The disciplinary panel concluded that mistakes were made by the race officials and that the jockeys' protest was justified.
Represented Graham Bradley at the main hearing and on appeal in what was described by officials at the then Jockey Club as the most complex and difficult case they had ever dealt with. It was set against the background of a damaging Panorama programme. Inter alia it was alleged that Graham Bradley had attempted to have the 1987 Cheltenham Gold Cup abandoned following a snowstorm immediately before the race (because the change in going didn't suit Bradley's horse). The allegation was proved to be false after other jockeys gave evidence. (Graham Bradley was found in breach on other charges and was warned off for eight years, which was successfully reduced to five years on Appeal).
Hillside Girl Enquiry. Represented Paul Bradley, the jockey who rode Hillside Girl, who was charged with others with corruption. Large sums were laid on this horse to lose because, it was alleged, the conspirators knew at the time of the race that the horse was lame - in the event, the hose broke down after a furlong. The disciplinary panel found that Bradley didn't know that the horse was lame and all charges against him were dismissed.
David Nolan. Represented him in one of a number of corruption enquiries. He was alleged to have been involved with fellow jockeys in stopping horses at the behest of a big-time punter. The case involved detailed analysis of Betfair betting patterns, telephone billings and charts. Following the two-week enquiry, allegations against him of stopping horses were dismissed, although he was found to have provided inside information to the corrupt punter.
SPORTS
Robin is recognised as a Leading Junior at the London Bar in the field of sports law (in the Media, Entertainment and Sports section) and is particularly recognised for his specialisation in horseracing cases.
Robin has most recently successfully represented a trainer, John Wainwright, and a professional gambler, John Wright, on corruption charges where the main evidence - albeit flawed- was given by the jockey who rode the horse that was the subject of the inquiry.
Robin has represented jockeys and trainers in horse racing disciplinary hearings over the last 14 years and has been involved in many high profile cases in that time.
In the last 12 months Robin has represented Richie McGrath a jump jockey and Michael Stainton a flat jockey in two high profile corruption cases. The successful result in the McGrath case led partly to the BHA Integrity Review which has seen the BHA review its processes and procedures in disciplinary cases.
Robin Howard undertakes work in all aspects of business and property. As a CEDR-accredited mediator, Robin looks for pragmatic and cost-effective solutions. At the same time, when the need arises, Robin is a tenacious and effective court room advocate. His areas of expertise include:
sales of goods and supplies of services
construction claims
franchising
insurance
individual insolvency
economic torts
restitutionary claims
directors' liabilities
shareholders' remedies
corporate insolvency
Real Property
Boundary
Easements
Landlord and tenant.
Much of Robin's work is advisory and so unreported. His recent cases include:
a Commercial Court dispute concerning the destruction of stored oats
the 'Thakrar litigation', a five-year-long saga involving fraud, insolvency in almost all forms (bankruptcy, receiverships, administrations) and a multi-million pound property company
anti-competitive practices in the pharmaceutical industry
company fraud centred on horseracing; disputes within motor industry trade associations and franchise groups
complex franchising disputes in the recruitment industry, and claims against solicitors, accountants and surveyors
Robin's recent reported cases include:
Rea v Rea [2022] EWCA Civ 195 [2022] 2 WLUK 253 Feb 2022: successful in a contested will case in front of the Court of Appeal where court held that the Deputy Master judge, in preventing cross-examination, caused serious prejudice to his clients and a retrial was necessary, with a stay in proceedings to enable mediation to occur.
White v Amirtharaja [2022] EWCA Civ 11 | [2022] 1 WLUK 57: property dispute concerning Adverse Possession, advising and representing at all stages from the County Court via High Court to the Court of Appeal on a second appeal.
Robin accepts work from individuals and companies under public access. Where it is still available, he welcomes legal aid instructions. He accepts instructions under Conditional Fee Agreements.
Commercial
Robin’s commercial litigation experience includes disputes involving commercial contracts dealing with matters such as agency relationships, business sale agreements, franchise agreements, insurance policies, joint venture agreements, sale of goods, supply of goods and services, share sale agreements and other business to business relationships giving rise to liabilities in contract or tort.
As a CEDR-accredited mediator, Robin looks for pragmatic and cost-effective solutions. At the same time, when the need arises, Robin is a tenacious and effective court room advocate. His areas of expertise include:
Sales of goods and supply of service
Company Law and Partnership
Franchising
Insurance
Corporate and Personal Insolvency
Economic torts
Restitution claims
Recent and ongoing cases
Geo-Minerals GT Ltd & Anor v Downing & Ors | [2022] EWHC 2151: High Court claim for in excess of £20m in respect of marketing and intellectual property rights in minerals quarried in Norther Ireland. Allegations of conspiracy by lawful/unlawful means.
Instrument Product Development Ltd v W D Engineering Solutions Ltd [2022] EWHC 1994 (Ch): High Court claim for profit share in products designed and manufactured for Swiss-based multinational. Representing successful claimant up to and at trial.
Ongoing dispute concerning the destruction of stored oats; the 'Thakrar litigation': involving fraud, and insolvency issues across bankruptcy, receiverships, administrations. [Commercial Court]
Ongoing complex franchising disputes in the recruitment industry [Kings Bench Division]
R (CC) v M: Representing a restorer of classic cars who successfully sued a customer for refusal to pay for the restoration work done on a classic Austin Healey.
A1 P v ES: Advising and representing a supplier of staff in dispute with a major commercial client over breach of contract (agency).
K v Ali: Enforcing a lien over cars against credit hire-related claims management firm.
Anti-competitive practices in the pharmaceutical industry.
Breach of Directors Duties including Company fraud centred on horseracing.
Disputes within motor industry trade associations and franchise groups.
Property and Estates
Robin Howard undertakes a wide variety of contentious Chancery matters, with a particular emphasis on real property, wills, probate and estate administration, and related professional negligence. He has appeared as an advocate before all the major divisions of the High Court, including the Court of Appeal, and before numerous specialist tribunals.
He is instructed to advise on the full range of property related matters, including commercial and residential landlord and tenant disputes, lease renewals, dilapidations, boundary disputes, easements, restrictive covenants, and land contracts. He is often instructed to obtain interim remedies in the Chancery Division, including injunctions and freezing injunctions.
Robin also advises on and acts in disputes relating to trusts, wills and inheritance, including claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, and the duties of trustees and personal representatives and the administration of estates
As a CEDR-accredited mediator, Robin looks for pragmatic and cost-effective solutions. At the same time, when the need arises, Robin is a tenacious and effective court room advocate.
Recent Cases include:
Rea v Rea [2022] EWCA Civ 195 [2022] 2 WLUK 253 Feb 2022: successful in a contested will case in front of the Court of Appeal where court held that the Deputy Master judge, in preventing cross-examination, caused serious prejudice to his clients and a retrial was necessary, with a stay in proceedings to enable mediation to occur.
White v Amirtharaja [2022] EWCA Civ 11 | [2022] 1 WLUK 57: property dispute concerning Adverse Possession, advising and representing at all stages from the County Court via High Court to the Court of Appeal on a second appeal.
Roger enjoys a thriving family finance practice, representing litigants under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 and cohabiting couples under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. For his Business & Property practice, Roger is regularly instructed by both Claimants and Defendants to advise upon a range of business and property matters and he appears in all levels of court to represent his clients’ interests. Having spent more than 20 years in commerce and industry before coming to the Bar, Roger brings to his work a wealth of first-hand experience at the ‘coal face’ which enables him to quickly understand the relevant issues in the case and to communicate with both professional and lay clients in the language of their business.For Personal Injury, Roger Thomas is regularly instructed by both Claimants and Defendants to advise upon, and appear in, personal injury matters. He has an excellent grasp of injury mechanisms and the medical sequelae.
Rowan Planterose joined 3PB's Construction & Engineering team in April 2019, after a long career with DAC Beachcroft.
Rowan specialises in complex construction and engineering disputes, and sits as an arbitrator and adjudicator, mediator, expert or dispute board member. Much of his work comes from his panel appointments by RICS, TeCSA, RIBA and party and chair appointments on LCIA and ICC arbitrations. He is particularly known for international arbitration work, which has included Investment Treaty arbitration and has been rated in Legal 500 over recent years for international arbitration.
The majority of Rowan's work is within the energy and engineering field includes oil refining and drilling and
chemicals production, power generation from coal, oil, gas, waste and oil shale as well as structural, civil (including road building and tunnelling), mechanical and electrical, power generation, sewage disposal and hazardous waste disposal, food processing, railways, telecommunications. dredging and marine construction.
A Chartered Arbitrator, Solicitor and Barrister, Rowan is the co-author of "The Arbitration Act 1996: A Commentary", a leading textbook on the 1996 Arbitration Act (5th edition 2014, 6th edition in preparation) and author of the adjudication section of Bernstein's Handbook of Dispute Resolution.
Rowan is a frequent speaker/seminar course director on international arbitration and adjudication, mostly on behalf of RICS and CIArb. Formerly head of the exam board for CIArb, Rowan ran a Special Fellowship course in International Arbitration for CIArb. He is a regular speaker at Arbrix (RICS CPD for arbitration and adjudication) and in 2019 is the course director for Diploma courses in UAE and South Africa in International Arbitration for RICS. He also chaired a regular two-day workshop on the FIDIC international engineering contract. He remains an examiner for RICS Diploma courses in arbitration and adjudication and is external examiner for Leeds Beckett University's MSc Course in Construction law and Dispute Resolution.
CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING
Rowan is a prolific solicitor-barrister-arbitrator/adjudicator who has acted as counsel in over 250 cases in the High Court or in arbitration. Many cases in his early career were loss and expense claims arising out of variations or other causes of delay or construction and engineering projects, or defects claims. He acted variously for contractor, employer or consultant.
For instance, Rowan acted, based in Belgium, over several years for Bombardier in Euro 300m claim arising out of construction of Channel Tunnel and its associated trains involving preparation of disputes documentation arising out of delay to project and variations, presentation to client and ultimate settlement on eve of proposed commencement of litigation.
Whilst he used to represents clients in proceedings, over the years Rowan has increasingly acted - and now exclusively works - as an arbitrator, adjudicator, expert or dispute board member.
ARBITRATION
Rowan is a busy arbitrator who sits regularly as sole arbitrator (mostly domestic matters) or as part of a panel of three (mostly international matters).
He is a member of many panels including RICS Construction panel and (2015) Construction and Engineering Service panel, Lloyds insurance, Railway Industry (RIDR), Vienna Chamber of Commerce, Cairo Regional, CAM Santiago. Regular experience as member or chair of ICC, LCIA and other international tribunals including occasional AAA.
Recent and past work has included:
Advising and representing a large US contractor in a mediation and subsequent international arbitration (LCIA) arising out of a power station refurbishment project in Estonia.
Advising a US engineering group on a number of significant international arbitrations including representation in an arbitration in Milan arising out of a motorway project in Romania. The arbitration was subject to UNCITRAL Rules. Separately, representation in ICSID arbitration proceedings (including a hearing in Paris regarding jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal) arising out of failure of a dyke in Jordan (built as part of a potash recovery project) and governmental failure to resolve the dispute by ICC arbitration as contractually contemplated.
Representing a different US Engineering Group on a number of significant international disputes including the settlement of a major dispute (in advance of the commencement of arbitration) arising out of works to construct a sewerage system and treatment plant in UAE.
Advising a Toronto-listed company on a mining dispute in Botswana (Contract subject to arbitration).
Advising and representing a Canadian quoted company on arbitration proceedings brought by a Spanish company in Spain arising out of the supply of equipment for a Bioethanol production plant.
Acting for an Italian/German joint venture against the Pakistan state entity: Dispute Review Board proceedings and ad hoc arbitration in Pakistan. (Hydro-Electric power station project). Subsequent investment treaty proceedings commenced before ICSID, but settled before substantive hearing.
Representing a Belgian dredging company in ICC arbitration in a dispute arising out of the preparation of the site for the Sochi winter Olympics in 2014.
Sitting as sole arbitrator in connection with a dispute arising from a major office project in London. (Dispute involved more than 250,000 documents) and 7 awards.
Sitting as party appointed arbitrator (3 person tribunal) on dispute arising between two medical schools in USA under AAA/ICDR Rules in respect of warranties given in respect of condition of buildings on sale of facility.
Sitting as sole arbitrator in manufacturing dispute under LCIA
Sitting as party appointed arbitrator in dispute between Chinese main contractor and Syrian sub-contractor in respect of power and desalination plant in Saudi Arabia under ICC Rules.
Sitting as sole member of Conflict Avoidance Panel in respect of rail infrastructure dispute
Sitting as adjudicator in respect of termination of M & E contracts on prestigious project to construct new 50 floor hotel/office tower complex in central London
Sitting as chair of ICC panel of arbitrators in dispute between Romanian contractor and Yemeni employer in respect of payment and alleged defects out of a hospital project in Aden
Acting as counsel for employer in substantial arbitration arising out of claims for additional remuneration by a dredging company from incidents in the course of a dredging project in Australia
Acting as counsel in a long running arbitration on behalf of the concrete subcontractor constructing bridges on a major road project in the east of England arising out of delays and variations to the works
Acting as counsel in two arbitrations arising out of the construction of a shopping mall in north England, the second hearing lasting 8 weeks. The claims concerned delays and variations to the project
Sitting as sole arbitrator in connection with alleged design and safety defects, and delay claims, arising out of construction of a new power station in north east England
Sitting as party-appointed arbitrator in power station dispute (3 person tribunal) arising out of project in south-east Asia (delay claims)
Sitting as sole arbitrator in three party case (rail operators and infrastructure maintainers) to determine responsibility for major rail accident in UK, and respective proportions in which parties should bear third party damages claims
Sitting as party appointed arbitrator (ICC Arbitration in Paris, 3 person tribunal) arising out of supply of agricultural equipment to Sudan
ADJUDICATION
Rowan acts regularly as an adjudicator. He is a member of the RICS construction adjudication panel, TecSA panel, RIBA panel, standing adjudicator for railway industry RTI/A contract, and (formerly) channel tunnel rail link (CTRL phase 2).
Recent cases include :
Sitting as adjudicator in two major rail industry disputes in connection with provision of a new radio system for the London Underground system, and the construction of the St. Pancras terminal of the new high speed rail connection with Channel Tunnel. Both disputes involved contracts in excess of E500m.
Sat as a construction adjudicator (sole appointment) more than 30 times in the last 5 years, writing reasoned decisions, some of them being large scale and one adjudication involving 5 months consistent work.
Sitting as adjudicator on a 6 month long final account adjudication arising out of office block refurbishment in London. Many thousands of documents involved.
DISPUTE BOARD MEMBERS
Rowan acts as an expert or a member of a dispute review or adjudication board (e.g. FIDIC) to make binding or non-binding decisions or recommendations, outside normal formalities of Arbitration Act or adjudication process.
Sam Pentony takes instructions for court representation, advocacy and advisory work - in 3PB’s 70-strong team of family law barristers.
Sam joined 3PB in October 2020, having completed his first six pupillage at a specialist family set in the Midlands and became a tenant at 3PB in April 2021. He accepts instructions across the full spectrum of family matters including private and public law children proceedings and domestic abuse injunctions. Sam is developing his practice in financial remedies and is interested in matters relating to property including co-ownership and cohabitation of the family home. He is happy to accept instructions from first appointment to final hearing.
Prior to joining the bar, Sam held specialist policy roles for trade bodies in the manufacturing and resources sectors. His work focused on environmental regulation, including the development of the Environment Bill, chemicals regulation (REACH) and environmental permitting and licensing. Sam has led on discussions with the UK Government relating to the chemical supply chain after Brexit. He also spent time in Brussels working alongside European trade associations in the development of technical and regulatory recommendations to the EU.
Having worked with individuals and UK businesses across a variety of sectors, Sam is well known for his approachable manner and commercial outlook.
Sam also previously worked as a paralegal in the family team of a Cambridgeshire law firm and so understands some of the unique pressures faced by solicitors and lay clients in the field of family law.
When not working, Sam is passionate about blues music and plays the guitar when time allows. He recently took up running and when possible takes part in his local Parkrun.
Sam Pentony is developing a busy practice in children proceedings and accepts instructions in both private and public law matters. He also accepts instructions in financial remedies and other matters relating to relationship breakdown.
Public Law Children
During pupillage, Sam represented local authorities and parents in cases up to and including final hearing involving emotional and physical abuse, domestic violence and drug and alcohol dependency.
Despite his recent call, Sam has represented parties in cases involving complex jurisdictional issues and is keen to develop his practice in this area. He is also happy to accept instructions to provide written advice on jurisdiction, habitual residence, and related areas such as inherent jurisdiction.
Sam has experience in and is happy to accept instructions involving:
Discharge of care orders and adoption orders
Special Guardianship and kinship placements
Chronic neglect
Section 38 (6) assessment
ECHP plans and special educational needs
Children separated from their appointed Children’s Guardian
Deprivation of Liberty
Private Law Children
Sam has experience representing Applicants and Respondents including 16.4 Children’s Guardians and grandparents in private law proceedings.
He also has experience in cases involving international relocation and is keen to develop his practice in this specialist area including cases of relocation within the UK.
He has represented parties in cases involving:
Intractable disputes
Domestic violence
Sexual abuse
Substance misuse and addiction
Learning difference
International relocation
Removal from the jurisdiction
Sam accepts instructions in domestic violence injunctions.
Financial Remedies
Sam is developing his practice in financial remedies and is happy to accept instructions from First Appointment to Final Hearing. He has an interest in matters involving co-ownership and cohabitation of the family home.
Sam also has experience in other cases relating to relationship breakdown such as:
Contested divorce
Judicial separation
Freezing injunctions
Year of call: 2015
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
Samantha Smith is a specialist family barrister and former-solicitor who has moved across to private practice after ten years working in-house for local authorities, employed as a senior in-house public family law expert for both Birmingham City Council and Worcestershire County Council. This has seen her representing local authorities in multi-day final hearings in care and adoption proceedings and advised on all matters of local authority decision-making in respect of families, including judicial review cases.
Called to the Bar in 2007 and qualifying as a solicitor in 2011, Samantha joined 3PB in July 2022 and now accepts instructions in respect of public and private family law. She has built an excellent reputation as a highly competent and diligent lawyer, conducting advocacy as a childcare solicitor in the Family Court including appearing regularly in interim and final hearings.
Family
Samantha Smith is a specialist family barrister and former-solicitor who has moved across to private practice after ten years working in-house for local authorities, employed as a senior in-house family and public law expert for both Birmingham City Council and Worcestershire County Council.
At Birmingham City Council, one of her roles included a two-year secondment exclusively as an advocate in the Family Court undertaking multi-day final hearings as well as appeals. Samantha has good experience of undertaking hearings that are complex, dealing with difficult circumstances as well as expert and vulnerable witnesses.
Samantha has signicant experience of providing legal advice to children's services on policy matters placing them at risk of judicial review, for example advice about their NRPF subsistence policy, payments to foster carers and special guardians and the provision of services to children leaving care. Accordingly, Samantha is well versed at analysing risk and providing legal advice in a way that is robust, clear and pragmatic.
She had conduct of a number of cases in the High Court and Court of Appeal including D (A Child) [2017] EWCA Civ 1695, a deprivation of liberty test case which was later overturned by the Supreme Court. Samantha has advised upon and represented children’s services in many applications for the authorisation of deprivations of liberty in respect of teenagers.
She has experience of inter-jurisdictional cases, including children without leave to remain, family members living abroad and the placement of children out of the jurisdiction.
Public family law
Sam specialises in family law, including but not limited to:
Adoption proceedings
Care proceedings
Child arrangements orders
Contact disputes
Deprivation of liberty
Designation of local authority
Domestic violence disputes
Forced marriage
Human Rights Act applications
Injunctions
Jurisdictional disputes
Revocations of care and placement orders
Secure orders
Special Guardianship
Threshold disputes (NAI, allegations of FII, sexual abuse, physical abuse and neglect)
Wardship.
Notable cases include X City Council v M [2023] EWHC 1767 (Fam): Represented local authority in a fact finding where the mother was alleged to have poisoned her child with salt on multiple occasions.
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 Bowen is a specialist practitioner in Employment, Discrimination and Education law. She has been recognised as a specialist in her field in Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners legal directories for many years.
Sarah is regularly instructed in actions involving complex legal issues and technical arguments and is well regarded for her client skills and ability to assimilate complex cases into practical advice. She is often instructed to act in cases that are commercially sensitive, attract media attention or involve vulnerable persons.
Sarah has extensive experience acting for claimants and respondents across the spectrum of employment and discrimination litigation including cases involving allegations of discrimination, unfair dismissal, breach of contract, TUPE and whistleblowing. She advises a broad range of clients including NHS Trusts/Providers, local authorities, regulatory bodies, education institutions (such as Universities, Colleges and Schools), FTSE 500 Companies and household brands.
Sarah is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. Please contact her for a copy of her privacy notice which sets out the basis upon which any personal data she may receive will be protected.
Employment and discrimination
Sarah has a particular interest in discrimination cases, with specific experience of representing clients in matters involving allegations of; sex (including pregnancy-related), race, religion/belief, age and disability. Sarah has also been instructed in actions involving claims of discrimination made by those other than employees under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010.Prior to joining the independent Bar Sarah was employed as an in house employment advocate for a national law firm. This background gives her a unique understanding of the challenges that solicitors face and their requirements.
TUPE
Acting on behalf of a claimant in a 5 day PHR dealing with the issue of whether there was a ‘relevant transfer’ pursuant to TUPE. The matter concerned complex issues relating to assignment and fragmentation within group companies. Sarah led complex legal submissions on behalf of the claimants, including submissions relating to corporate veils, which were also adopted by the Secretary of State for Business and Enterprise.
Managing to avert liability for her client under TUPE by persuading the Tribunal that the Claimant’s employment had actually transferred to another Respondent.
Successfully advising on who to pursue in a complex claim under TUPE in circumstances where the Respondent had attempted to conceal the same. This involved advice on specific disclosure applications so as to ascertain the true position.
A complex case involving allegations of age and disability discrimination upon the background of a complex TUPE issue. In 2016 Sarah succeeded in an application to bring new claims against a new Respondent some 4 years post-issue (and some 2 years following an alleged TUPE transfer).
Successfully applying to add a new respondent 18 months out of time when a TUPE issue arose in disclosure.
Discrimination
Sarah is frequently instructed in complex discrimination cases acting on behalf of both Claimants and Respondents across all protected characteristics.
Lamb v The Business Academy Bexley UKEAT/0226/15/JOJ: Sarah acted on behalf of the Respondent before Simler P. The EAT provided clear guidance within the judgment as to the duties of the Tribunal in assessing the pleading of PCPs in reasonable adjustment claims and their application to the facts of the case.
Sarah secured a finding of direct age discrimination on behalf of the Claimant in relation to the employer’s enhanced redundancy scheme which provides for a reduction in financial entitlement the closer an employee is to pensionable age.
Sarah successfully represented the Claimant against ASDA Stores Limited in his claims of constructive dismissal, disability discrimination (s15, harassment and reasonable adjustments) and victimisation. In addition, following robust cross-examination the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent had subjected the Claimant to heavy-handed and intimidatory disciplinary and capability proceedings.
Acting on behalf of a large employer (with 70,000 employees) to defend disability discrimination claims (on all bases under the Equality Act) arising from a shift and overtime policy. Sarah was involved preparatory elements of the claim (including how best to operate the policy moving forward) and was instructed to represent the respondent at the final merits hearing [settled].
Successfully representing the claimant against the National Oceanography Centre, in claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, when he had been dismissed for drawing what the Respondent considered to be ‘sexually explicit’ or ‘pornographic’ images in the workplace. Sarah was praised for her ability to adapt the litigation process so as to meet the needs of her client who suffered from a significant mental impairment and greatly struggled with the Tribunal process.
Sarah acted on behalf of a large health care sector employer who faced complex claims of disability, age and sex discrimination and unlawful deduction of wages by a senior employee. Following cross-examination of the claimant (4 days), all claims were withdrawn. Following withdrawal Sarah persuaded the Tribunal to award costs in the case (and upon instructions limited this to £20,000) against the claimant. In awarding costs, Employment Judge Moore stated that following cross-examination by Sarah just 25 per cent of the claimant’s original case stood up.
Acting on behalf of the claimant against HSBC, Sarah made an application to amend to add a s15 Equality Act 2010 claim on the first day of the hearing. The application was granted and the Claimant’s case subsequently succeeded on this allegation. Sarah was described by Employment Judge Russell as ‘valiant’ in her pursuance of the Claimant’s case in her judgment.
Unfair dismissal
Sarah successfully represented the Claimant in his claim of constructive dismissal, persuading the Tribunal to conclude that the Respondent had subjected the Claimant to heavy-handed and intimidatory disciplinary and capability proceedings, extreme delay in dealing with his grievances and unreasonably withholding discretionary sick pay.
Sarah successfully defended a claim of automatically unfair dismissal brought on the grounds of a flexible working request.
Sarah successfully defended a complex constructive dismissal claim which was made against a large financial services company by a former senior manager.
Successfully defending a claim that a failure to consider the Claimant for roles within various group companies/subsidiaries in a redundancy situation gave rise to an unfair dismissal by relying on the corporate veil and contractual arguments.
Whistleblowing
Sarah is currently instructed on behalf of two Respondent’s in the aerospace industry who are defending complex allegations of automatically unfair dismissal and detriment under the whistleblowing regime.
Sarah was instructed on behalf of the Claimant in a complex whistleblowing claim against an international leading pharmaceuticals company. Claims related to a systematic and repetitive campaign of detriments which included a demotion, bonus reduction and culminated in dismissal. Once instructed Sarah was able settle the case a significant sum and on favourable terms.
Sarah was instructed on behalf of a Claimant who was unceremoniously removed from his employment, with immediate effect shortly after he had raised concerns about the lawfulness of his employer’s financial reporting and billing to clients [settled on very favourable terms].
Breach of Contract
Sarah acts on behalf of employers and employees in injunctive proceedings including those relating to restrictive covenants and undertakings. Sarah regularly accepts instructions to draft such contractual clauses, injunction applications and breach of contract proceedings.
Acting on behalf of an employer seeking to enforce restrictive covenants contained in both a contract of employment and share purchase agreement. Advice was provided on process, enforceability and alternatives to injunctive proceedings. In addition, the employer received advice on the prospect of pursuing the new employer in addition to the employee.
Advising on the prospects of pursuing an employer for several alleged breaches of contract including notice pay, misrepresentation and other benefit entitlements.
Acting on behalf of a Claimant pursuing a breach of contract claim for permanent health insurance.
Advising on a proposed claim for breach of contract relating to death in service insurance.
Procedural instructions
Successfully applying to bring new claims against a new Respondent some 4 years post-issue (and some 2 years following an alleged TUPE transfer).
Levers v 170 Community Project UKEAT/0255/14/RN: Sarah successfully acted on behalf of the Respondent before Langstaff P. in defending an appeal against the Tribunal’s assessment of time limits following strike out of the Claimant’s claims.
Securing a costs order of £20,000 after successfully defending complex claims of race, age and disability discrimination and persuading the Tribunal that the Claimant was untruthful.
Securing a wasted costs order against a Claimant’s solicitors of approximately £3,000.
Successfully resisting the Claimant’s application for relief from sanction in respect of an unless order.
Acting on behalf of a Respondent in a 3 day PHR and successfully striking out all claims on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success (which included discrimination).
Direct Access
Sarah accepts instructions on behalf of Claimants and Respondents on a direct access basis whether that be for representation within legal proceedings or otherwise.
To that end, Sarah has sat as an independent investigatory, disciplinary and appeal officer on behalf of employers (dealing with cases up to director level) and also regularly works alongside HR specialists.
Case example:
Discrimination (finding of fabricated evidence): McCoy v Lyndon Property Maintenance Limited, London Central ET 2016 (Direct Access) – Working in an extremely tight time frame (days) Sarah successfully guided her Respondent client so as to draft statements, make applications to the Tribunal and obtain expert forensic evidence. Sarah then persuaded the Tribunal that justice required the admission of the expert evidence on day 1 of the final hearing (in the absence of prior express permission) and she went on to win the case. In the judgment, the Employment Judge concluded that the claimant’s text messages were in fact ‘created’ for the purposes of misleading the Tribunal and pursuing her case (thus creating ample grounds for a full costs application).
Sarah is able to provide bespoke advice and assistance to Respondents outside of legal proceedings such as drafting, ad-hoc advice, and training (including mock tribunals).
Sarah is able to structure redundancy and TUPE consultations/processes and guide employers so as to ensure that they comply with legal requirements.
For further information about instructing Sarah on a direct access basis please contact 3PB Barristers who will be happy to direct you to either Sarah or the 3PB Clerking team.
Training
Sarah regularly provides training, seminars, mock tribunals and file surgeries including to national insurers, the NHS and ACAS.
Education
Sarah accepts instructions on behalf of parents, young persons, schools, academies, local authorities and Universities to advise in relation to:
Discrimination complaints against education institutions.
Breach of contract claims against fee-paying schools and Universities (including claims for misrepresentation).
Employment law related complaints brought against education institutions.
Sarah has a specialist discrimination practice and accepts instructions in all areas e.g. education, employment, service provision. As a result, Sarah has significant experience of claims brought under the Equality Act 2010 for disability, sex (including sexual harassment), age, sexual orientation and gender reassignment discrimination, harassment and victimisation.
Sarah is also a specialist employment practitioner, regularly advising and representing education institutions and employees in litigation. Examples include:
Acting for a specialist school defending claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination brought by a teacher who was dismissed for gross misconduct consisting of the unreasonable use of physical restraint on a pupil.
Defending a claim of disability discrimination brought by an agency worker on behalf of a school.
Advising a school in relation to a claim of pregnancy and maternity discrimination and unfair dismissal brought by a teaching assistant.
Representing a multi-academy trust in a claim of race and disability discrimination. Complaints included alleged racist behaviour by pupils towards a tutor.
Representing a school in a 10 day hearing in a case involving tens of claims including the spectrum of discrimination complaints, whistleblowing detriment and constructive dismissal.
Sarah has accepted instructions on several complex disability discrimination claims involving universities.
Further information about Sarah’s experience can be found on her “Employment” profile.
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.
Sarah specialises in criminal and family law.
Sarah also has experience of courts martial, prison adjudication hearings, inquests, Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority cases and other specialist tribunals. She has appeared as a legal advisor for local authority educational appeals and has appeared on behalf of trading standards enforcement teams. Sarah undertook work for the Treasury Solicitors as part of their scheme for barristers under three years call, which required her to draft advices and statements of cases for the Prison Service.
She has also undertaken pro bono work and was junior counsel in an appeal against a conviction for murder in Jamaica.
Sarah is happy to give lectures or talks on an agreed topic.
Sarah undertakes work on the Western, South Eastern and London circuits. She lives between London and Suffolk. She is a member of the Criminal Bar Association and the Family Bar Association.
Sarah is currently on maternity leave.
CRIME
Sarah has considerable trial experience as a defence advocate. She is also a Level 2 Prosecutor and is on the Crown Prosecution Service’s Advocate Panel 2016-2020 for general crime for the South Eastern and Western Circuits. She has appeared in a number of reported cases.
Sarah’s practise covers a wide range of serious offences including multiple handed cases, serious assaults, rape, indecent images, kidnapping, high value frauds and applications under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. She has been instructed as a disclosure junior and as trial junior in a multi-count drugs conspiracy, rape and kidnapping trial involving several defendants.
Sarah has appeared in the Court of Appeal on numerous occasions. This has included appearing on behalf of her leader and successfully reducing her client’s three life sentences to a concurrent sentence of sixteen years. She is proficient at drafting Advices on Appeal, Skeleton Arguments and Grounds of Appeal.
Her areas of experience include the following:
Drug Offences
Sarah frequently appears in cases involving both the possession and supply of drugs. She is well used to assimilating the large amount of evidence that is typical of such cases.
Cases of note include:
R v W [2011] - Further to the Defendant’s guilty plea to possession with intent to supply class A on the basis of being a custodian, Sarah represented the Defendant in the Court of Appeal, when it was held that although a benefit figure could be valued at the amount of drugs he had consumed over the relevant period, it was legitimate to reduce the amount of the benefit if it could be established that the drugs had been purchased in part with legitimate income.
R v V and others [2010] - Sarah was Junior Counsel in a long running trial in which she represented one of five men charged with conspiracy to supply class A drugs, kidnapping, false imprisonment and three counts of rape. When her leader became unavailable Sarah appealed to the Court of Appeal against the three life sentences imposed and represented the Appellant alone. The Court of Appeal held that a life sentence had to be reserved for cases where the culpability of the offender was particularly high or the offence itself particularly grave and that, although the offences were serious and disgusting, they did not fall within the category requiring life sentences.
Violence
Sarah has been involved in a large number of cases involving the use of weapons, guns and knives. She has considerable experience of the full gambit of allegations of violence including grievous bodily harm, gang violence, violent disorder, riot, and affray.
Sarah also has considerable experience of domestic and non-domestic Arson and Burglary offences.
Road Traffic Act Offences
Sarah has frequently dealt with cases involving allegations of dangerous driving, driving whilst disqualified, and driving whilst under the influence, as well as more minor road traffic offences. She is well versed in special reasons and exceptional hardship arguments for those who wish to avoid a driving ban and/or penalty points following a conviction.
SEXUAL OFFENCES
Sarah has represented both the Crown and the Defence in a number of cases involving sexual offences. She has particular experience of the following:
Representation of Defendants charged with rape of a child under the age of 13.
Representation of young Defendants charged with rape of a complainant under the age of 16.
Representation of a number of Defendants accused of possession of a large quantity of indecent images and videos. This has involved analysing, interpreting and explaining complex expert evidence on the retrieval and storage of such images on various computer systems.
Arguing against the making of Sexual Offences Prevention Orders, both in their application and in their content. Sarah is well acquainted with the wealth of guidelines case law in this area. She is also experienced in representing those charged with breach of a SOPO.
Representation of one of a group of men accused of ‘cottaging’ in local public toilets.
FAMILY
Sarah specialises in all areas of public and private children’s law.
Sarah’s private law practise includes the representation of both fathers and mothers in applications made under the Children Act 1989. She has dealt with a wide number of issues including abduction, high conflict intractable disputes and allegations of sexual assault and physical and mental harm, amongst others. She has dealt with a number of private law cases which have required the involvement of a Social Worker, separately represented Guardian, independently represented children, or social service intervention.
Sarah’s public law practice primarily involves the representation of parents within care proceedings, but she also has experience of appearing for the Local Authority, Guardian, Grandparents and other interested parties. She has represented parties at every stage of care proceedings, and has considerable experience in contested adoptions. Sarah regularly represents vulnerable clients including parents with learning disabilities, parents with addictions, teenage parents and parents who have had more than one child removed by the Local Authority. Her cases have included allegations of severe neglect, domestic violence and non-accidental injury cases. She is well acquainted with the full range of injunctive relief available through the courts.
Sarah has experience of using interpreters. She also has considerable experience of appearing in cases involving litigants in person and McKenzie Friends.
Sarah’s cases include:
Contested Hearings involving the instruction and subsequent cross-examination of numerous experts including child and adult psychiatrists and psychologists
Representation of parents in lengthy fact finding hearings involving allegations of non-accidental injuries to the children or of extensive domestic violence including allegations of rape and violence
Applications for permission to discharge Care Orders
Applications for contact with a child in care
Cases involving disputed paternity
Cases involving allegations and judicial findings of implacable hostility by one parent against the other which have either resulted in the removal of the child from that parent, or the threat of that removal.
Applications for Specific Issue Orders including the change of a school, change of a child’s surname and culturally sensitive issues such as a child’s circumcision.
Applications for Prohibited Steps Orders preventing removal of the child from the jurisdiction where there is a real fear that one or other parent will abduct the child to a non-Hague Convention country.
Sarah has over 25 years’ experience at the Bar and practises in all aspects of family law, with particular experience in financial applications arising from marriage and relationship breakdown, public law proceedings, private law applications, and international child law. Sarah is a popular advocate, with a reputation for being thorough, and leaving no stone unturned in advancing her client’s case. She mixes gravitas with good humour.
Financial applications
Sarah represents parties in financial cases involving assets of high value, often involving an international element, as well as the everyday financial disputes arising from marriage and civil partnership, where the assets are more modest. Sarah has a particular interest in cases where assets are held abroad or by a company, where there are issues of serious non-disclosure of assets, and where there are complex family/company arrangements to be unravelled in the context of relationship breakdown.
Care
Sarah regularly represents local authorities, parents, grandparents, prospective adopters and children in complex care proceedings. Sarah often represents local authorities and parents in complex cases involving expert evidence, serious non-accidental injury to babies, cases involving attempted murder, rape, incest, physical violence, FGM, fabricated and induced illness (FII), parents with serious learning disability, sexual abuse, vulnerable parents, and cases with multiple international elements.
Private Law
Sarah regularly represents parties in cases involving complex issues of residence and contact. She has a particular interest in resolving cases where there are issues of psychological and emotional abuse, parental alienation, and children with learning disabilities and conditions such as autistic spectrum disorder.
International child law
Sarah has represented clients seeking to relocate with children abroad, and has obtained injunctions in relation to international abduction cases out of hours in emergencies in relation to a variety of countries, both Hague Convention and non-Hague Convention states. Sarah regularly represents both UK and international clients in relation to disputes spanning international borders. Sarah recently obtained an Annex II certificate under Article 39 of Council Regulation 2201/2303 (“Brussels II) in order to enforce a return order in the Czech Republic in relation to British children made in the High Court in England.
Seminars and Lectures
Sarah has been a regular speaker at legal training events on a variety of family law issues
Reported Cases:
Sarah has had many cases reported over her extensive career. Some of the more interesting cases are listed below:
Prest v Prest [2014] EWHC 3430 (Fam) and 3722 (Fam)
The parties, who had four teenage children, separated in 2008 after 15 years of marriage. At the conclusion of the financial remedy proceedings, Moylan J found that the husband was, conservatively, worth £37.5m. The final order, made in November 2011, provided for periodical payments to the wife in relation to the children pending discharge of a lump sum to the Wife in the sum of £17.5 million. The Wife sought to have the husband committed to prison for non-payment.
Sarah represented Mr Prest, an oil trader, at various hearings in the High Court during the period 2013 to 2104. The case raised significant interest in the national press: in the Daily Mail and in a second Daily Mail article as well as in the Solicitors Journals.
Hussein v Ahmad [2014] EWHC 721 (Fam)
Claim for financial remedy by Wife in case were assets were several millions, held in UK and Iraq. Sarah represented the Husband, Mr Ahmad, a property developer, in the High Court.
M and B [2014] EWHC 2686 (Fam)
An application by the mother of a boy, aged about nine, for permission to remove him from England to live long term in Abu Dhabi within the United Arab Emirates. The case was referred to by the judge as “an extraordinarily tragic” case. Sarah represented the successful mother in the High Court.
H (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 733
Mother’s application to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal against what she contended was a “pre-emptory” change of interim residence orders in respect of her three sons.
Re GR (Children) & Others [2010] EWCA Civ 871
Appeal to the Court of Appeal by the Local Authority from the Recorder’s order refusing interim care orders in relation to the two youngest (of four) children where the Recorder had granted interim care orders in relation to the older children.
S (a Child) [2007] EWCA Civ 356
Successful appeal in relation to expert psychiatric evidence.
Re JH [2003] EWHC 429 (Fam)
Appeal by parents of a care order made in relation to a young child on the grounds of the right to a fair trial, the right to family life, and the emergence of new evidence.
B (a child) [2002] EWCA Civ 752
Case involving findings of non-accidental injury to small baby, and expert evidence.
Sarah is a family barrister instructed in cases involving contact, residence, prohibited steps and removal of children from the jurisdiction. She has experience with cases involving domestic violence, emotional, physical and sexual abuse allegations, and has acted in cases involving parents, the children themselves, grandparents and step-parents. She has experience representing clients with psychiatric and psychological problems and those with learning difficulties. Sarah has a particular interest in cases with an international element.
Public Law Children
Sarah is instructed by local authorities, respondents and guardians in all aspects of public law including special guardianship orders and adoption orders. She has dealt with cases involving significant harm from neglect and failure to protect through to severe emotional abuse causing psychological damage to children, as well as cases involving serious physical and sexual abuse of children.
Private Law Children
Sarah is instructed in cases involving contact, residence, prohibited steps and removal of children from the jurisdiction. She has experience with cases involving domestic violence, emotional, physical and sexual abuse allegations, and has acted in cases involving parents, the children themselves, grandparents and step-parents. She has experience representing clients with psychiatric and psychological problems and those with learning difficulties. Sarah has a particular interest in cases with an international element.
Injunctions and Committals
Sarah is instructed by both applicants and respondents in applications for injunctions under the Family Law Act 1996 and committal proceedings.
Matrimonial Finance
Sarah accepts instructions in the full range of financial applications arising out of the breakdown of relationships between married and unmarried couples including:
Ancillary relief under s25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996
Interlocutory applications for maintenance pending suit
Transfer of tenancy
Applications for provision for children under the Children Act 1989 Schedule 1
Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975
Sarah practises exclusively in children law and has considerable experience in public law proceedings.
FAMILY
Sarah qualified as a solicitor in 1999 and has over 19 years of experience of representation in public and private children law.
She became a member of the Children’s Panel in 2005 and throughout her career has undertaken significant advocacy on behalf of parents and children. She has been sought out to act for children, parents and other family members in particularly complex care, adoption and secure accommodation proceedings.
Sarah has substantial trial advocacy experience which has included cases involving allegations of non-accidental injury, chronic neglect, domestic violence, emotional abuse, multi-jurisdictional aspects and human trafficking.
She is able to deal sensitively with difficult and complex matters and has considerable experience in representing vulnerable adults and young people .
Reported cases
X County Council -and- BE(1) AD (2) CD (BY HER CHILDREN'S GUARDIAN) (3) [2021] EWFC 112
Re G (Abduction: Consent/Discretion) [2021] EWCA Civ 139
Z (INTERIM CARE ORDER) - [2020] EWCA Civ 1755
A CITY COUNCIL & M & F & C - [2020] EWHC 947 (Fam)
K, T and U (Placement of Children with Kinship Carers Abroad) [2019] EWFC 59
Re M (Children) (Suspected Trafficking - Competent Authority) 2017 EWFC 56
Sarah O’Hara is a Family Law specialist with over 25 years' experience in all aspects of the jurisdiction. She has appeared at all levels of the Family Court from Magistrates to the Court of Appeal.
She accepts instructions in public and private law children work, having extensive experience of acting for all parties in care proceedings including parents, extended family members, Local Authorities, Guardians and the OS. She has a particular interest in NAI cases, which include rib and limb fractures, substantial bruising, brain and skull injuries.
Her experience and seniority frequently mean she appears against Leading Counsel.
Sarah is experienced in working with:
Parents suffering with mental health problems
Parents with addiction and substance abuse problems
Parents with PTSD as a result of their own poor upbringing
Parents with cognitive and communication difficulties
Cases of alleged chronic child neglect
Serious cases of alleged sexual abuse
Serious cases of alleged non accidental injury
Finding of fact hearings involving multiple medical experts
Extended family members seeking Special Guardianship Orders or child arrangement orders
Through her work with guardians, Sarah has developed a specialism in cases where one parent has murdered, or is alleged to have murdered, the other, leading to complex issues of placement and contact for the children.
Another growing area of work with guardians is the problems of jurisdiction in public and private law cases (Brussels II) where the children concerned are foreign nationals living in the UK. Sarah has been involved in all forms of private law applications including residence, contact, specific issue, prohibited steps, 16.4 CG cases and removal from the jurisdiction.
She has provided training in giving evidence, compiling reports and court attendance to a selection of professionals including social workers, health visitors, midwives, doctors, guardians, teachers and support workers.
She is happy to provide workshops or seminars tailored to specific groups, along with other colleagues from the 3PB Family Team. She is a member of the Dorset Family Justice Board and a trained mediator.
Family
Sarah is a Family Law specialist with over 25 years experience in all aspects of the jurisdiction. She has appeared at all levels of the Family Court from Magistrates to the Court of Appeal.
She accepts instructions in public and private law children work, having extensive experience of acting for all parties in care proceedings including parents, extended family members, Local Authorities, Guardians and the OS. She has a particular interest in NAI cases, which include rib and limb fractures, substantial bruising, brain and skull injuries. Her experience and seniority frequently mean she appears against Leading Counsel.
Sarah is experienced in working with:
Parents suffering with mental health problems
Parents with addiction and substance abuse problems
Parents with PTSD as a result of their own poor upbringing
Parents with cognitive and communication difficulties
Cases of alleged chronic child neglect
Serious cases of alleged sexual abuse
Serious cases of alleged non accidental injury
Finding of fact hearings involving multiple medical experts
Extended family members seeking Special Guardianship Orders or child arrangement orders
Through her work with Guardians, Sarah has developed a specialism in cases where one parent has murdered, or is alleged to have murdered, the other, leading to complex issues of placement and contact for the children.
Another growing area of work with Guardians is the problems of jurisdiction in public and private law cases ( Brussels II) where the children concerned are foreign nationals living in the UK. Sarah has been involved in all forms of private law applications including residence, contact, specific issue, prohibited steps, 16.4 CG cases and removal from the jurisdiction,
Recent cases:
2017
Re W - Represented the child in a case where mother suffering from mental illness had attempted to kill the child on three occasions. Interesting juxtaposition of ideas of recovery between treating adult mental health professionals and child protection professionals. Succeeded in keeping child in placement with his uncle under SGO
Re D - Represented the children in a long running finding of fact on skull and limb fractures where issues of mental capacity were challenged in a discrete hearing. Parents/ alleged perpetrators represented by leading counsel
Re M - Represented LA in proceedings against severely learning disabled parents. Required new approach to presentation of the evidence and forensic techniques
Re S - Acting for children in case a factitious illness where alleged perpetrators represented by leading counsel
Re W - Acting for alleged perpetrator in ring of sexual abusers and sexual exploitation case.
2016:
Concerned question of ordinary residence and habitually resident under Brussels II
Child adopted in UK, adoptive family moved to Eire. Adoption broke down seven years later. Parents returned child, who by then required specialist therapeutic care to original UK local authority. Successfully pursued the LA argument that authorities in Eire responsible because child ordinarily and habitually resident there immediately before parents deposited child with LA in UK
DCC v C - Care and placement application acting for a mother with severe bi polar and communication difficulties. Successfully secured an assessment at home with her baby daughter against the arguments of the LA. Successfully argued the case for 'supported' parenting for a parent with a disabling mental illness
Re K - Represented a mother charged with making and publicising over a 100 indecent images of her 8 year old daughter and digital penetration. LA seeking findings that she had physically sexually abused the child herself for purposes of personal gratification. Successfully argued the role of the mother, whilst abusive and reprehensible, had been under the agency of a convicted paedophile who had groomed her and used her for that purpose
HCC v Nasar
Re N - Represented mother in care proceedings relating to baby that she dropped causing skull fracture. M had communication difficulties anxiety attacks and agoraphobia. Second child born during proceedings . M vulnerable victim of abuse as a child in care and as an adult through her relationships. Successfully supported M to have a part in the proceedings and have her position promoted
Re JC - Acting for LA in its first case to proceed through the PSMC (Parental substance misuse court) being piloted in Bournemouth. This required a different approach to care proceedings with a different focus and timetable. Prosecuted to a successful conclusion of an agreed rehabilitation of children to mother.
Earlier cases:
Re VCB - 2015 : representing the CG on question Brussels II jurisdiction and permanent removal from jurisdiction
Re G - 2015 : finding of fact on life threatening head injuries: alleged NAI
Re HK - 2015 : representing the CG on NAI 8 day finding of fact fractured limbs
Re PL- 2014 : representing the CG on NAI 10 day finding of fact fractures
Re S- 2014: representing the CG on question of Brussels II jurisdiction
Re A- 2014: representing gender reassignment mother in care proceedings
Re B- 2014 : representing father in NAI found to be co- perpetrator of serious injury to baby achieved phased return to parents
Re KJ 2014: represented mother in 8 day NAI finding of fact resulting in exoneration of mother.
Sarah has provided training in giving evidence, compiling reports and court attendance to a selection of professionals including Social Workers, Health Visitors, Midwives, Doctors, Guardians, Teachers and Support Workers.
She is happy to provide future workshops or seminars tailored to specific groups, along with other colleagues from the 3PB Family Team. She is a member of the Dorset Family Justice Board and a trained mediator.
Saunak joined 3PB to undertake a specialist, Commercial third-six pupillage, becoming a tenant in July 2023. He joined us from another well-regarded chambers, based in Bristol.
He graduated with a degree in Economics (University of Cambridge, 2.i), and is an effective advocate who approaches cases with previous, direct experience of commercial and financial issues, and business management. His workload focuses on business-to-business disputes and consumer credit cases.
Typical areas in which he receives instructions include:
Contractual and business-to-business disputes
Consumer credit and consumer contracts
Sale of goods / supply of services
Fast-track trials, particularly in Business and Property Courts work
Saunak has a strong, active client base for a barrister of his level of call. He receives instructions from the litigation team of a major international law firm, and has regularly acted for defendant banks in claims relating to mis-selling, secret commissions and unfair relationships under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA 1974"). His instructions in these claims have included drafting and advisory assignments.
His recent instructions have included: a fast-track trial in a joint-liability breach of contract claim (under s.75 CCA 1974); matters concerning professional negligence; and multiple interim hearings in commercial matters in the County Court. He has also acted in multi-day trials and all-day strike-out hearings. Across his instructions, he attracts excellent feedback, and repeat instructions, from clients who praise his approach to finding wider solutions to their disputes, and his focus on client care.
Before his pupillage, Saunak worked for a barrister specialising in commercial and employment litigation, drafting pleadings, skeleton arguments and conducting research in a range of cases involving mortgage fraud, professional negligence and unfair dismissal.
Saunak has been awarded several scholarships and prizes for his academic results; was ranked 2nd in his year on the Bar Professional Training Course, and 1st in his year on the Graduate Diploma in Law (University of Law).
Seb Oram is a Commercial and Construction Law barrister. He is recommended counsel in Who’s Who Legal 2023, Chambers UK 2023 and Legal 500 2023.
Seb advises parties on resolving commercial disputes, particularly for clients in the construction and property sectors. He represents them in the Courts of England and Wales, and in international arbitrations. He is a member of the organising committee of the UK chapter of the Spanish and Latin American Arbitration Society (el Club Español e Iberoamericano del Arbitraje).
Typical areas in which he receives instructions include:
Construction
International Arbitration (particularly with Spanish-speaking elements)
Professional negligence (including architects, designers, engineers, M&E and project managers)
Bringing and defending construction claims
Dangerous structures and defective premises
Payment and final account claims
Adjudications and their enforcement
Advice and disputes under the all common-form contract suites (e.g., JCT, NEC IMechE, RIBA, FIDIC)
Commercial
Professional negligence (including lawyers, insurance brokers, finance professionals, and directors’ duties)
Insolvency (personal and corporate)
Insurance disputes
Company and partnership disputes
Breach of trust and tracing claims
Sale of goods and financing agreements
Commercial disputes and joint ventures
Arbitration.
Property and Estates
Disputes about land (including contracts for sale, new-build developments, land registration and unregistered land)
Mortgages and receivership
Landlord and tenant (particularly commercial leases and renewals; and private sector residential tenancies).
After reading law at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, Seb completed an LL.M. (by research) at the University of Bristol, investigating the impact of European Community law on the investment practices of institutional investors.
Outside of Law, Seb is a trustee of ‘Community, Housing and Therapy’, a charity providing housing, support and therapeutic care for those experiencing long-term mental health difficulties. He is also a trustee of ‘Compass Learning Partnership’, an educational trust that runs two schools in Brent, for children and young people with complex needs and disabilities.
Publications and lectures
Journal of Professional Negligence: book reviews of Patten QC and Saunders, Professional Negligence in Construction (2nd ed) (Vol. 36, No. 1, 2020); and of Flenley QC and Leech QC, The Law of Solicitors’ Liabilities (4th ed.) (Vol. 37, No. 3, 2021)
Former contributing author to the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors’ ISurv platform (chapters on “Regulated Public Procurement in the UK”, and on the 2011 amendments to the JCT Intermediate contracts).
“Extensions of Time and Damages for Delay - Recent Developments” Paper D148 presented to the Society of Construction Law (October 2012)
“Professional negligence liability for the gratuitous performance of services”. Paper delivered to the Annual Conference of the Professional Negligence Lawyers Association (November 2016).
“Forfeiture of fiduciary remuneration following breach of duty: from contract to conscience” [2010] Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 95.
Construction and Engineering
Seb Oram regularly advises and acts in relation to construction disputes, and routinely deals with disputes arising under the common-form contract suites (such as JCT, NEC IMechE, RIBA and FIDIC). A large part of his practice concerns professional negligence in the construction and engineering context.
In each of his practice areas he represents parties in arbitration, and in the Business and Property Courts of England and Wales. He is a fluent Spanish speaker and will act, in particular, for clients in international arbitration, in disputes involving a Spanish-speaking element under all major institutional rules.
He also acts in adjudications under the 1996 Act and in the enforcement of adjudicator awards.
He is a member of the Society of Construction Law, the Technology and Construction Bar Association and a member of UK organising committee of the Spanish and Latin American Arbitration Society.
Recent cases
ICC arbitration of a termination dispute and multi-million Euro claim for consequential losses, relating to a bioenergy power plant (ICC arbitration, ongoing).
Damages claim under an international engineering contract for the manufacture, supply and delivery of railway stock (2022).
Sub-contractor’s multi-million US dollar claim for delay and disruption damages, on a regional infrastructure project to upgrade the electricity distribution network of the Bangalore metropolitan area, India (TCC, 2019-2021).
Payment and defects claim under a framework contract for telecommunications network installations in the north of England (TCC, 2022).
Professional negligence claim against mechanical systems designers, relating to the adequacy of a sub-floor heating system for a listed building (TCC, 2022).
Professional negligence claim against structural engineers, relating to the design of a cladding frame for a major, regional shopping centre (TCC, ongoing).
Noteworthy and recent cases (Technology / Construction)
Readie Construction Ltd v Geo Quarries Ltd [2021] EWHC 3030, [2022] T.C.L.R. 1 (QBD)
The availability of claims for the price of defective goods, under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, s.49, and the effect of ‘no set-off’ clauses.
Deluxe Property Holdings Ltd v SCL Construction Ltd [2020] EWHC 3354 (TCC)
Claims for proprietary relief in respect of VAT mistakenly overpaid to a contractor under a construction contract.
Lejonvarn v Burgess (No.2) [2020] EWCA Civ 114, [2020] 4 All ER 461, [2020] 4 WLR 43, [2020] BLR 187, [2020] Costs LR 45 (CA)
Professional negligence claim against architect; costs orders.
Burgess v. Lejonvarn [2017] EWCA Civ 254, 171 ConLR 118 (CA); [2018] 181 ConLR 204 (TCC)
Professional negligence claim against architect; assumption of responsibility in tort for design and project management services provided gratuitously.
Ziggurat (Claremont Place) LLP v HCC International Insurance Co plc [2017] EWHC 3286 (TCC), (2017) 176 ConLR 161 (TCC)
Explored the wording of the industry-standard contractor’s bond, and the insurer’s liability under it on the contractor’s insolvency.
Seeney v. Gleeson Developments Ltd [2015] EWHC 3244 (TCC), [2015] All ER (D) 143 (Nov)
Residential homebuyers’ claim against national housebuilder, arising out of design and construction defects in a new-build home.
West 3 Mechanical Contractors Ltd v Mizen Design Build Ltd [2014] All ER (D) 40 (TCC)
Defence of contractor’s claim for payment, centring on defective installation of gas installation pipework.
Hunt and Ors v. Optima (Cambridge) Ltd and Anor [2013] EWHC 681 (TCC), (2013) 148 ConLR 27 (TCC)
Defects and tenants’ repair claim arising out of the development of 26 new-build properties.
JGD Construction Ltd v. Mills [2013] EWHC 572 (Ch), [2013] BPIR 811
Appeal considering the extent to which the court has a discretion to make a final third party debt order, notwithstanding the fact that the judgment debtor has entered formal insolvency proceedings.
Commercial
Seb is the Head of 3PB Commercial Group. His Commercial practice focuses on professional negligence, insolvency and business entities (Company Law, LLPs and joint ventures). A significant proportion of the matters in which he acts raise questions of conflicts between international jurisdictions.
In the field of professional negligence, his experience in the Commercial sphere extends to claims against lawyers, insurance brokers, finance professionals, and company directors. He is frequently instructed in claims arising from the misconduct of litigation. He also prosecutes and defends claims for breach of directors’ duties, including derivative claims under the Companies Act 2006.
In each of his practice areas he represents parties in arbitration, the High Court and the County Court.
Recent cases
Advising the seller under an international share sale contract, in a dispute relating to title and payment for a multi-million dollar holding in a Dubai company (ongoing)
Acting for the issuer of a €250 million issue of secured exchangeable bonds, in a default claim brought by the Security Trustee (2022; Commercial Court)
Claim for contractual commission by the distributor of financial products, against the arranger and promoter of a $50m programme of Senior Loan Notes and mini-bonds (2021; Commercial List)
Defending an assigned liquidator’s claim against a director, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of the implementation of a remuneration trust tax scheme (2021)
Buyer’s claim against manufacturer, for breach of warranties of quality and description of bulk consumer goods sold under a contract for international sale (2019; Commercial Court)
Professional negligence claims against financial (tax) advisors, arising from ‘film scheme’ income tax mitigation advice (2018; Queen’s Bench)
Recent cases (Commercial):
Readie Construction Ltd v Geo Quarries Ltd [2021] EWHC 3030, [2022] T.C.L.R. 1 (QBD)
The availability of claims for the price of defective goods, under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, s.49, and the effect of ‘no set-off’ clauses.
ADL Advanced Contractors Ltd v Patel [2021] EWHC 2200 (Comm)
The effect of a release of one joint guarantor, on the liability of the other guarantor.
Deluxe Property Holdings Ltd v SCL Construction Ltd [2020] EWHC 3354 (TCC)
Claims for proprietary relief and in unjust enrichment, in respect of mistakenly overpaid VAT
Davy v. Pickering [2017] EWCA Civ 30; [2017] 2 BCLC 260, The Times, 2017, 8 March
The discretion to make directions under s.1032 of the Companies Act 2006, including provision back-dating the deemed date of presentation of a winding up petition.
Dawson v. Bell [2016] EWCA Civ 96; [2016] 2 BCLC 59
Damages for economic duress / tort of intimidation, arising out of the execution of a shareholders’ agreement.
Green (as liquidator of Al Fayhaa Mass Media Limited) v. El-Tai [2015] BPIR 24 (Ch)
Liquidator’s preference claim considering director’s duty of fairness between creditors, in repaying loans.
Threlfall v. ECD Insight Ltd [2013] IRLR 185 (QB)
Breach of solicitation covenant in director’s employment contract, and in a share buy-out agreement.
JGD Construction Ltd v. Mills [2013] EWHC 572 (Ch), [2013] BPIR 811
Appeal considering the extent to which the court has a discretion to make a final third party debt order, notwithstanding the fact that the judgment debtor has entered formal insolvency proceedings.
Stupples v. Stupples & Co (High Wycombe) Ltd [2012] EWHC 1226 (Ch); [2013] 1 BCLC 729
Defence of claim for agent’s fees, based on agent’s conflict of interest.
Asiansky Television Plc & Anor v Khanzada & Ors [2011] EWHC 2831 (QB)
Professional negligence claim in relation to the conduct of litigation.
Imageview Management Ltd v. Jack [2009] EWCA Civ 63; [2009] 2 All ER 666; [2009] 1 Lloyd's Rep 436; [2009] 1 BCLC 724; [2009] Bus LR 1034; The Times, 24 March 2009
Extent of a fiduciary’s disentitlement to remuneration following breach of duty.
Property and Estates
Seb Oram's Property and Estates practice focuses on disputes about title, conveyancing and finance (mortgage/receivership). A substantial part of his practice relates to disputes about property ownership, and defects in land registration. In the landlord and tenant context he is regularly instructed in disrepair claims, particularly those involving expert, technical evidence.
He is a member of the Chancery Bar Association.
Seb has considerable experience of advocacy in the Property Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal, the High Court and County Courts, and has been instructed in the Court of Appeal.
Recent cases
Land registry rectification claim relating to charity land
Disrepair claims brought by multiple tenants of a residential block, against their landlord
Claims to a beneficial interest between joint (co-habiting) owners of properties
Joint venture disputes arising from commercial agreements to purchase/develop land
Recent cases - Property and Estates, Chancery:
Dawson v Bell [2016] EWCA Civ 96; [2016] 2 BCLC 59
Damages for economic duress / tort of intimidation, arising out of the execution of a shareholders’ agreement.
Hunt and Ors v. Optima (Cambridge) Ltd and Anor [2013] EWHC 681 (TCC), (2013) 148 ConLR 27
Defects and tenants’ repair claim arising out of the development of 26 new-build properties.
Courtenay Gate Lawns Ltd v. Lee [2012] UKUT 125 (Lands Chamber)
Resisting application to discharge restrictive covenants in a long lease, raising a point of principle as to the effect of a landlord’s conduct in granting subsequent leases in different form.
Family barrister Ségolène Lapeyre joined 3PB in September 2020 having completed her pupillage at a leading matrimonial finance set in London. Her practice comprises all areas of private family law, with a particular focus on financial remedies and private law children proceedings. She is also regularly instructed in applications under the Family Law Act 1996 for occupation and non-molestation orders.
As a pupil barrister, Ségolène observed and assisted in a number of final hearings in the High Court and in the Financial Remedies Unit at the Central Family Court involving compensation, issues of non-disclosure and complex company structures and remuneration packages. Her financial remedy, private law children and domestic violence practice has been developing rapidly since March 2020 when she started on her feet as a Second Six pupil.
Ségolène’s experience in “big money” and high profile cases includes the landmark compensation case RC v JC [2020] EWHC 466 (Fam). As a pupil, Ségolène assisted by completing financial analysis for barristers Tim Bishop QC and Marina Faggionato (for the Applicant).
Before starting pupillage, Ségolène worked with refugees in the Middle East and, in 2018 and 2019, taught a summer course in tax avoidance at The London School of Economics.
Family
Ségolène joined 3PB with experience in a wide range of financial remedy, injunction and domestic abuse cases and private law children disputes.
Family Finance
Her considerable experience as a junior barrister covers disputes over:
child and spousal maintenance
Schedule 1 applications
pensions
complex remuneration packages (including RSUs and carried interest)
complex trust structures
non-disclosure of assets
non-matrimonial assets
nuptial agreements
add-back claims
special contribution
compensation
In addition to representing clients (whether publicly or privately funded) at hearings, Ségolène’s recent instructions have included:
advising a name partner at a leading firm of family solicitors on the jurisdiction of the CMS following the decision of Villiers
advising on key financial remedy documents such as Replies to Questionnaires and Schedules of Deficiencies
drafting a Particulars of Claim in a case involving allegations of sham transactions and deficient financial disclosure
drafting financial remedy consent orders following successful mediations
Ségolène accepts instructions on financial remedy cases at all stages of the litigation process, including:
pre-litigation consultations
First Appointments
interim hearings (including Maintenance Pending Suit)
FDRs (including Private FDRs)
Final Hearings
drafting final/consent orders
Injunction and Domestic Abuse
Ségolène regularly acts for applicants and respondents in injunctive proceedings under the Family Law Act. She has experience pursuing and resisting applications for occupation orders and non-molestation orders in cases involving:
domestic abuse and violence (adult and/or child)
situational couple violence
alcohol and drug use/dependency
pending criminal proceedings
vulnerable parties
shielding, quarantine and other Covid-19 Regulations requirements
litigants in person
cross-applications for various orders
consolidated proceedings involving multiple applicants and respondents
Ségolène has secured favourable outcomes for her clients, for example:
securing a 2-year non-molestation order at final hearing
resisting an interim occupation order on the basis of the Covid-19 Regulations
securing a 1-year extension of an ex-parte non-molestation order despite judicial indication to the contrary
Private Law Children
Ségolène regularly accepts instructions to appear on behalf of both applicant and respondent parents in private children matters.
She has gained experience in a range of child arrangement disputes in which allegations of domestic abuse arise and is frequently instructed to obtain or resist prohibited steps and specific issue orders.
Ségolène has secured favourable outcome for her clients, for example:
persuading the Court to order interim contact between an infant and her mother, against whom (disputed) allegations of domestic violence had been made by several family members
negotiating practicalities of child arrangement orders (“spend time with” and “live with” orders)
Ségolène also advises on an array of discrete issues in private children proceedings. She has recently conferenced with instructing solicitors to advise on:
the availability of a “section 91(14) bar”
the admissibility of video evidence at a final hearing
a prospective party’s entitlement to apply for a section 8 order
the practicalities of examining witnesses residing overseas
Ségolène is available for private remote FDR hearings. For more information on private remote FDR hearings please click here.
Sharan Sanghera acts for both claimants and defendants in personal injury and clinical negligence claims. She holds particular expertise in insurance fraud litigation, representing defendants in claims where allegations of dishonesty arise.
Sharan also manages a busy paperwork practice and is happy to undertake work on a CFA basis where appropriate.
Sharan’s approachability, efficiency and client care make her a favourite with clients.
Personal Injury
Sharan has vast trial experience of claims involving opportunistic or staged road traffic collisions. She understands that often there is a “bigger picture” which goes beyond one particular case and is happy to work alongside firms developing strategies to combat linked dishonest claims.
She represents claimants in multi-track claims where injuries are permanent and life-changing. Within the claimant work that she undertakes she has a particular interest in employer’s liability and occupier’s liability claims.
Sharan has represented clients appealing CICA decisions with good success.
Cases of Interest include:
Advising a Claimant who suffered a traumatic double amputation below the ankle and below the knee while working as a labourer and having been instructed to destroy a concrete column which was supporting a balcony overhead
Advising a Claimant in an action where construction material escaped from a site striking her to the head causing injuries
Representing a Claimant in the First Tier Tribunal and successfully appealing the CICA’s decision not to make an award under the Scheme
Represented a Minor in an action where she fell from a set of monkey bars while playing at school sustaining fractures to the wrist and elbow. Liability was initially denied but favourable settlement was ultimately achieved
Representing a Claimant in the CICA who had a significant loss of earnings claim following his inability to return to work following an assault
Advised a Claimant who suffered permanent scarring after being attacked by a dog. Achieved favourable settlement
Successfully arguing against relief from sanctions being granted in a claim where the Defendant was seeking to rely on witness evidence served two weeks late
Successfully appealing a District Judge’s decision on summary assessment of costs where the Court was wrong in its approach as to the issue of proportionality and the applicable percentage uplift.
Clinical Negligence
Sharan undertakes a variety of clinical negligence work including dental, GP and hospital treatment. She acts for both claimants and defendants from inception of the claim to trial.
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.
Prior to transferring to the Bar in June 2010, Stephen Wyeth practised as a solicitor for ten years following his qualification in 1999. Stephen has particular experience of high value claims involving discrimination (with emphasis on disability issues) and is highly knowledgeable in all forms of unfair dismissal including public interest disclosure claims. Stephen has appeared and succeeded in many complex lengthy multi-day high value discrimination and public interest disclosure claims. He has notable experience of TUPE claims including the ability to offer practical advice to both transferors and transferees in the lead up to business acquisitions and service provision changes, as well as being regularly involved in TUPE cases at tribunals usually involving multiple respondents.
Stephen has regularly advised both senior employees and businesses with regard to the enforceability of restrictive covenants and confidentiality clauses in the context of employment contracts. Despite being of recent call, given his past experience as a solicitor, he offers an advanced level of service in all areas of employment law.
Stephen was appointed as a fee paid Employment Judge in 2009 and, until 2014, was a part time lecturer in Employment Law at the University of Southampton.
He has appeared as an expert on regional BBC television and radio. He frequently lectures to local solicitors on strategy and changes in the law.
Employment and Discrimination
Stephen Wyeth is a leading junior with a specialist employment law practice.
Prior to transferring to the Bar in June 2010, Stephen practised as a solicitor for ten years following his qualification in 1999. He was appointed a fee paid Employment Judge in 2009 and sits in the Watford Employment Tribunal. He has lectured part time in Employment Law at the University of Southampton (as well as tutoring public and constitutional law for five years).
Stephen has particular experience of high-value claims involving discrimination (with emphasis on disability and maternity issues) and is highly knowledgeable in all forms of unfair dismissal including public interest disclosure claims. He frequently appears in lengthy multi-day trials. He has notable experience of TUPE claims including the ability to offer practical advice to both transferors and transferees in the lead up to business acquisitions and service provision changes, as well as being regularly involved in TUPE cases at tribunals, usually involving multiple respondents. Stephen is described as having an approachable manner and his professional clients value his strategic handling of cases.
Stephen has regularly advised both senior employees and businesses with regard to the enforceability of restrictive covenants and confidentiality clauses in the context of employment contracts. He has developed a reputation for being a fearless litigator, delivering practical solutions and first class results for both employer and employee clients.
Stephen has acted on behalf of a number of large organisations such as the British Dental Association and Thames Water. His recent successes in the Employment Appeal Tribunal include the reported cases of Esparon t/a Middle West Care Homes v Slavikovska, in which he successfully acted for Ms Slavikovska both at first instance and on appeal and Schwarzenbach t/a Thames-side Court Estate v Jones in which he successfully acted for Mr Jones both at first instance and on appeal. As a result of the Slavikovska decision most care workers must now be paid the national minimum wage for “sleep-in” shifts undertaken in care homes.
He is well known locally for leading informative workshops and seminars for solicitors and businesses and has appeared as an expert on regional BBC television and Radio. He has lectured for the Solent Region of the Employment Lawyers Association.
Stephen has also been a senior adviser to a New Zealand Government Minister during an overseas sabbatical. Within the community Stephen is a Community Governor of his local primary school.
Stephen Abberley thrives on challenges. He enjoys a complicated set of facts, or a legal conundrum, or indeed a problem that appears to be without solution. Stephen enjoys being up against stellar performers, being put through his paces, helping him to hone his own craft.
Stephen is thorough in his preparation but can manage time when up against it. He is empathic and compassionate with clients, but will not shrink from delivering difficult advice, telling it how it is with a sensitive but firm manner.
Stephen’s courtroom manner is quietly tenacious, premised on careful thought as to how best to present a difficult case. His cross-examination is bespoke, fitting the occasion.
Stephen has now built a store of knowledge in relation to cases involving familial homicide, sexual abuse, serious cranial and other injuries, international law and cross-cultural issues. He enjoys learning about matters of cultural diversity, having represented clients from all walks of life, many creeds and many more ethnic backgrounds.
With a practice evenly split between representing parents, children and authorities, Stephen brings perspective on how to meet the challenges in the case likely to be presented by the opposing side.
Stephen’s practice encompasses public law cases – care, placement and adoption proceedings. He also acts for parents and children in private law cases. He enjoys the intellectual rigour required of cases in the High Court and hopes for more opportunities to take cases to appeal.
Reported cases
P (A Child: Fair Hearing) [2023] EWCA Civ 215
Re D-S (Contact with Children in Care: Covid-19) [2020] EWCA Civ 1031
Re C (A Child) (Application by Dr X and Y) [2015] EWFC 79 - [2017] 1 FLR 82
Disclosure – Re C (A Child) (Application by Dr X and Dr Y) [2015] EWFC 79 – [2015] Fam Law 1457
In the Matter of C (A Child) (Application by Dr X and Y) [2015] EWFC 79
Re J (A Child) (Fact-finding) [2015]
Re Y [2014] EWHC 3601 (Fam) - Lexis Citation 31
Recent Cases
A local authority v A, B and C (2019) - acted for a local authority in seeking findings against a step-father for causing significant brain injury to an older child in the context of complex and ambiguous medical expert opinion evidence.
A local authority v C (2018) - acted for a parent from a travelling community who, in a second set of proceedings, was accused of physical and emotional abuse of a number of children. Achieved a settled position on threshold which did not feature allegations of physical abuse.
A local authority v A (2018) - acted for a mother accused of over forty allegations of fabricating or inducing illness in a sick child. Whilst findings were made, they numbered less than ten. The mother maintains a relationship with the child, who was placed with family.
A local authority v X, Y and Z (2018) - acted for a mother accused of administering medication to a school aged child and fabricating illness. Proceedings concluded with the child and its siblings remaining at home in the mother’s care, with assistance with medical issues from other family members.
A local authority v D and E (2018) - acted for a local authority in respect of case wherein allegations of inter-generational fabricated illness were made. Able to compromise the case on agreed facts whilst retaining the subject child in foster care with supervised contact to mother and other relatives.
A local authority v H [2018] - Acting for a local authority in a case where Ehlors Danlos syndrome is in issue, but where it might be a mitigating factor in respect of NAI/Head and retinal injuries- Cohen J and Baker J (as he then was)
A local authority v B & C [2017] - Acting for a local authority and successfully establishing as true historical allegations of sexual and physical abuse by a step parent, by calling older children as live witnesses
A local authority v Z [2017] - Acting for a child in care proceedings who, it transpired, was a trafficked child from an EU member state for the purposes of sexual and domestic exploitation. Heard by Keehan J.
A local authority v A [2017] - Acted for a local authority in respect of an application to adopt an older child from a pacific country who was approaching his majority and who could have an international sports career in the UK. Heard by Cobb J.
A local authority v Z [2017] - Acted for children of a deceased father who had been murdered by their mother. Advanced placement of the children in the care of the deceased’s family against, for a period, opposition by the relevant local authority and the maternal family. Heard by Francis J.
A local authority v AZ [2017] - Acted for a local authority in case involving protracted immigration issues arising out of the successful assessment of family members in Pakistan, whom the Home Office was reluctant to permit into the UK for the purpose of introductions. Heard by Keehan J.
A local authority v N [2017] - Advised a local authority in respect of proceedings brought on the basis of FII allegations against mother. Advised the local authority to withdraw.
A local authority v W [2016] - Acted for children in a complex case of suspected suffocation of two children. Acted alone in a multi-prty case in which all other parties had silk and junior Counsel. Heard by Hayden J.
A local authority v P & C [2016] - Acted for a local authority in reconstructing evidence in relation to an historical child death, previously deemed by a Coroner to have been accidental in an attempt to prove that it was homicide. Heard by Wood J and King J (as she then was)
A local authority v H [2016] - Lead by the then Alistair MacDonald QC (now MacDonald J) for a local authority in successfully resisting an application by an expert medical witness in historical care proceedings who sought disclosure of material in the proceedings for use in articles in the press in order to re-establish his reputation after defending an action before the GMC. Heard by Munby P.
A local authority v R [2016] - Represented a father in care proceedings accused of inflicting a shaking injury. Child in question had a twin with enlarged sub-arachnoid spaces. Findings made but children returned to parents.
A local authority v S [2015] - Acted for a father in care proceedings accused of tampering with medical equipment for a sick child. Case ultimately withdrawn. Heard by Russell J.
A local authority v W [2015] - Acted for a mother in care proceedings involving fractures and NAI to head. Cross examined father who admitted shaking the child. Child returned to mother despite opposition from the local authority, which was represented by leading counsel.
Children
Care and Placement Proceedings
Stephen represents local authorities, parents and children in the County Court, High Court and at appellate level.
He has particular strength and expertise in cases involving complex medical issues and in those involving vulnerable adults with severe mental health illness or personality disorders. Furthermore, he has vast experience in Factitious Illness cases involving poisoning and induced suffocation.
He undertakes serious fact-finding cases and complex outcome hearings involving serious physical and sexual abuse, including cases involving shakes and resulting in baby fatalities.
As well as conventional public law children cases, Stephen also advises and appears in those with sensitive medical and ethical aspects for example, cases where the lawfulness of whether to resuscitate a child is at issue or where one parent has killed the other. These cases will routinely involve the cross examination of a number of medical experts from multi disciplines.
Stephen has represented parents from differing economic, cultural, social background and ages. Some may have issues such as drug, alcohol dependency, mental health difficulties, language difficulties or a combination of these problems. This frequently means he is involved in cases where there has been or evidence suggests :
Parental homicide
Child homicide
Alleged Non-Accidental Injury, including brain injury and fractures
Sexual Abuse and Child Sexual Exploitation
Factitious Illness
International Children Cases
Stephen has considerable experience of cases involving:
• International Child Abduction
• Transfer issues across the EU
• Transfer Issues beyond the EU
• International Adoption.
Private Law Children Proceedings (privately funded)
Stephen has notable experience in applications for internal and international relocation.
For the first 11 years, Stephen Harvey KC had a general common law practice. It developed into a heavyweight criminal practice and, in 1990, he was invited to join the Attorney-General’s Chambers where he spent the following 16 years prosecuting and defending in serious criminal cases of all types Over the last 15 years he has developed a direct professional access practice and expanded into regulatory, compliance and professional disciplinary fields.
In 2013 he became Head of Chambers in a multi-disciplinary set of 60 plus barristers. He joined his current chambers (one of the largest in the UK) in 2016.
He receives instructions from throughout the UK and abroad.
Stephen has lectured on a variety of legal issues including corporate governance, bribery, corruption and cross-examination of the expert witness.
Direct access practice
Stephen is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public and professional clients under the Direct Public Access scheme. He is one of the few members of the Bar authorised to conduct litigation. He is a director of a barrister-led litigation practice.
Litigation
Stephen is approved by the Bar Standards Board to conduct litigation.
Areas of practice
Criminal law – all areas.
Business crime – trading standards, food and safety, pollution, health and safety, fire safety.
Appeals in all criminal matters
Private prosecutions
Compliance and corporate governance – financial regulation, data protection, trademark and copyright breaches, bribery and anti-corruption.
Public law and regulatory
Planning enforcement
Inquests
Inquiries
Disciplinary tribunals
Military law and Courts Martial
Sports law
Direct access
The following are examples of the cases in which Stephen has been involved.
Sexual offences
PG – Secured the discontinuance of all charges in respect of a man charged with repeated, serious sexual offences.
R v B – Defended in a case in which a 16-year-old was charged with serial rape involving teenage girls.
R v H – Represented a top lawyer charged with historical sexual allegations on two very young girls. The accusations included stupefying them with drugs.
R v X – Represented an Imam charged with sexual offending.
R v B – Prosecuted a medical professional who faced multiple allegations of sexually abusing his patients.
R v H – Prosecuted to conviction a ‘cold case’ stranger rape.
R v B and Others - Advised the prosecution and drafted a 70 + count indictment against 10 defendants accused of being members of a paedophile ring involving some of the defendant’s children, and others, and alleged corruption within Social Services departments of local authorities and outside agencies. T
Fraud
Much of Stephen’s fraud practice has involved advisory work at an early stage of an investigation. When defending, he has often influenced its course and negotiated a favourable outcome. In this role he has dealt with the major investigating bodies including the Serious Fraud Office (using its wide-ranging powers), the Financial Conduct Authority in its regulation of financial markets as well as large-scale fraud inquiries conducted by the HMRC, the police and the CPS.
R v AB – Represented a bank manager who had spent many years defrauding his bank using ‘ghost’ accounts and other devices to conceal and move monies around the world.
R v J – Financial Services Authority prosecution of a large insurance brokerage and allegations of misappropriated premiums. Case involved ‘early day’ successful appearances in the Chancery Division in respect of a number of world-wide injunctions granted to the investigators.
R v M – An insurance company fraud involving substantial amounts of monies being syphoned off through a complex trail of bank accounts throughout Europe.
R v W – A substantial VAT ‘carousel’ fraud brought by HMRC involving cross-jurisdictional transactions, money laundering and a ‘supergrass’.
R v G – A fraud involving the creation of a company to act as a vehicle for the sales of vast quantities of stolen specialist building materials from the company employing the defendants.
R v H – A seven-figure fraud on an international leasing company by the ‘creation’ of assets against which funds were borrowed.
F v K and L��– Advising on a civil claim to recover tens of thousands of pounds involving accusations of fraud, forgery and an attempt to pervert the course of justice allegedly occurring during the course of earlier civil litigation.
J v JB – A case involving the identification of hidden assets here and abroad and the recovery thereof.
R v G – A civil fraud case before the Companies Court. The client was alleged to have defrauded two British banks of a total of £1.68 million using a BVI company (now in administration) to acquire properties in the UK. The case involved a number of issues arising under BVI company law.
AB – Stephen recently advised on behalf of an American finance investment company in relation to a ‘Ponzi’ type scheme in which it is seeking to trace and recover £2.7 million.
Proceeds of crime and money laundering
R v M – A large conspiracy to steal and distribute prestige cars throughout Europe with the proceeds being passed through a network of bank accounts.
R v C – An international conspiracy to supply drugs and launder the proceeds through bank and building society accounts in the UK and in Spain. Case stayed as an abuse of the process of the court.
R v B – Successfully retained the client’s financial interests in a property in the face of the prosecutions claim that all the property should be the subject of confiscation.
Bribery and corruption
Much of Stephen’s work, at home and abroad, has been in relation to the ‘adequate procedures’ and protocols required for an organisation to insulate itself against the prospect of criminal proceedings. He has advised here and abroad on the Bribery Act 2010 and associated legislation.
He has advised upon corruption and constitutional legal issues in the sub-Indian continent. Recently, he provided the opposition government in Sri Lanka with advice on the serving governments legislative powers and the lawfulness of some of its legislative activities. As a result the government was compelled to institute corruption investigations.
Stephen has investigated organisations who have identified internal corruption and has designed processes and protocols to prevent and detect future abuses.
R v A – Represented a senior tax investigator employed by the Inland Revenue who was acquitted upon all allegations of corruption after an inquiry lasting 4 years and a trial lasting 3 months.
R v GD – An unusually short sentence of imprisonment was achieved for a director of an international company who was convicted of securing contracts for outside contractors.
Espionage
R v M – Successful defence of an army major charged with spying.
Hijacking
R v U – Defended the only defendant who remains unconvicted in the ‘Stansted-Afghan Hijacking’ case.
Abuse of process
R v H – Successfully argued that the case should be stayed due to errors made by the prosecution during the investigation. The case involved an international drug conspiracy. The legal arguments took three months to advance.
R v E – At the time of trial the case involved the largest UK tobacco smuggling allegation that Customs & Excise had prosecuted. Successfully argued that case should be stayed due to significant non-disclosure by the prosecution of material it had acquired during the investigation and which was helpful to the defence.
R v C – An international conspiracy to supply drugs and launder the proceeds through bank and building society accounts in the UK and in Spain. Case stayed as an abuse of the process of the court.
Homicide
R v T – Defended in a three-month multi-handed cutthroat murder trial. Stephen’s client was the only defendant to be acquitted.
R v J and Others – This was the largest gangland trial that had been brought to court in the North of England. It involved Moss Side gangsters and gun-related violence, homicide, attempted homicides and drug dealing over a number of years. The trial took in excess of 6 months.
R v G and Others – Successfully defended a 17-year-old charged with murder and grievous bodily harm following allegations that he had set fire to a block of flats when he was just 14 years of age. The case was brought to trial after a ‘cold-case review’, a Crime Watch appeal and following two major police investigations. The client was acquitted following detailed submissions as to the unreliability of the prosecution evidence.
R v W – Successfully defended a young man charged with conspiracy to murder and conspiracy to dispose of the body.
R v N – Prosecuted to conviction a Zimbabwean ex-policeman who killed his wife with an axe.
R v A – Successfully defended a 17-year-old who was accused of being part of a group of youths who broke into the deceased’s home twice and on the second occasion attacked him leaving him for dead. The client was acquitted after an 8-week trial.
R v B – Prosecuted to conviction a rare case of infanticide where a young mother, having delivered her own baby, killed it.
R v S – Defended an escaped prisoner who murdered his wife in the presence of their six very young (5 to 12 years of age) children by repeatedly stabbing her. The defence was provocation and a great deal of sensitive advocacy was required in dealing with the children who were witnesses in the case.
R v M – Prosecuted to conviction a difficult and sensitive ‘shaken baby homicide’ case involving medical evidence from a total of 17 distinguished experts from a variety of medical disciplines.
R v K – Defended in a ‘county lines’ drugs murder where co-defendants advanced ‘cut-throat’ defences. Client acquitted of murder.
Kidnapping and Blackmail
R v L – Defended in a trial involving the targeting, kidnapping and blackmailing of family members of lottery millionaires.
R v S – Defended a Turkish client charged with armed kidnapping and blackmail in a ‘Kebab wars’ trial.
Drugs
R v C – A substantial cannabis smuggling operation involving over 100 armed police officers in a midnight raid at a quiet east coast location.
Computer crime and copyright theft
R v V – Successfully defended in a private prosecution brought by the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT). This was the first case that has come to trial involving accusations against the operators of a ‘linking’ website. The prosecution originally claimed that the losses of copyright revenues were in the region of £18 billion. The case, at the time, represented the highest value criminal prosecution brought in a UK court. The site was one of the most popular on the world wide web which, at its peak, was the 500th most visited site out of the 40 billion sites there are on the web. Complex cross-jurisdictional issues and a number of internationally renowned computer experts were called during the case. The client was charged with two conspiracies to defraud. Successfully argued that the first of the conspiracies should not proceed beyond close prosecution’s case and the jury acquitted the client of the second conspiracy. The trial lasted 8 weeks.
R v S – A private prosecution by FACT. It involved the importation and distribution of illegal set top boxes which facilitated the illegal downloading of copy written material. A significant six-figure loss was alleged. The client was acquitted.
Explosives and firearms
R v K – A case involving the manufacture of two bombs one of which exploded destroying a solicitor’s office. The second was a ‘video tape’ designed to explode and kill the recipient when it was inserted into a video player.
R v E – A case involving the petrol-bombings of two senior police officer’s homes.
Modern slavery
TN – By virtue of early intervention, successfully secured the return of a vessel seized by a police force who alleged its crew were slaves. No prosecution followed for any offences.
Criminal appeals
Stephen is often asked to review convictions and sentences in cases he was not involved in which have, on occasions, resulted in him conducting an appeal in the Court of Appeal or the Crown Court, or if the case is suitable, in drafting an application for the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
R v RL – Police eventually persuaded to re-investigate following representations that two of the witnesses at trial had perjured themselves. Matter proceeding to a Criminal Cases Review Commission application for a referral back to the Court of Appeal based upon new evidence.
Military law and Courts Martial
Captain CM – The defendant was an officer in the TA who was eventually charged with spying contrary to section 1 of the Official Secrets Act. with spying. Stephen represented her from the moment of her arrest. She spent some six months in closed custody following which a successful application for habeas corpus was made. Following her release, the matter was passed over to the civilian authorities. The case resulted in an acquittal.
Major JG – This officer was the Range Safety Officer at a live firing range in Alberta, Canada. He served as such during the British Army’s tenancy of the range. There were some fatalities culminating in the death of two soldiers who were killed by tank mortar due to an error in the transmission of firing coordinates. The officer was charged with two counts of negligent manslaughter. The courts martial lasted two weeks and resulted in acquittals upon both counts.
PUBLIC AND REGULATORY
Financial
Stephen has spent some time over the past five years advising on the ever-increasing volume of regulation affecting the financial sectors.
He has advised an overseas investment bank in relation to its obligations under the European Market Infrastructure Regulations (MMIR), the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II), the obligations that the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) imposes (introduced by the American government with effect from July 2013) and of its responsibilities under the Dodd-Frank Act.
The economic situation has also seen a growth in the number of small to medium sized businesses enter the ‘Peer to Peer’ lending market. He has advised a small British PLC wishing to create a peer to peer lending operation on the regulatory framework attaching to such an operation.
AL Ltd – Advised upon and prepared detailed skeleton submissions for the Chancery Division in the Financial Conduct Authority’s application for a Restitution Order for £17.5 million under s.382 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
Other regulatory
R v C Z – Successfully argued for a low-level penalty having analysed the way in which breaches of the Control of Asbestos regulations 2012 had occurred. The fines imposed were 1/5th of those originally expected.
GDC v S – Defended in a General Dental Council prosecution in a case involving cosmetic treatment and breaches of the Dentists Act 1984.
Dr. J – Care Quality Commission application for cancellation of a GP’s practice registration under the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
XX – Advised and represented a red brick university in disciplinary hearings of students.
Trading standards
JB – Represented a firm of surveyors who were prosecuted for various contraventions of the Trading Standards Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
BC v SCS - Instructed to institute and conduct a private prosecution under regulations 8 and 9 of the Trading Standards Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
Private prosecutions
Stephen is well placed to advise upon, and conduct, private prosecutions.
MO – Secured a full indemnity of costs incurred by a private prosecutor in a failed private prosecution.
BC v SCS - Instructed to institute and conduct a private prosecution under regulations 8 and 9 of the Trading Standards Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
Health and Safety
R v M – Advised upon the prosecution of a nursery school where a 3-year-old child died in an accident whilst at school. The case eventually went to judicial review where Stephen’s advice as to what course the case should take was approved and upheld by the Queen’s Bench Division.
R v S – Alleged breaches of workplace regulations concerning welding equipment. Employee died in an explosion and the HSE investigated. Advised from the outset and before the client was interviewed. As a result, the HSE were persuaded not to prosecute the client although others were.
Planning enforcement
Planning Inquiry - Stephen successfully appeared in a public inquiry arguing that the route of an ancient right of way should be changed to allow for commercial development.
R v BP – Alleged breaches of planning regulations over a 10-year period. Successfully argued technical failures in the prosecution case leading to acquittals on all matters and a full indemnity of costs.
R v SL – Successfully argued highly technical issues regarding planning enforcement proceedings taken by a local authority against a person with no legal or equitable interest in the property. Client obtained a full indemnity of the costs incurred.
R v P – A planning enforcement case involving technical submissions regarding the local authority’s litigation procedures. Case resulted in an acquittal after three days of legal argument. The client was awarded all of his costs.
Inquests
XX – Represented a senior police officer in an inquest involving a death in custody. Prospective criminal proceedings, particularly under the Corporate Homicide Act 2007, did not follow.
XX1 – Represented the family of a deceased who died as a result of alleged medical negligence whilst in hospital. Key witnesses were cross-examined at this critical stage to facilitate the progress of the civil action in clinical negligence against the doctors and the health authority.
XX2 – Client involved in a fatal road traffic accident and was facing a criminal prosecution for causing the death and a civil action for damages. Successfully cross-examined key witnesses at this key stage of the matter resulting in no prosecution taking place.
XX3 – Corporate client, and a director of the company, involved as Interested Parties in a fatality on a construction site. Criminal proceedings were not subsequently undertaken by the police.
Disciplinary tribunals
Stephen has successfully represented footballers and police officers before Commissions and Police Disciplinary Tribunals.
Corporate governance and bribery
Stephen has both written and lectured to several audiences on the Bribery Act 2010 and its implications worldwide.
To date, much of the corporate governance and Bribery Act 2010 work has been in the form of advising organisations as to protocols, procedures and processes.
Inquiries
Stephen has appeared in inquiries and public meetings concerning, inter alia, the retention of medical services (a doctor’s surgery) in a community during health service restructuring, and the inadequate provision of sewage plant by a water company resulting in environmental pollution in an area of outstanding natural beauty.
Stephen successfully represented a client in a public inquiry regarding an application to alter the path of an ancient and historically significant public right of way. Against considerable opposition from residents and historical societies, he was successful.
Other cases and instructions
R v H – Defended a mortician charged with theft of body parts from a number of different hospital mortuaries over a number of years. A non-custodial sentence was secured.
R v S – Defence of a fisherman in which the legitimacy of the entire European fishing quota system was in issue. Issues such as the legislation being unlawful due to reasons of anti-competitiveness were advanced as well as other constitutional issues involving the interaction between UK and European legislation.
WV v A School – Successful defence of the Board of School Governors and three of its teachers against an accusation of racial discrimination.
Stephen has also represented a Deputy Head teacher from a different school who was suspended pending accusations which amount to accusations of gross misconduct and potential summary dismissal. The teacher was reinstated.
Stephen has been instructed by the opposition government of Sri Lanka to advise as to the legal and constitutional validity of the sitting governments legislative programmes.
SPORTS
Stephen has successfully represented sportsmen and women (some of national significance) before their disciplinary bodies for a variety of matters.
XFC NO 1 – Successfully persuaded the FA to drop an investigation into a footballer alleged to have made racist remarks during a game.
XFC NO 2 – Successfully persuaded the FA not to proceed with an investigation into an allegation that the FC involved failed to cooperate with its investigation.
Sports tribunals
Stephen has sat as the Legal Chair of a Disciplinary Appeal Panel involving international athletes.
Sporting inquiries
Stephen has been in structed to investigate an Olympic athlete’s conduct following a series of complaints.
Cricket
Stephen has recently advised an international club on match-fixing issues and investigations by the ICC
He has also advised in relation to matters before the British Horseracing Authority.
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.
Steven McGarry is a commercial barrister who specialises in banking and finance litigation, company disputes, insolvency and professional negligence cases.
Recognised by the legal directories as an “expert in financial regulation”, Steven is frequently instructed in cases involving mis-selling of financial products. He has now built up a considerable following in heavyweight banking advice and litigation,across a range of areas, including in particular interest rate hedging work, currency hedge litigation, commercial lending and securities disputes and pension mis-selling and transfer litigation.
He is regularly instructed for claimants in cases concerning investment advice and breach of the regulatory framework and also acts for directors in disqualification proceedings.
He is frequently instructed to act for directors and individuals on issues of insolvency and bankruptcy, including cases relating to preferential transfers, transfers at undervalue and fraudulent activity.
He also advises on the full range of commercial litigation disputes including contract disputes and company law/shareholder claims and professional negligence cases.
COMMERCIAL
Steven McGarry is a commercial barrister who specialises in banking and finance litigation, company disputes, insolvency and professional negligence cases.
Financial services
Steven McGarry has built up a following in heavyweight banking advice and litigation, across a range of areas, including in particular interest rate hedging work, currency hedge litigation, commercial lending and securities disputes and pension misselling and transfer litigation.
Routinely instructed by financial professionals on regulatory issues, including the Perimeter Guidance Manual and questions of regulated activity.
He is routinely instructed to act for directors and individuals on issues of insolvency and bankruptcy, including cases relating to preferential transfers, transfers at undervalue and fraudulent activity.
Steven is regularly instructed for claimants in cases concerning investment advice and breach of the regulatory framework.
Steven also acts for directors in disqualification proceedings.
He is recognised in the Legal 500 as an “expert in financial regulation” and is routinely instructed in matters associated with the mis-selling of financial products.
Company/Partnership disputes
Steven is routinely instructed in cases involving directors’ Company Act and fiduciary duties. He has wide experience of shareholder actions and partnership claims.
Insolvency/Bankruptcy
Steven is frequently instructed to act for directors and individuals on issues of insolvency and bankruptcy, including cases relating to preferential transfers, transfers at undervalue and fraudulent activity.
Professional negligence/liability
Steven does mainly claimant-based professional negligence work, involving legal professionals, accountants, financial advisers, surveyors and architects.
Recent cases include:
Ramsden v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2020] EWHC 357 (QB): represented claimant in large damages claim against the HMRC.
Deansgate 123 LLP v Workman and another [2019] EWHC 2 (Ch): acted for estate in complex claim brought under a.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Martin-Smith v Welcome Finance Ltd: important case relating to undisclosed commission claims.
FCA v Avacade and others: (led by David Berkley QC) trial involving allegations of prohibition breach in significant pension transfer business.
FND Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc: case concerning allegations of swap mis-selling and Libor manipulation.
MS v X: Acting for high net worth individual involved in hedge fund investment.
Carden Park Group v Barclays Bank Plc: Acted for hotel group in a significant interest rate swapclaim based on negligence and Libor manipulation.
CGL Group Limited v RBS: Acting for claimant in widely reported interest rate swap claim, which has now received permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the “Suremime” issue.
Thornbridge Limited v Barclays Plc: Acted as junior in this important interest rate swap trial, which went to the Court of Appeal in November 2016.
M v Yorkshire Bank Plc: Instructed in case involving issues of fixed rate lending and “embedded swaps”
Numerous v A Pension Scheme: Instructed in group litigation concerning widespread pensiontransfer mis-selling and collective investment schemes.
Liquidator v DR: Acted as counsel for director facing accusations by the liquidator of preferential transfers and transfers at an undervalue, amounting to £2m.
HMRC v IS: Instructed by director in disqualification proceedings based upon MTIC allegations.
MTR Bailey Trading Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc: Interest rate hedge claim presently before the Court ofAppeal on novel points of law, including rights of action under the FSMA 2000.
National Westminster Bank Plc v JD Pickford Partnership: Acted for the Defendants in successfully resisting a claim to enforce bank fees associated with a ‘property participation scheme’ (a Global Restructuring Group/West Register Investments fee).
Technocover Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc: Achieved settlement for ‘sophisticated’ customer in interestrate hedge claim.
Green and Rowley v Royal Bank of Scotland: Acted as part of the team on behalf of the Appellants in this important appeal case, which relates to the mis-selling of financial derivative.
Steven's recent confidential cases include:
Advising group company in shareholder claims over international contract rights following group dispute.
Acting for property developers in claim against construction company for breach of contract andnegligence.
Numerous instructions involving breach of contract claims with Global Restructuring Group of RBS.
Acting for property developers in negligence litigation with monitoring surveyor.
Representing financial adviser in dispute with financial network over termination of agency agreement.
Advising and representing ex-director and shareholders in failed property investment.
Steven Talbot Hadley has over 30 years’ experience at the Criminal Bar, the jury trial is Steven’s forte. He is an efficient and effective cross-examiner, described as incisive and penetrating, but ‘disarmingly charming’. He is an extremely persuasive jury advocate, praised and liked by judges for his calm demeanour and sense of humour. His closing speeches are well structured, powerful and effective, often described as ‘brilliant’ by his lay and professional clients.
Latterly, a large part of Steven’s busy criminal practice has been dominated by the prosecution of serious and historic sexual offences. This involves careful handling of young and vulnerable complainants and witnesses, many in a family setting and with difficult background circumstances. Steven is very adept at putting complainants and witnesses at their ease both before and during the trial and, as far as the process allows, enabling them to give their best evidence. When defending, he can win over the most challenging of clients and keep them on side throughout the trial.
Steven is particularly expert at taking on complex cases at the last minute with little or no time for lengthy preparation. He has the knack of quickly mastering the salient points and spotting the real issues in the case. His vast experience of being both prosecutor and defender enables him to advance the strongest points in his own case and expose the weakest in the other side.
Steven is happy to share his knowledge and expertise. In 2013, he delivered a public lecture at Coventry University London Campus entitled “Trial by jury, origins, the present and plans for the future: Has trial by jury had its day?” The answer was an emphatic “No!”
Crime
Steven Talbot Haldey practises in all areas of criminal law, both for the prosecution and for the defence, acting either as lead counsel or junior alone. His specialist areas include:
Serious Sexual Offences including rape, both male and female, also involving young and vulnerable witnesses, computer evidence and indecent images. Steven advises pre-charge for a number of Rape and Serious Sexual Offences Units of the Crown Prosecution Service.
Murder and other serious violent offences including the use of knives and firearms; armed robbery and blackmail.
Drugs offences including large scale importations.
Steven also specialises in areas of mental health, perverting the course of justice, animal welfare and dangerous dogs.
Cases of Note:
R v. Readhead – Warwick Crown Court 2017. Proceeds of crime from large scale brothel operation.
R v. Neal and others – Winchester Crown Court 2016. Large scale drug supply and blackmail.
R v. Riley and another – Northampton Crown Court 2016. Keeping a dangerous dog who killed the owner’s baby.
R v. Bowyer and others – Reading Crown Court 2015. Large scale burglaries of commercial premises.
2017: defence counsel in multi-handed multiple rape and GBH of vulnerable young female
2016: indecent assaults on a step-grand-daughter; rapes of two under-age females.
2017: multiple rapes of defendant’s estranged wife.
2016: attempted rape and sexual abuse of defendant’s 9 year old daughter; rape of a prostitute; sexual abuse of the child of a vulnerable mother deliberately targeted by the defendant; historic rapes and abuse of a step-daughter starting when she was circa 6 years old and transgender male at the time of trial; historic buggery on multiple occasions of a young vulnerable boy (serving life for murder at the time of trial) by a youth worker.
Prior to coming to the Bar, Stuart had already established a successful career in the construction industry. Having worked for a professional quantity surveying practice, a main contractor and been a director of a major sub-contractor, he set up his own quantity surveying practice in 1995. He is a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.
Stuart Kennedy is recommended in Band 2 of the International Arbitration:Construction/Engineering: London of the Chambers and Partners 2011 Directory.
‘Stuart Kennedy of 3 Paper Buildings also takes his place in the table for the first time in recognition of the significant practice he has developed in this area. His practice is cross-jurisdictional and he recently acted for the claimant in a dispute with the Hong Kong government’.
Academic
Stuart has a First Class Honours degree in law and won the Barstow Scholarship on the Bar Course at the Inns of Court School of Law. The Scholarship was awarded for obtaining the third highest marks out of over 700 candidates, a feat all the more remarkable as Stuart was studying on the part-time course whilst working full time!
Dispute resolution
He has long been involved in resolving construction disputes as quantity surveyor, an adviser/advocate and as an arbitrator/adjudicator. He was appointed to the Panel of Adjudicators of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in 1997 and the RICS Panel of Adjudicators in 2000. He is a member of the Society of Construction Law and regularly publishes articles and gives lectures.
International
He has been involved in a number of international construction projects including the new Hong Kong Airport and the new airports in Oslo and Athens, as well as other projects in Europe and the Middle East. In June 2001, Stuart was called to the Bar of St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
Areas of practice
Stuart Kennedy's practice as a barrister naturally focuses on construction, but he also undertakes work in other areas, including landlord and tenant, company, general commercial work and crime. Stuart is on the CPS approved list of advocates and is a member of Western Circuit. He regularly accepts appointments as an Arbitrator and as an Adjudicator, either nominated by one of the Appointing Bodies or by agreement between the parties.
Professional negligence
As well as dealing with a wide range of building disputes, Stuart regularly acts for and against surveyors, architects and engineers in Professional Negligence claims. Stuart is able to combine his legal knowledge with his first hand practical experience of the construction industry to excellent effect. As a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Stuart is familiar with the role of Professionals and the standards they should work to.
Client Testimonials
“construction – what he doesn’t know is not worth knowing” (Instructing solicitor).
Reported cases
Sinclair v Woods of Winchester Ltd [2005] EWHC 1631 (QB) (14 July 2005), [2006] EWHC 3003 (TCC) (22 November 2006)
Stuart has appeared in a number of reported cases concerning enforcement of Adjudicator's Decisions including:
Glencot Development and Design Co. Ltd v Ben Barrett & Son (Contractors) Ltd [2001] BLR 207.
Trustees of Stratfield Saye Estate v AHL Construction Ltd [2004] EWHC 3286(TCC).
Palmac v Park Lane Estates Limited [2005] EWHC B1 (TCC).
Sunyana Sharma is a regulatory and inquest barrister who practices in professional disciplinary work, maritime and fishing law, health and safety law and all areas of regulatory compliance and consumer protection.
She has been appointed to the C list of Regulatory Advocates for the Health and Safety Executive, Office of Rail Regulation and the Environment Agency.
Sunyana is an Assistant Coroner for Hampshire. To read more about Sunyana’s relevant expertise, please see her specialist inquests profile.
Prior to joining Chambers, Sunyana worked for the Solicitor International Human Right’s Group (‘SIHRG’) with whom she organised the Zimbabwe Fundraising Event called 'Protecting Lawyers in Zimbabwe' in collaboration with the Bar Human Rights Committee. She also worked as part of a team in researching and drafting legal submissions on the rule of law and the importance of an impartial tribunal following the suspension of the Chief Justice of Pakistan in March 2007. In addition, she undertook an internship with the criminal justice department of 'JUSTICE', the all party law reform and human rights organisation. She assisted with the research on policy papers commissioned by JUSTICE, which included changes to the rape in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and responses to the Home Office paper on 'New powers against organised and financial crime’.
Reported Cases
[2010] EWCA Crim 109; [2011] 1 Cr App R (S) 36
The Court considered whether exceptional circumstances exist justifying the court in not imposing the required minimum sentence for the possession of firearms.
Public and Regulatory
Sunyana Sharma is a busy regulatory and criminal law specialist with significant expertise in the health and safety, maritime, fisheries and professional disciplinary sectors. She has been appointed to the C list of Regulatory Advocates for the Health and Safety Executive, Office of Rail Regulation and the Environment Agency. She has both defended and prosecuted in various regulatory law matters, which have included collisions at sea, fisheries offences, breaches of a health and safety regulations, animal welfare and trading standards prosecutions. Furthermore, she regularly appears before various disciplinary tribunals.
Sunyana is regularly invited to speak on regulatory matters to solicitors and industry experts.
Lectures
Sunyana has been invited to speak to Trading Standards on regulatory matters alongside Ian Lawrie QC (now HHJ Ian Lawrie QC) and Nigel Lickley QC (now HHJ Nigel Lickley QC). These have included the following:
Chartered Trading Standards Institute (2019)
National Grid Legal Team & National Grid Grain LNG (2018)
Various solicitors firms (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)
Lawyers in Local Government Eastern Branch (2014)
Oxfordshire County Council Trading Standards (2012 & 2014)
South Western Consortium of Trading Standards (SWERCOTS) (2012).
Secondments
Sunyana has undertaken the following secondments in the field of healthcare regulation:
Ad Hoc secondment with the GCC to advise on cases.
Six month secondment as a case presenter to the NMC dealing with a variety of misconduct and lack of competence cases (NMC).
Assisted the public and regulatory team on advising the Nursing and Midwifery Council (‘NMC’) on ‘fitness to practise’ cases under the NMC ‘Code: Standards of conduct, performance and ethics for nurses and midwives’, ‘Standards for Medicines Management’ and Guidance on ‘Recordkeeping’ for nurses and midwives (Blake Morgan and Fieldfisher Waterhouse).
Professional Discipline and Regulatory Law
Sunyana Sharma has developed a strong practice in professional disciplinary regulation following secondments as a case presenter at the Nursing and Midwifery Council (‘NMC’) and in house lawyer at the General Chiropractic Council (‘GCC’). She appears regularly in various healthcare tribunals which includes the NMC, GCC, Health and Care Professions Council (‘HCPC’), Medical Practitioner’s Tribunal Service (‘MPTS’), General Optical Council (‘GOC’), British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (‘BACP’) and General Dental Council ‘GDC’ for substantive misconduct and health hearings, interim order applications and substantive order reviews. In addition, she is regularly instructed by nursing, care homes and GP Surgery’s appealing CQC decisions before the First Tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber).
Having developed an in depth and robust understanding of the ‘fitness to practise’ regime, she takes instruction in all professional disciplinary cases.
Sunyana was seconded to the Financial Conduct Authority (‘FCA’) from 2019 to 2020 to assist in two high profile dual tracked investigations into systemic failures by two major global banks.
Recent Cases
HCPC v. x (2023): Instructed to represent practical psychologist for plagiarism allegations in a PhD thesis.
NMC v. x (2023): Represented a nurse in an interim order hearing for being charged with gross manslaughter and misconduct allegations in which responsible nurse failed to attach monitoring equipment of a child with co-morbidities and sleep apnoea, which caused and/or contributed to patient’s death.
GPhC v. PP (2022): Advised a pharmacy group for potential allegations in relation to staff at the pharmacy being unqualified and large volumes of Phenergan and Codeine Linctus going missing during COVID-19 lockdown. Pharmacy unable to account for missing medication.
BACP v. SE (2022): Representing a counsellor for misconduct allegations for conducting a joint counselling sessions for a couple with instance of domestic violence. Expert instructed to show the changing clinical approach to counselling sessions in domestic violence cases where joint sessions were permissible in certain circumstances.
GDC v. MB (2022): Instructed to represent a Harley Street dentist in 14-day misconduct case in respect of inadequate care given to five patients and inappropriate offensive communication with a sixth patient. Complexities in the case included the instruction of an expert due to the technical nature of the implants provided, further disciplinary findings that the Committee were made aware of at the later stages of the proceedings and representing a challenging client with mental health issues.
GDC v. x (2021): representing CDT for multiple allegations relating to working out of scope, breach of an interim order and various dishonesty allegations.
BACP v. x (2021): Representing a counsellor for misconduct allegations in relation to joint counselling sessions for a couple with a history of domestic violence.
GMC v. x (2020): Instructed to represent a consultant anaesthetist for incorrect and dangerous intubation pre-surgery of two patients leading to near deaths.
GDC v. SK (2020): Successfully represented a dentist in an IO hearing who faced allegations of sexual abuse.
CQC v. YSL (2020): Successfully represented care home in an appeal to cancel its registration before the First Tier Tribunal (Care Standards).
Human Givens Institute v. LM (2019): Advised an integrative therapist specialising in mental and emotional health on an appeal of the decision of the Human Givens Institute for practising out of scope.
NMC v. RP (2018): Represented a nurse for a number of failings in which he was blamed for the death of a patient. Following the week’s substantive hearing none of the allegations were found proved.
GMC v. x (2017): Represented a Doctor for carrying out medical practise whilst not holding a licence to practise.
HCPC v. KC (2017): Represented a social worker for receiving a caution for disclosing sexual photographs of his ex partner.
GOC v. AP (2016): Represented an optician for over 50 misconduct allegations relating to the adequacy of sight testing, the fitting of contact lenses, record keeping and dishonesty for a patient with keratoconus.
NMC v. JN (2015): Instructed to advise a registrant on an appeal to the High Court relating to a Substantive Order determination on dishonesty.
NMC v. PN (2015): Represented the NMC at a misconduct substantive hearing in which the registrant was undertaking shift work when signed off sick and working excessive hours, including a continuous 37 hour shift.
GDC v. IK (2014): Instructed to represent a dental technician for acting outside his scope of practice.
NMC v. KA-A (2014): Successfully represented the NMC for a 9 day substantive misconduct hearing against two nurses for restraining a vulnerable dementia patient to a hospital bed with a bedsheet and cable ties.
NMC v. AA (2014): Represented the NMC for dishonesty allegations against the Registrant who had produced and provided false references to an NHS Trust to obtain a Band 5 Nursing post. The five day substantive hearing resulted in the Nurse being struck off.
GCC v. X (2014): Represented the GCC for a substantive order review hearing of a Chiropractor who had been convicted of acts of voyeurism.
GCC v. EJ (2013): Successfully represented EJ in a four day substantive hearing for allegations of unacceptable professional conduct relating to a sexual relationship with a patient, confidentiality breaches and dishonesty.
GOC v. AP (2012): Appeared on behalf of a student optician for dishonesty allegations.
Marine and Fisheries Law
As a criminal and regulatory specialist, Sunyana has developed expertise that focuses on the maritime and fisheries sector. She regularly prosecutes, defends and advises in actions brought by the Maritime Coastguard Agency (‘MCA’). She has also defended a number of cases prosecuted by the Marine Management Organisation (‘MMO’). Her cases have included:
Collisions at sea
Health and safety breaches
Pollution offences
Illegal fishing
Registration and technical failures.
Her clients include: masters, owners, charterers, operators, harbour authorities and the MCA.
Recent cases
Inquest touching deaths of M, J & P (2023): Representing HM Coastguard Agency in three joint inquests following drownings that occurred during the relaxation of COVID pandemic lockdown. PFD concerns raised on the management of beach safety prior to the inquest.
Inquest touching the deaths of YMG & PLF (2021): Represented HMCG in 10 day Judge led inquest which inquired into the drowning of two fisherman following the sinking of the French fishing vessel, the Bugaled Breizh in January 2004. The inquest considered the structural safety of the vessel, adequacy of training and equipment, the possible causes of the sinking including the involvement of another vessel or submarine and the adequacy of the search and rescue of the fishermen.
R v. SG (2020): Represented a Maritime Operations Officer (‘MOO’) for their involvement in a search and rescue operation following a person in the water at New Brighton who subsequently died. Although police investigation into gross negligence manslaughter allegations against MOO, early involvement in case led to client not being arrested or charged.
MCA v. SYA Ltd & RA and MCA v. KD (2020): Represented MCA in two cases for sailing a yacht without having in force a valid small code certificate for the vessel. Technical issues raised relating to the applicability ‘Blue Code’ and MGN 280.
R v. DW & LB Ltd (2019): Representing the MCA in a double collision on the River Thames causing damage in excess of half a million pounds.
R v. DR (2019): Representing the MCA following a collision of a high speed tour boat with a buoy on the River Thames causing injury to passengers.
Inquest touching the death of NW (2018): Represented HM Coastguard Service for the MCA following a death at sea in which article 2 issues were raised following a complaint by SECAMB.
R v. F & Others (2016)
Represented the owners of a Fishing Company on a high profile three handed fisheries matter in the Falkland Islands for breaches of ss. 167 and 168 of the Fisheries (Conservation and Management) Ordinance 2005 and Regulation 61 of the Fishing Regulations Order 1987 for failing to report £184,038 of hake. Avoided a conviction of the s.168 offence which would have lead to the forfeiture of the owner’s vessel, which has been valued at £1.5million.
MCA v. Michael Stimson (2015)
Successfully prosecuted a fisherman on behalf of the MCA for harvesting shellfish from a prohibited area of Southampton Waters contrary to Regulation 19(1) of the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013, failing to display navigation lights at night pursuant to the rule 23 of the COLREGs, displaying the Port of Registry and Fishing Numbers on his vessel despite his vessel being unregistered for a period of 2 years, contrary to s.15(3) and (5) of The Merchant Shipping Act 1995.
MMO v. Westminster Dredging Company Ltd (2015)
Represented a multi national Company for breaching s.65 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 in that it deposited dredging material in an area outside the area designated within the licence at HMNB Devonport on 31 occasions.
MCA v. Geradus Chapel (2014)
Instructed to advise the Master of a dredger for offences under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 following a collision that led to a fatality.
MCA v. Richard Pease (2014)
Successfully prosecuted a hovercraft driver who was almost 3 x over the legal limit in alcohol whilst under passage between Southsea, Hampshire & Ryde, Isle of Wight under the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003.
MCA v. NJ (2014)
Successfully defended the driver of a rib for breaches of The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996, following a collision on the Cardiff Bay.
MCA v. The Beauchamp Lodge Settlement (2014)
Prosecuted on behalf of the MCA a charity company which had failed to operate a passenger vessel with a valid passenger certificate as required under The Merchant Shipping (Survey and Certification) Regulations 1995.
MMO v. Saltire Seafoods Ltd (2013)
Represented a Fishing Company for dredging £12,500 worth of undersized scallops, a regulatory offence pursuant to The Scallop Fishing (England) Order 2012 and The Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967.
MCA v. Generic Enterprises Ltd (2012)
Represented Owners of a Spanish Vessel for breaches under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1997 for Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels.
MCA v. Captain Koningstein (2012)
Represented the Master of a vessel who was involved in a collision with another vessel on the Thames Barrier for offences contrary to The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996.
Trading Standards
Regulatory Compliance & Consumer Protection
Sunyana Sharma’s regulatory compliance and consumer protection practice straddles both prosecution and defence work. She is regularly instructed by Local Authorities, individuals and Companies. Her expertise includes:
Unsafe goods and toys
Trademark breaches
Endangered Species
Benefit fraud and Fraud Act 2006 offences
Consumer Protection for Unfair Regulations 2008
Cattle Identification Regulations
Animal Welfare Act offences.
Recent cases
DU Ltd v. TH Council (2019): Representing an Estate Agent Company to appeal a fine imposed for regulatory non compliance under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Bournemouth Christchurch and Poole Council v. PR (2019): Represented the Council to prosecute a builder for a number of breaches under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.
OCC v. T (2017)
Instructed to advise a Company on various toys that breached the Toy Safety Regulations 2011, The General Product Safety Regulations 2005 and the Trade Marks Act 1994.
R v. SB (2017)
Represented a well known fashion designer for the keeping for sale and the displaying of a number of endangered species contrary to regulation 8(1) of The Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997.
EBC & DWP v. LE (2016)
Successfully prosecuted on behalf of the EBC and DWP a number of offences pursuant to the Social Security Administration Act 1982 for fraudulent benefit claims made over a period of 6 years. The overpayment of benefits was assessed at being over £75,000.
Buckinghamshire County Council v. B Ltd & PD (2015)
Represented a Company and its Director for producing and supplying an ‘unsafe product’ known as the ‘Nutkins cot bed’, attempting to pervert the course of justice and breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. This was a high profile case which featured on the BBC’s ‘The One Show’ due to the near death of a child.
London Borough of Barnet v. KN (2015)
Represented a Defendant for breaching her licensing conditions with the Local Council for contrary to s.95(2) of the Housing Act 2004 for permitting more than one household to live in her tenanted property. Strong discussions led to the prosecution being abandoned and the Prosecution agreeing to the Defendant being cautioned.
RSPCA v. FA (2015)
Defended a farmer for his lack of duty of care and for causing unnecessary suffering to a number of pigs pursuant to ss. 4 and 9 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Following the discovery of a number of dead pigs on his farm. Successfully avoided a Disqualification Order being imposed.
Oxford Trading Standards Services v. Maddison Hawk & Perfect Strands Ltd (2014)
Represented OTSS for a joint prosecution of a Company and Director for supplying unsafe goods under The Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations and Consumer Protection Act 1987 and breaches of s.92 of the Trademarks Act 1994.
RSPCA v. BS (2014)
Defended a barefoot trimmer for his actions relating to a horse s.4 and s.9 offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Despite the Defendant being convicted, a Disqualification Order was avoided.
Dorset County Council v. FL, AS, JB and GB (2013)
Successfully prosecuted a four handed ‘dodgy trader’ case under the Fraud Act 2006 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 for mis-selling solar panel systems to pensioners.
Dorset County Council v. Brian Pitman (2012)
Following a successful application under s.20 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in respect of this Defendant, Sunyana was instructed to prosecute the Defendant in a 7 day trial for offences under s.4 and 9 of the said Act.’
Lectures
Sunyana has been invited to speak to Trading Standards on regulatory matters alongside Ian Lawrie QC (now HHJ Ian Lawrie QC) and Nigel Lickley QC (now HHJ Nigel Lickley QC). These have included the following:
Chartered Trading Standards Institute (2019)
National Grid Legal Team & National Grid Grain LNG (2018)
Various solicitors firms (2015, 2016, 2017, 2018)
Lawyers in Local Government Eastern Branch (2014)
Oxfordshire County Council Trading Standards (2012 & 2014)
South Western Consortium of Trading Standards (SWERCOTS) (2012).
Health and Safety Law
Health and Safety Sunyana Sharma has appeared for both the prosecution and defence in a number of health and safety cases in various tribunals and courts. Her experience has enabled her to be appointed to the C list of Specialist Regulatory Advocates for The Health & Safety Executive, Environment Agency and Office of Rail Regulation. Between 2017 and 2018, Sunyana was contracted to work as In House Counsel for National Grid PLC in Health, Safety and Environment. She was therefore exposed to various health, safety and environmental issues in the Electricity and Gas Industry. Her work extends to representing both local authorities as well as Companies and individuals. She has expertise in the following:
Electricity and Gas safety
Food safety
Unsafe products
Accidents at work
Environmental and pollution offences
Housing Act 2004 breaches.
Recent cases
National Grid PLC and National Grid Gas PLC (‘NGG’) (2017 to 2018):
Advised on various HSE investigations, prosecutions, improvement notices
Advised on amendments to the NGG Gas Safety Case including interpretation of duties in respect of Meters on the Network
Advised a Control of Major Accidents Hazard site on improving health and safety arrangements for the distribution network operators on site maintaining their own assets
Involved in meetings and discussions on industry led changes to the Gas Safety (Management) Regulations 1996
Advised on the regulatory compliance of major assets e.g. The Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases Regulations 2015
Led the team to update policy in relation to employees travelling overseas
Responded to ‘Environmental Information Regulations 2004’ requests
Inquest touching the death of RS (2016)
Represented an employee as an interested party at a three day jury inquest into the death of a colleague whilst at work following a fall through a Perspex roof on his employer’s premises.
Buckinghamshire County Council v. B Ltd & PD (2015)
Represented a Company and its Director for producing and supplying an ‘unsafe product’ known as the ‘Nutkins cot bed’, attempting to pervert the course of justice and breaches of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. This was a high profile case which featured on the BBC’s ‘The One Show’ due to the near death of a child.
London Borough of Islington v. C Carnavale Ltd & Others (2015)
Drafted in at the last hour to represent a Company in a complex application to dismiss for offences pursuant to regulation 4 of the General Food Regulations 2004 as enabled by the Food Safety Act 1990 relating to the traceability requirement and an offence contrary to the regulation 19(1) and 19(2) of the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 in respect of the processing of raw cow’s milk.
R v. SJ Norman (2015)
Represented the Crown in prosecuting a slaughter house for failing to take a stem cell sample from a bovine contrary to regulation 5(a) and paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 2, Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (England) Regulations 2010.
Ealing Borough Council v. MMC Ltd (2014)
Instructed in advising a Company and its management on a local authority prosecution in relation to hygiene offences and emergency prohibition order breaches under the Food Safety Act 1990 of its restaurant.
South Weald Inns Ltd v. Brentwood Borough Council (2012)
Represented South Weald Inns Ltd in an appeal of a noise abatement notice pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Health and Safety Executive v. MB Facilities Ltd (2012)
Represented the Defendant Company for breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and Work at Height Regulations 2005 arising from the fall of an employee whilst working at height.
Slough Borough Council v. Bellforce Developments Ltd, Gurpartap Singh Bhullar, and Jagdeep Singh Bhullar (2012)
Successfully prosecuted 3 Defendants in a 9 day appeal to the Crown Court for a local authority for breaches of s.234 and s.72 of the Housing Act 2004.
South Oxfordshire District Council v. Doris Davey (2011)
Successfully prosecuted a 78 year old Defendant for 11 out of 18 offences for breach of a noise abatement notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
Inquests
Sunyana Sharma’s experience in inquest work covers medical negligence cases, deaths at sea, fatal accidents at work and deaths in care home settings and suicides of community and voluntary and involuntary patients. .
She is well equipped to deal with a full range of inquest work as noted by her expertise in areas of professional disciplinary law, maritime law and health and safety work.
In November 2021, Sunyana was appointed as an Assistant Coroner for Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton and now combines this part-time role with her busy inquests’ caseload.
She provides added value to inquests as a result of her previous practice area of personal injury in which she conducted clinical negligence claims, work related illnesses and accidents and police misconduct claims.
Notable Cases
Inquest touching deaths of M, J & P (2023): Representing HM Coastguard Agency in three joint inquests following drownings that occurred during the relaxation of COVID pandemic lockdown. PFD concerns raised on the management of beach safety prior to the inquest.
Inquest touching the death of AS (2022): Represented a nurse, who had sole care of a tracheostomy child patient with complex care needs. An article 2 six-day inquest in which neglect issues raised when nurse failed to follow emergency care plan process when tracheostomy dislodged. PFD and referral to NMC avoided.
Inquest touching the deaths of YMG & PLF (2021): Represented HMCG in 10-day Judge led inquest which inquired into the drowning of two fisherman following the sinking of the French fishing vessel, the Bugaled Breizh in January 2004. The inquest considered the structural safety of the vessel, adequacy of training and equipment, the possible causes of the sinking including the involvement of another vessel or submarine and the adequacy of the search and rescue of the fishermen.
Inquest touching death of SR (2021): Represented Local Authority in an article 2 jury inquest of a drug related death of a patient who was receiving specialist treatment by Healthcare Services under s.37/s.41 of the Mental Health Act under a Restricted Order. Scope of inquest included the adequate monitoring of the deceased’s mental health and the delay in transferring to another jurisdiction, which led to the overdose.
Inquest touching the deaths of S & A (2021): Representing a neonatal nurse who erroneously administered sodium nitrite, an unlicensed drug, rather than sodium bicarbonate on two separate occasions leading to the deaths of two babies.
Inquest touching death of GPS (2021): Represented HM Coastguard Agency in article 2 inquest following the failed search and rescue of G who was found 11 days after her disappearance was first notified to the Police.
Inquest touching the death of D (2020): Represented care home following the death of an elderly resident with dementia. Coroner exploring errors made by multiple individuals in the care of the resident and poor communication between the Home and GP surgery.
Inquest touching the death of JT (2020): Represented family in an Article 2 inquest investigating failures by four clinical settings. Concerns included the response by an Ambulance Service, the care provided at two NHS Trusts one of which led to the amputation of the deceased’s leg and the emergency care given in A & E prior to death.
Inquest touching the death of BI (2018): Instructed to represent a dredger Company following a collision with a sailing boat leading to a death at sea.
Inquest touching the death of NW (2017): Instructed by HM Coastguard Agency following a death at sea in which article 2 issues were raised in relation to the collaboration of multi-agencies. No PFD Report made.
Inquest touching the death of RS (2016): Represented an employee as an IP at a 3-day jury inquest into the death of a colleague whilst at work following a fall through a Perspex roof on his employer’s premises.
Inquest touching the death of EG (2013): Represented the family of the deceased in an inquest which challenged the clinical care and treatment provided by an NHS Trust.
Susan Soloman’s principal areas of practice are professional negligence and family law.
She acts on behalf of claimants and defendants in claims against solicitors and barristers (including wasted costs) arising out of family matters (financial, children and Inheritance Act claims), general common law and crime.
She advises on all types of ancillary relief claims, including ‘big money’ cases; Inheritance Act claims; issues arising from compensation orders and the Proceeds of Crime Act and co-ownership claims.
Cases include:
Kelley v Corston [1997] 4 All ER 466;
Farrer v Copley Singletons 1997 CA;
C v C (Wasted Costs Order) [1994] 2 FLR 34 Family;
Hepburn v Hepburn [1989] 1 FLR 373; S v S [1986] Fam 189;
Harvey v Harvey [1982] Pam 83.
FAMILY
Susan's principal area of family practice is in all types of ancillary relief claims, including "big money" cases. She is experienced in working with forensic accountants and valuers. She deals with Inheritance Act claims and cases involving co-ownership. She is also instructed on behalf of claimants and by professional indemnity insurers in negligence and wasted costs claims arising out of family matters.
She is now instructed in matters arising out of Compensation Orders and the Proceeds of Crime Act.
Notable cases
C v C (Wasted Costs Order) [1994] 2 FLR 34
Family Division (claim for wasted costs against solicitors and counsel, instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain on behalf of BMIF)
Harvey v Harvey [1982] Fam 83
Hepburn v Hepburn [1989] 1 FLR 373
S v S [1986] Fam 189
COMMERCIAL
Professional negligence: acting on behalf of claimants and defendants in claims against solicitors and barristers (including wasted costs) arising out of family matters (financial, children and Inheritance Act claims), general common law and crime.
Notable cases:
Farrer v Copley Singletons 1997 CA
(solicitors' negligence: instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain on behalf of Solicitors Indemnity Fund)
Kelley v Corston [1997] 4 All ER 466 CA
(advocate's immunity: instructed by Veale Wasborough on behalf of Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund Limited)
Tagbo Ilozue accepts instructions across a broad range of Chambers’ specialisms, with a particular interest in regulatory crime, inquests, personal injury, professional negligence, professional discipline, and public law.
He brings to his practice as a barrister the knowledge and experience that he gained working as a doctor in a variety of medical and surgical specialities. Before leaving his medical career, he completed the membership exams of both the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians. He also holds a doctorate in Developmental Biology and a bachelor’s degree in Philosophy & Psychology.
Regulatory Crime
Tagbo Ilozue is a member of the 3PB Crime Team and the Public and Regulatory Group. He has a strong foundation in general crime, having dedicated roughly half his first two years of practice to defending and prosecuting in every area of crime, appearing regularly in the Magistrates’, Youth and Crown Courts. He has been instructed as trial counsel for offences including GBH with intent, possession with intent to supply class A drugs, and arranging the commission of sexual activity with a child. He has also appeared before the Court of Appeal in an appeal against sentence during which his submissions were described by the bench as “impressive”.
Tagbo now specialises in regulatory crime and in the related matters that fall within the civil jurisdiction of the magistrates’ court and the tribunals. He has a particular interest in health and safety cases, but he welcomes instructions to advise and represent prosecutors, defendants, applicants, and respondents in all areas of regulatory law. He is a member of both the Criminal Bar Association and the Health and Safety Lawyers' Association.
Selected recent instructions include:
M v R: Conduct endangering ships, structures or individuals
Advising the MCA on evidence and next steps in relation to an intended prosecution for an offence under s.58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.
B v C: Appeal against a civil penalty notice
Representing the applicant landlord in his appeal to the First Tier Tribunal against a penalty imposed by the local authority for alleged breach of the Electrical Safety Regulations.
M v S: Breach of the COLREGs
Representing the MCA in the prosecution of a master accused of failing to comply with the COLREGs while navigating his vessel off the coast of the Isle of Wight (in the Crown Court at Newport).
N v W: Depositing/transferring controlled waste in breach of the Environmental Protection Act
Representing the defendant at Merthyr Tydfil Magistrates’ Court and advising him in relation to prospects, procedure, and the merits of an out-of-court resolution of the case.
M v W: Failure to comply with the Blue Code
Representing the MCA in the prosecution of a vessel owner accused of failing to comply with the relevant safety regulations when taking his vessel across the Atlantic (in the Crown Court at Southampton).
R v E: Confiscation Order Enforcement Hearing
Representing the defendant in resisting activation of a term of custody following default on payments due under a confiscation order; at Weston-Super-Mare Magistrates’ Court.
N v H: Being in control of unlicensed HMOs
Representing the prosecuting local authority in a 3-day trial at Nottingham Magistrates’ Court.
L v C: Appeal against a noise abatement notice
Advising the appellant landlords on the prospects of success and representing them at Cambridge Magistrates’ Court.
G v A: Application to extend pre-charge bail
Representing the respondent defendant in resisting the application, heard at Tameside Magistrates’ Court.
P v M: Exceeding the speed limit in Poole Harbour
Representing the prosecuting harbour authority in a plea and sentencing hearing at Poole Magistrates Court.
P v R: Exceeding the speed limit in Poole Harbour
Advising the prosecuting harbour authority on evidence and prospects.
S v Q: Failure to pay business rates
Advising the defendant on the prospects of successfully resisting a liability order.
B v B: Committal application – unpaid council tax liability orders
Representing the prosecuting local authority in an application for committal to prison for failure to pay nearly ten years of council tax debts.
Inquests
Tagbo Ilozue is a member of the 3PB Inquests Team. His medical and scientific background gives him a valuable insight into the sensitive issues raised in such proceedings and a particular skill in dealing with complex expert evidence.
He will provide representation for any interested party. Recent cases include:
Re: II
Representing His Majesty’s Coastguard in a 3-week inquest touching on the death of a man who drowned in the English Channel off the coast of Dorset.
Re: MA
Representing the family in a 1-day inquest touching on the death of a preterm infant who died shortly after birth.
Re: FO
Representing His Majesty’s Coastguard in a half-day inquest touching on the death of a man who drowned after jumping into the Thames to try to save a woman who was struggling in the water.
Re: TR
Representing a care-home in the final 2 days of a 4-day inquest (Tagbo stepped in at short notice to cover for a colleague) touching on the death of a resident at the home who sustained a catastrophic head injury in a fall.
Re: LD
Representing Dorset Police in a PIRH for an inquest touching on the death of a woman who was murdered by her husband.
Re: CG
Representing a company in a PIRH for an anticipated 2-day jury inquest touching on the death of a man who died in the course of his work as a contractor for the company.
Re: BW
Representing the family in a 2-day inquest touching on the death of a patient who passed away shortly after he received an overdose of lorazepam in a drug administration error. Tagbo also advised regarding the quantum of the associated clinical negligence claim, which reached a favourable settlement following the inquest.
Tagbo is a member of the Health and Safety Lawyers’ Association.
Personal Injury
Tagbo Ilozue is a member of the 3PB Personal Injury Group. He has amassed considerable experience in Personal Injury, acting for claimants and defendants in multi-track, fast track and small claims, in stage 3 hearings and infant settlements, and in all manner of related preliminary and interlocutory hearings. He appears regularly in the county court and maintains a busy paperwork practice, drafting pleadings and advising in relation to liability, quantum, and procedure.
He has been instructed on cases involving:
Road traffic accidents
Credit hire
Employers’ liability
Public liability
Occupiers’ liability
Health and Safety regulations
Allegations of Fraud and Fundamental Dishonesty
Selected recent cases include:
Z v A: Advice and Schedule of loss (Employers’ liability)
Advising a 36-year-old claimant on quantum and preparing a schedule for the permanent finger injury that he sustained in the course of his work, causing him disadvantage on the open labour market.
S v S: Multi-track trial
Representing the claimant prison officer at Central London County Court in an employers’ liability claim for a permanent shoulder injury sustained during a fight between prisoners.
P v C: Advice and Particulars of Claim (Occupiers’ liability)
Advising the claimant (on the prospects of success and on the appropriate defendant to name) and drafting the particulars of claim, in a claim for injuries sustained by a contractor who fell down an uncovered manhole shaft on premises managed by the defendant.
N v U: Fast track trial (RTA)
Representing the defendant insurer in a claim from a pedestrian, defended on the basis that there was no contact between the insured’s vehicle and the claimant and the claim was fundamentally dishonest (Central London County Court).
R v W: Advice and Particulars of Claim (Occupiers’ liability)
Advising the claimant on the defendants to pursue and drafting the particulars of claim for a multi-track claim arising from a knee injury sustained after a fall in a shopping centre.
K v B: Advice (RTA)
Advising the claimant on liability and expert evidence in relation to an injury sustained after the sudden braking of a bus.
D v A: Fast Track (RTA and credit hire)
Represented the defendant insurer in a claim (including £38,000 in credit hire fees) by a moped driver who accused the defendant’s insured of turning his car into the path of the claimant’s moped.
Tagbo is a member of the Personal Injuries Bar Association.
Clinical Negligence
Tagbo Ilozue is a member of the 3PB Clinical Negligence Group and the Professional Negligence Bar Association.
Before he came to the bar, Tagbo worked for a number of years in emergency medicine, acute medicine and a range of surgical specialities in numerous hospitals across the country. He gained familiarity with multiple clinical fields, and extensive experience in treating patients and working alongside healthcare practitioners. He thereby gained an invaluable insight into the key matters lying at the heart of clinical negligence disputes.
While working as junior doctor Tagbo achieved the rare distinction of completing the membership exams for both the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians. His experience of research in a developmental biology laboratory, while working towards his PhD, enhanced his capacity for forensic analysis and ingrained a meticulous attention to detail that has translated into his legal practice.
Tagbo acts for both claimants and defendants. His practice to date has been primarily in clinical negligence; however, he has also advised in relation to solicitors’ negligence claims. The experience he has acquired translates directly to professional negligence generally and he is keen to develop his practice to include professional negligence claims in additional fields, particularly proceedings against lawyers.
His recent work includes:
Advising a corporate claimant on the prospects of success of a claim against its previous solicitors for losses sustained after a commercial tenancy agreement fell through.
Advising a defendant on merits and quantum, and drafting the letter of response, in relation to a proposed claim for allegedly unnecessary hip revision surgery.
Advising a defendant regarding pre-action steps, and drafting the letter of instruction for the liability and causation expert, in a proposed claim for allegedly negligent hip replacement surgery.
Advising a defendant in relation to pre-action steps in a proposed claim for an alleged failure to obtain informed consent prior to a haemorrhoidectomy.
Advising a claimant on the merits of a claim for perinatal injury due to the delayed diagnosis of breech presentation.
Advising a claimant on expert evidence in relation to a delayed diagnosis of hip dysplasia after birth.
Advising a defendant on quantum, on the amendments that needed to be made to the expert evidence, and on settlement offers in relation to a claim arising from the peri-operative management of anticoagulation therapy.
Advising a claimant on the merits of a claim in relation to the delayed diagnosis of an ectopic pregnancy.
Advising a claimant on the prospects of success and evidence required for a proposed claim against her previous solicitor due to the excess costs and unfavourable outcome alleged to have been incurred in an employment dispute.
Professional Discipline and Regulatory Law
Tagbo Ilozue is a member of the 3PB Public and Regulatory Group and a member of the Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers. He will advise and act for regulators and registrants in relation to proceedings before any professional regulator. His medical background gives him an invaluable insight in proceedings before the healthcare regulators.
Selected recent cases include:
G v H
Representing a Responsible Pharmacist in a 4-day hearing before the GPhC FtP Committee in relation to allegations of misconduct arising from sales of codeine linctus. The case was dismissed after a successful submission of no case to answer.
N v W
Representing a nurse in 3-day hearing before the NMC FtP Committee in a charge of impaired fitness to practise following a conviction.
B v J
Advising a registrant on prospects and evidence in relation to a complaint to the BACP alleging failures to comply with professional standards involving client trust, competence, record-keeping, and communication in respect of counselling services provided.
N v H
Representing a nurse in a 2-week hearing before the NMC FtP Committee (adjourned part-heard) in relation to allegations of misconduct and lack of competence.
N v W
Representing a nurse in a 9-day hearing before the NMC FtP Committee involving allegations of misconduct arising from dishonesty.
N v H
Representing a nurse in an 18-day hearing before the NMC FtP Committee in relation to an allegation of misconduct arising from multiple professional incidents over a 3-year period.
H v O
Representing a speech and language therapist in a 5-day hearing before the Conduct and Competence Committee of the HCPC in relation to an allegation of misconduct in connection with her medicolegal practice.
N v M
Representing a nurse in a 3-day hearing before the NMC FtP Committee in relation to allegations of misconduct arising from fraud.
Various
Representing the NMC in numerous interim order, and substantive order review hearings.
Public and Regulatory
Tagbo Ilozue is a member of the 3PB Public and Regulatory Group. He has a strong interest in public law and is keen to develop his practice in this area.
He is a co-author of the LexisNexis PSL practice note on the Fisheries Act 2020 and he has advised the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on the Implementation of the Polar Code within domestic legislation.
He is a member of the Administrative Law Bar Association. He is also a member of the Attorney General’s Junior Junior scheme and welcomes instructions on that basis; he is currently assisting with the Post Office Inquiry in that capacity.
Theresa Lim qualified as a solicitor in April 2005, and transferred to the Bar and joined 3PB in October 2019. She has considerable experience undertaking a wide range of advocacy in family matters with a strong in-depth knowledge and specialism in complex public and private law proceedings, Family Law Act proceedings and proceedings under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court for protection from Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE).
She has been a member of the Law Society’s Children Panel and regularly represents both children and vulnerable adults.
Theresa is highly motivated with exceptional interpersonal skills and a proven track record within the legal profession as an accomplished and articulate advocate. She delivers an excellent service to clients working calmly and efficiently under pressure.
FAMILY
Theresa has a strong and in-depth knowledge and specialism in complex public and private law proceedings. Objectively and effectively representing both lay and professional clients from all social backgrounds, maintaining a professional presence and providing a high standard of representation and client care to each client she represents.
Theresa regularly represents clients via the Official Solicitor; or in cases where clients and/or witnesses have additional educational needs, and/or participation directions have been given.
She is an expert in care and adoption and private children law cases, injunctions and domestic violence disputes.
Care and Adoption
Theresa Lim regularly acts for parents, guardians, extended family members, intervenors, and the Official Solicitor.
She has a particular interest in NAI cases and has appeared in cases involving brain and skull injury, rib fractures, limb fractures, extensive bruising and sexual abuse.
Theresa is experienced in representing parties in care cases involving:
Non accidental injury/death of a child
Sexual abuse (parent and or sibling)(acting for the alleged perpetrator/victim/non-perpetrating parent or carer)
Expert/medico-legal issues (including Factitious disorder by proxy)
Chronic neglect, drug and alcohol addiction (including cases in the FDAC)
Domestic violence and sexual abuse/offending
Serious mental illness/personality disorders
S.38(6) assessments
S.34 applications
Adoption/Special Guardianship/Wardship
Secure Accommodation/Deprivation of Liberty
Parents or children with special needs/cognitive impairment and capacity issues
Revocation of placement orders/discharge of Care Orders
As a solicitor, Theresa was the first to give notice to Birmingham City Council under S. 14 Children Act 1989 leading to one of the first Special Guardianship Orders being made in Birmingham.
Private Law
Theresa Lim has a wide range of experience in private law applications, and applications under the Family Law Act.Theresa regularly acts for parents, carers, and Rule 16.4 Guardians.
Theresa is experienced in representing parties in private law cases involving:
Physical abuse
Sexual abuse (parent and or sibling)(acting for the alleged perpetrator/victim/non-perpetrating parent or carer)
Domestic violence and sexual abuse/offending
Parental Alienation
Implacable hositility
Serious mental illness/psychological disorders
Drug and alcohol misuse
Removal from the jurisdiction/relocation in England and Wales
Prohibited Steps Orders
Specific Issue Orders including a child’s end of life care
S.91(14) Orders
Recovery Orders
Tipstaff
S.37 reports/ICO/ISO
Theresa has represented parties in non-molestation and occupation order proceedings and has combined the protective orders under the Children Act and Family Law Act to obtain protection for victims of domestic violence and so-called “honour” violence.
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.
Thomas Talbot-Ponsonby was called to the Bar in 2011 and practises in a wide variety of property, commercial and chancery matters, including neighbour and boundary disputes, landlord and tenant, and probate matters, as well as other commercial disputes and insolvency.
Before coming to the Bar, Thomas practised as a solicitor for over 12 years, working in a wide variety of property and corporate work, including related tax advice.
COMMERCIAL
Thomas is an experienced commercial and chancery practitioner. His broad litigation and advisory work covers most areas of the Law normally litigated in the Chancery Division, including:
Corporate and personal insolvency
Company law and partnership
Shareholder disputes
Contract
Tax
Thomas’ practice also encompasses contentious and non-contentious work in the following fields: Property, trusts, wills and estates and probate.
Thomas has also acted as a specialist adviser in relation to VAT, to construction, development, public and charitable organisations.
He practised as a solicitor for over 12 years before transferring to the Bar, and has experience of a broad range of transactional property and corporate work. This includes investment sales and purchases, development, refinancing and landlord and tenant work.
Thomas appears regularly in the County Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal and in Land Registry adjudication proceedings.
Reported Cases
Hobson v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2021] EWHC 1317 (Ch) [2021] EWHC 1317 (Ch)
Baker and another v Craggs [2018] All ER (D) 105
Société Générale v Goldas Kuyumculuk Sanayi Ithalat Ihracat A.S. and others; Société Générale v Goldas Kuyumculuk Sanayi Ithalat Ihracat A.S. and another [2018] EWCA Civ 1093
Thomas Homes Ltd v MacGregor [2016] UKUT 495 (LC)
Cotton & Anor v Brudenell-Bruce, Earl of Cardigan & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 1312 (17 October 2014)
Melvin Allan Knight (2) Yvonne Knight v Chalgrove Parish Council (Miscellaneous cases : Miscellaneous) [2015] EWLandRA 2014_0799
PROPERTY AND ESTATES
Since his call to the Bar in 2011, Thomas has worked predominantly in property and chancery matters. This includes landlord and tenant matters, boundary disputes, and disputed registration of land and probate. In addition, he also has experience of a variety of other commercial disputes and insolvency.
He practised as a solicitor for over 12 years before transferring to the Bar, and has experience of a broad range of transactional property and corporate work. This includes investment sales and purchases, development, refinancing and landlord and tenant work.
Thomas has a deep knowledge of the law and has acted for a range of clients from private individuals to multinational companies.
He is a specialist in relation to all property related taxes. He has a detailed knowledge of stamp duty land tax and the operation of various reliefs. He has advised in relation to the tax liability of complex transactions.
Thomas has also acted as a specialist adviser in relation to VAT, to construction, development, public and charitable organisations.
MEDIATION
Thomas is a CIArb accredited mediator.
Tom Tyler has a background in all areas of family law. He specialises in giving advice and representing parties in all kinds of family finance disputes. He is usually involved in matters of greater complexity but he is always pleased to be briefed in more straightforward cases involving divorce, ancillary relief, trusts of land and property.
Tom is frequently instructed in divorce/financial proceedings where a party faces restraint and confiscation proceedings in the Crown Court having been convicted or accused of a serious criminal offence such as fraud, money laundering, drug/people trafficking. This is a factor that complicates the financial aspects of the divorce and Tom has a great deal of expertise in this area.
Tom is instructed by the Serious Fraud Office as well as the Organised Crime Division of the Crown Prosecution Service as intervener in ancillary relief cases as well as by the parties themselves and affected third parties. Tom is currently representing the Crown Prosecution Service in the Gohil litigation that has recently been before the Supreme Court and is now ongoing once more in the High Court. Tom enjoys giving seminars and lectures on this shady corner of the law.
Legal experience is undoubtedly very valuable, however one of Tom’s outstanding qualities is his recognition of the uniquely difficult nature of family litigation involving children and money. He has been through the divorce and financial dispute process himself and therefore offers his clients a true understanding born of personal experience. He is a genuine source of wise and sympathetic advice at a difficult and painful time for either husbands or wives. If a dispute is capable of compromise then Tom will almost invariably sort it out and save the cost of further litigation. However, there may be factors that prevent agreement being reached and in such circumstances Tom can be relied upon to fight his client’s corner.
Tom is direct access trained and is always pleased to accept instructions from members of the public who choose not to instruct a solicitor.
Areas of Practice:
Divorce
All aspects of matrimonial finance
Trusts of Land and Property
Inheritance Act disputes
Asset Forfeiture and Confiscation
FAMILY
Tom is experienced in all aspects of family law matrimonial finance litigation and Children Act disputes including:
Co-habitation litigation under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996
Safeguarding of assets via freezing orders
Maintenance pending suit
Proceedings involving Interveners and other third parties
Ancillary relief in England & Wales after a foreign decree
Enforcement and appeals
Setting aside of orders due to non-disclosure
Tom is always pleased to receive instructions from clients on a direct access basis. If you are considering instructing Tom, then he would welcome the opportunity of speaking to you on the telephone or Skype prior to being sent your papers. Subject to the complexity of the issues on the case, there is usually no fee for a preliminary consultation of this nature.
PUBLIC AND REGULATORY
Asset and Tax Recovery
Tom is frequently instructed in divorce/financial proceedings where a party faces restraint and confiscation proceedings in the Crown Court having been convicted or accused of a serious criminal offence such as fraud, money laundering, drug/people trafficking. This is a factor that complicates the financial aspects of the divorce and Tom has a great deal of expertise in this area.
Tom is instructed by prosecuting authorities such as the Serious Fraud Office as well as the Organised Crime Division of the Crown Prosecution Service as intervener in ancillary relief cases in the Family/County Court as well as in the Crown Court. He is instructed by the Crown as well as by the parties themselves and affected third parties.
Tom is currently representing the Crown Prosecution Service in the Gohil litigation that has recently been before the Supreme Court and is now ongoing once more in the High Court.
Tom is always pleased to receive instructions from clients on a direct access basis. If you are considering instructing Tom, then he would welcome the opportunity of speaking to you on the telephone or Skype prior to being sent your papers. Subject to the complexity of the issues on the case, there is usually no fee for a preliminary consultation of this nature.
Thomas Acworth is a criminal specialist. His practice encompasses general crime, regulatory crime and police law.
Crime
Thomas Acworth’s practice covers the spectrum of criminal and quasi-criminal matters: from cases of serious violence to technical road traffic and regulatory offences. He combines meticulous preparation with excellent client care to deliver personable, pragmatic and effective representation. Thomas prosecutes and defends.
Appellate Work
F v The Queen (Jamaica): Murder. Advising on appeal to Privy Council on issues of identification, character evidence and incompetency of counsel. Case concerned a gangland contract killing.
R v C & D: Armed Robbery. Resisting appeal against terminating ruling following successful submission of no case to answer. Case concerned joint-enterprise and circumstantial evidence.
R v JJ: Making indecent images of children. Appeal against indefinite sexual harm prevention order.
Drugs
R v Y & Others (Operation Whale). Conspiracy to Import Class A. NCA investigation into international cocaine smuggling ring based overseas. Case concerned crew of a super yacht smuggling cocaine into the UK, case linked to another importation of £160 million worth of cocaine into UK. Evidence included encrypted messaging services and GPS locators.
R v Q & Two Others: Possession of Class A with Intent. Albanian nationals accused of involvement in substantial cocaine distribution network (multiple kilos) in London. Encrochat evidence.
R v L & Six Others (Operation Warbler): Conspiracy to Supply Class A. Led by David Richards. County lines conspiracy. Substantial telephone evidence. Issues of human trafficking, forced criminality and extended abuse of process arguments.
R v G & Five Others (Operation Hector): Conspiracy to Supply Class A and Human Trafficking. Led by Simon Jones. County lines conspiracy. Substantial telephone evidence.
R v W (Operation Orochi): Concerned in the Supply of Class A. Defendant from Essex orchestrated supply of Class A drugs in Sussex. Case turned entirely on circumstantial observations of D together with extensive cell-site evidence.
R v F (Operation Crosslands): Conspiracy to Supply Class A. Conspiracy to supply crack cocaine and heroin. Undercover police officers.
R v U & Six Others (Operation Scowl): Production of Cannabis. Defendant of previous good character accused of producing cannabis for commercial supply. Case linked to large Encrochat operation involving supply of cocaine.
Homicide (Murder and Manslaughter)
character accused of attempting to kill his wife by drowning her. Complex psychiatric issues. Defence of insanity.
R v W & Six Others (Operation Beckon): Assisting an Offender (Murder). Leading Laura Hollingbery. Young defendant accused of hiding a murder weapon shortly after the killing in question took place.
R v Q and Another (Operation Powerboat): Assisting an Offender (Murder). Led by Tom Evans. Vulnerable defendant accused of assisting his co-accused (tried for murder and attempted murder) to escape from the police.
R v L and Two Youths (Operation Swallowtail): Causing GBH with Intent. Led by Gemma White. Three teenage boys accused of beating a care-worker to near death with a log. Case attracted national media attention.
R v A Youth: Wounding with Intent. 13-year-old boy stabbed a fellow teenager after following her into a housing estate on Halloween. Defendant asked victim how dead she wanted to be before inflicting wound. Tried in the Crown Court.
R v J (A Youth): Wounding with Intent, Robbery, Arson: 16-year-old boy stabbed male in street following altercation, robbed elderly female of handbag and set fire to his care home. Complex mental health issues and issues of Crown Court jurisdiction.
R v X: Wounding with Intent. Accused stabbed injured party six times. Wounds inflicted to the neck, abdomen and internal organs. Complex mental health issues.
R v K & Others: Wounding with Intent, False Imprisonment, Robbery, Threats to Kill and Possession of Firearm with Intent. Allegations of detention and torture following a drug deal gone awry.
R v M: Aggravated Burglary, False Imprisonment and ABH. Defendant accused of taking his ex-partner hostage at their former home.
R v T & H: Armed Robbery. Knife-point joint enterprise robbery of commercial premises. Both defendants ran cutthroat defences.
R v F & X: Aggravated Burglary and Dwelling Robbery. Allegations of armed home invasions in which defendants demanded drugs and drug money.
R v J: Aggravated Burglary. Allegation of home invasion during which victim assaulted with incapacitant spray and hammer.
R v V & Others: Dwelling Robbery. Home invasion, during which victims attacked with hammers, knuckledusters and incapacitant spray. Gangland context.
R v D, E & F: Robbery and Dwelling Robbery. Joint-enterprise ventures. Elderly and vulnerable victims.
Sexual Offences
R v Y: Rape, Indecent Assault and Gross Indecency. Defendant accused of systematic sexual abuse on his step-sons and their teenage friends.
R v K: Rape and Indecent Assault. Defendant accused of historic anal, vaginal and oral rape of ex-wife during their marriage. Also accused of systematic sexual abuse of step-daughter within that relationship.
R v Z: Rape of Child under 13. Defendant accused of historic anal and oral rape of step-sibling.
R v U: Rape. Student of previous good character accused of raping fellow student following night out in town.
R v I: Rape. Defendant accused of raping his wife pending the instigation of divorce proceedings.
R v K: Assault by Penetration of Child under 13 and Sexual Assault of Child under 13. Defendant alleged to have molested his youngest biological sister in her sleep.
R v L: Causing Children to Engage in Sexual Activity and Sexual Assaults of Children under 13. Defendant with learning difficulties accused of sexually touching his two great-nieces, aged four and seven.
R v P: Sexual Assault of Child under 13, Causing Child under 13 to Engage in Sexual Activity. Allegations of grooming and serious sexual abuse on four-year-old complainant. Defendant was C’s biological grandfather.
R v J: Sexual Assault of Child under 13, Voyeurism and Making Indecent Images of Children. Defendant accused of planting hidden cameras around the house to observe his step-daughter in a state of undress, sexually assaulting her during the night and taking indecent photographs of her whilst she slept.
R v H: Attempting to Incite Child to Engage in Penetrative Sexual Activity and Making Indecent Images of Children. Computer professional accused of inciting a fictitious 15-year-old to engage in serious sexual activity and creating numerous indecent images. Case involved complex computer evidence.
R v K: Disclosing Private Sexual Images. Defendant put indecent images of her best friend on Facebook. Defence of consent.
Regulatory Crime
R v H: Bankrupt acting as Company Director. Defendant set up two companies whilst bankrupt, one of which traded for an extensive period.
HMRC v X Ltd & Others: Trading in Breach of VAT and PAYE Security Notices. Notable regional company continually trading in breach of VAT and PAYE security notices. History of difficulties with HMRC.
Local Authority v X: Contempt of Court. Vulnerable, elderly client. Allegations of breach of ASBO.
X County Council v F: Failing to Produce Waste Transfer Notice. Prosecution of a business that was flouting the Waste Regulations and causing a neighbourhood nuisance.
X County Council v Y: Knowingly Failing to Secure Regular Attendance at School. Child in GCSE year. Non-compliance following previous conviction. Dispute over learning centre provision.
Police Force v S: Closure Order. Acting for applicant police force. Suspected crack house. Occupant threatening neighbours with violence.
Fraud, Business and Financial Crime
R v Capt. Y and Others: Fraud. Officer in UK Special Forces accused of illegal disposal of ammunition and appropriation of the funds from sale. Activities alleged to have taken place whilst on exercises overseas. Considerable national security implications. Witnesses included serving UKSF officers.
R v Z: Fraud. Employee accused of defrauding family-run business of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Offences alleged to have taken place over at least 15 years.
R v J: Fraud. NCO in the Grenadier Guards alleged to have perpetrated a number ‘sweetheart’ frauds against vulnerable women that he met on dating apps.
R v H: Bankrupt acting as Company Director. Defendant set up two companies whilst bankrupt, one of which traded for an extensive period.
R v A: Failing to Keep Records as Required by Companies Act. Defendant was director of a business that went into CVL. He did not cooperate with the liquidator or the Insolvency Service and never delivered the company’s books to either.
Military/Courts martial
R v Capt. Y and Others: Fraud. Officer in UK Special Forces accused of illegal disposal of ammunition and appropriation of the funds from sale. Activities alleged to have taken place whilst on exercises overseas. Considerable national security implications. Witnesses included serving UKSF officers.
R v U: Breach of Standing Orders and Assault. NCO in Royal Artillery accused of fighting with other NCOs whilst drunk and on duty.
R v H: Desertion. Private in Port and Maritime Regiment accused of desertion following a two year absence, during which he obtained a civilian job. Defence of intention to return.
R v J: Fraud. NCO in the Grenadier Guards alleged to have perpetrated a number ‘sweetheart’ frauds against vulnerable women that he met on dating apps. Case attracted attention in the national press.
Motoring Offences
R v L (Operation Postcard): Causing Death by Careless Driving. Road traffic collision between van and commercial vehicle. Prosecution commenced following CPS request to pause inquest into death of deceased. Complex issues of causation (collision and death), medical evidence and vulnerable witnesses.
R v O (Operation Determine): Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving. Defendant of previous good character. Allegation of dangerous driving by excessive speed. Complainant paralysed as a result of collision.
R v T: Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving. Serious road traffic collision. Client significantly over the drink drive limit. Victim sustained serious injuries and required a skin-graft.
R v M: Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving. Client drove on the wrong side of the road and caused a collision. Victim sustained significant psychiatric injuries and a broken neck.
Proceeds of Crime
R v K: POCA following conviction for Fraud. Extensive arguments on applicability of proportionality to benefit figure, valuation of total benefit and failure to take account of statutory surcharge.
R v K (and Others): POCA following convictions for organised theft. Contested benefit figure and applicability of assumptions based on Crown’s acceptance of a limited basis of plea.
Public and Regulatory
Thomas Acworth’s public and regulatory practice focuses on regulatory crime and police law. With experience of prosecuting and defending ‘traditional’ criminal cases, an eye for detail and an aptitude for technical law, Thomas represents his clients with skill beyond his year of call.
Police law
Thomas is regarded as a “go-to” barrister in the field of firearms licensing. He has acted for police forces across England as well as individuals seeking the restoration of their certificates. Thomas is highly regarded for his ability to deal with cases sensitively, pragmatically and robustly. He appears in the Crown Court, conducting licensing appeals at first instance and has conducted appeals by way of case stated in the Administrative Court.
Chief Constable of Surrey v Smith: Appeal by way of Case Stated. Whether Crown Court’s decision at first instance rational. Arguments on extension of time.
Chief Constable v U: Firearms Licence Appeal. Appeared against a QC. City executive’s shotgun certificate revoked on basis of post-acquittal restraining order and mental health concerns. Case required detailed analysis of psychiatric reports.
Chief Constable v F: Firearms Licence Appeal. Hundreds of guns found at residence of a registered firearms dealer together with prohibited weapons and prohibited ammunition. PII and evidential issues resultant from concurrent criminal proceedings.
Chief Constable v Q: Firearms Licence Appeal. Revocation of firearms certificate on basis of intelligence reports. Appeal concerned PII and public safety considerations.
Chief Constable v Z: Firearms Licence Appeal. Refusal to grant shotgun certificate on basis of minor, historic, offences of violence and ongoing tendency to obsessive and aggressive behaviour.
Chief Constable v H: Firearms Licence Appeal. Lengthy appeal brought by practising solicitor. Issues of mental health and domestic abuse, both historic and contemporary. Sensitive handling of vulnerable parties.
Chief Constable v Q: Firearms Licence Appeal. Revocation based on irresponsible behaviour (minor road traffic incidents) and insecure storage of weapons.
Thomas O'Donohoe specialises in employment and personal injury law as an advocate and also has a busy advisory practice. He is willing to act on a conditional fee basis in appropriate cases.
PERSONAL INJURY
Thomas acts for claimants and defendants on fast and multi-track claims on matters of liability, quantum, costs and procedure. His work ranges from providing pre-action advice to drafting, conducting interim applications, and appearing at trial.
Recent cases have included:
determining whether or not a defendant would be permitted to call its own expert evidence in relation to an alleged LVI collision
determining the claimant’s ‘employer’ and applying the tests for the alternative bases of liability under the health and safety regulations
a local authority’s liability for a dangerous defect on the highway
employer’s liability for an unsafe system of maintenance work
occupier’s liability for spillages in a nightclub
split liability for a motorway road traffic accident
costs budgeting in a multi-track claim involving complex orthopaedic evidence
the assessment of general and special damages for burn injuries and complex dental injuries sustained by two young children
the evaluation and settlement of a potentially career-long loss of earnings claim arising from alleged reduced cognitive abilities and involving intended future work outside the UK
the assessment of loss of earnings in respect of a claimant self-employed through a limited company structure and also as a sole trader and employee
the analysis of covert surveillance evidence of a claimant said to have been exaggerating her injuries
Thomas has a great deal of recent experience with costs budgeting and recently presented an update on that subject on behalf of the PI group to clients and solicitors of chambers.
Recent experience on behalf of defendants in particular includes striking out credit hire and other financial claims when instructed on behalf of a major regional bus company; striking out and obtaining an ‘exceptional circumstances’ costs award under section IIIA of CPR Part 45 in favour of a defendant to a personal injury claim; cross-examining a claimant at a hearing for the assessment of damages resulting in a significant reduction in general damages from the level indicated by the Judicial College guidelines; and representing multiple defendants at trial defending claims brought by multiple claimants.
Thomas is a member of the Personal Injuries Bar Association and is happy to accept instructions on a conditional fee basis where appropriate.
Credit Hire
Thomas is regularly instructed by claimants and defendants in proceedings involving claims for credit hire charges, often in addition to other heads of loss including personal injuries. Thomas has particular experience of the operation of the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008 and the analysis of rates evidence including cross-examination of the authors of rates reports. Thomas has also recently advised on claims for credit hire charges in respect of a damaged PSV licensed vehicle in a case also potentially engaging the ex turpi causa principle on the basis of unlawful loss of use as well as requiring consideration of relevant VOSA guidelines and the adequacy of the claimant’s insurance for hire and reward purposes under s.145 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
EMPLOYMENT
Thomas’s range of employment work includes acting for claimants and respondents in multi-day and multi-party cases, and encompasses all forms of discrimination as well as the operation of the TUPE regulations, unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, claims for wages and breach of contract (including bonus schemes) and protective awards regime under TULRA 1992.
Thomas recently appeared successfully for the claimant in the employment tribunal and then in the EAT by way of written submissions opposing the Notice of Appeal at a preliminary hearing under paragraph 11(8) of the EAT Practice Direction 2013 in a whistleblowing case. Permission to appeal was refused and so the client retained his substantial award of damages obtained at trial when also represented by Thomas.
Thomas also appeared in the EAT for the successful respondent employer in Kisoka v Ratnpinyotip [2014] ICR D17 resisting the claimant’s appeal in circumstances where the employer had maintained its original decision to dismiss the claimant despite the claimant’s appeal against dismissal having been referred to an external panel which had recommended reinstatement - the first appellate decision on this particular point.
Thomas also acted in the employment tribunal and the EAT for the claimant in a successful claim for enhanced redundancy pay in which the claimant recovered her statutory redundancy pay as well as £25,000 of additional contractual redundancy pay following an amendment to the claim made on Thomas’s advice to claim statutory as well as contractual redundancy pay.
Recently Thomas has also acted for the successful parties in cases including:
a multi-day claim for disability discrimination against a major public transport employer
an award of £50,000 in favour of a claimant client unfairly constructively dismissed
a 4-day hearing of claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination following a dismissal from the London Ambulance Service for ill-health
the defence of a solicitors’ firm against claims for unfair dismissal for gross misconduct and race discrimination
the successful defence of a retirement home against claims of unfair dismissal and age discrimination.
Other unfair dismissal cases of interest have involved:
the application of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 in relation to an employer’s policy of obtaining Enhanced Disclosures in respect of certain categories of staff
the reasonableness of reliance by a major high-street retailer on health and safety audits in dismissing for alleged misconduct
the circumstances in which a volunteer charity worker might be an employee within the meaning of the ERA 1996.
Other recent discrimination cases have addressed:
whether the alleged verbal abuse of a ‘nationality-specific’ nature was because of the claimant’s nationality / national origins for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010
the point at which the burden of proof shifts to the employer in a claim of age discrimination
alleged pregnancy-related discrimination in circumstances where the claimant’s male colleague covering her maternity leave was said to have been offered training and promotion not notified or offered to the claimant.
Thomas also has recent experience of applying for interim relief and representing parties at judicial mediation.
Furthermore, Thomas advises employees and employers on the scope and enforceability of restrictive covenants in employment contracts. Recent clients have included a firm of solicitors regarding a new member of staff joining the firm from a similar firm in the same geographical area.
Thomas also regularly gives talks to solicitors and employers/HR professionals on topical employment law issues. Recent topics have included when and how to bring different types of employment claims in the ET or county courts, practical approaches to preliminary hearings and judicial mediation, and recent developments in the law relating to reasonable adjustments.
Thomas is a member of the Employment Law Bar Association and the Employment Law Association.
Before coming to the Bar, Thomas was a professional guitar player and teacher and in his spare time still plays electric, steel-string and classical guitar.
Tim Devlin is a highly-respected and successful trial barrister and adviser on all aspects of criminal law, including serious violence, sexual offences, firearms, drugs, fraud and associated activity. The former MP for Stockton South (1987-1997), Tim was PPS to the Attorney-General from 1992-1994.
Tim is regularly instructed by the Crown on his own - or as leading junior counsel - in serious cases with several defendants. These are often drug, gang or fraud conspiracies. Some of the more high-profile cases have been reported in the national and local media.
He frequently appears opposite Queens Counsel or senior juniors in complex cases or cases of gravity. He is graded as a CPS Grade 4 prosecutor on their Special Casework and Homicide lists and is a rape specialist counsel.
Recent cases include prosecution of 18 members of a gang resulting in pleas by all except 5 defendants who were later found guilty after a trial; a drug conspiracy trial at Ipswich and cases involving guns and drugs at the Central Criminal Court.
Tim is frequently instructed in drug importation and tax frauds. He has acted alone in cases of bank fraud, insurance fraud and frauds by deception on his own and with a junior against multiple counsel for the defence, securing convictions. This is achieved by thorough preparation and reducing complicated facts to simple admissions and schedules.
He was also the successful prosecutor, in Birmingham Crown Court, of the first cyber-crime case - securing the conviction of the man who organised the DDOS attack that took down the Home Office website and that of Mrs Theresa May in 2012.
Tim’s experience of serious sexual offences trials is impressive and extensive. His sympathetic and sensitive approach makes him particularly adept at dealing with young or vulnerable witnesses. He is a RASSO specialist counsel. He was involved in the pilot of s28 pre-recorded cross-examination at Kingston Crown Court.
Tim is accredited by the Inns of Court College of Advocacy as a trainer/facilitator for vulnerable witnesses. Tim also often provides charging advice in sexual cases, and cases involving mental illness. Tim is also fully aware of diversity issues, having prosecuted sexual cases involving the Muslim, Hassidic Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Evangelical and other religious communities.
He is currently dealing with cases as varied as a five-handed retail fraud; five-handed wounding with intent; kidnapping case; causing death by dangerous driving; sexual interference with children; and rape. These are defence and prosecution cases in Hampshire, Dorset and the Isle of Wight.
He supervised the Bar Council's response on Criminal Law and Brexit and is a noted contributor to the Home Office consultation on Hate Crime. In 2021 he was elected a Bencher of Lincoln's Inn.
Outside of a busy career at the Bar, Tim is a keen sailor and counts his membership of the Bar Yacht Club and Island Sailing Club amongst his nautical interests.
CRIME
Tim Devlin is a formidable and successful advocate and adviser on all aspects of criminal law, including serious violence, sexual offences, firearms, drugs, fraud and associated activity. He has a prolific track record in successful prosecutions and defences in criminal trials. These have included:
Serious Crime
R v Richardson and Fletcher: Attempted murder case at Snaresbrook before HHJ Wilkinson. Both pleaded guilty to GBH and given 9 years apiece.
R v Mustafa and 5 others: Leading Junior for the Crown in this 3-month trial at Woolwich. 5 out of 6 of the defendants were convicted of a pre-planned burglary of a jeweller, handcuffing him and his wife, and stealing over £1m worth of jewellery and watches from his shop.
Operation Celery: Series of cases in which various layers of a drug-importation operation were prosecuted, culminating in the leader being extradited from Spain and prosecuted using Spanish intercept evidence. Value of the drugs was over £5million. All convicted.
R v CB and others: 14-handed prosecution of a violent disorder outside the house of an Asian family. Heard at Harrow Crown Court over 3 months. Leading junior.
R v Smith: Series of rapes and robberies using victim’s oyster cards on buses in east London. Acted alone against Queens Counsel and a junior, resulting in convictions.
Fraud
Operation Union: Prosecuted with a junior a voluminous fraud with 9 defendants in Birmingham charged with buying and selling stolen vehicles and transferring cherished number-plates from their rightful owners to others for sale. 7 out of the 9 convicted. Lead conspirator absconded and left the country.
R v Stoker, Collins ,and Madridis: Fraud on British bakeries using non-existent agency drivers who were signed through the gate procedures and paid for delivering imaginary loads. All 3 convicted.
R v Treanor and Treanor: Purchase and sale of companies, siphoning off money and assets through a hidden bank account. Cross-examination of the key witness, a forensic accountant instructed by the defence, led to the revelation of how the fraud worked, and conviction of both defendants in Birmingham Crown Court.
R v Green: art dealer who defrauded his mother under a power of attorney, much reported in the national media.
R v Singh: Submission of forged doctor’s letters to an insurance company in relation to a fraudulent claim. Preparation of the case after a late return, and a new indictment, led to a plea at Croydon on the first day of trial.
Sexual Offences
R v NM: Historic sexual abuse dating back to 1970s of young nieces by familial uncle. 4 week trial defended by Queens Counsel and a junior, leading to convictions on all but two counts. This case involved consulting the Criminal Code of Grenada in relation to offences committed there.
R v SS: Conviction of the ring-leader of a group of Albanian men who picked up two drunken teenagers in Chingford, took them to a flat and raped them.
R v DH: Historic sexual abuse at a well-known school by the housemaster, involving witnesses now scattered throughout the world. Case stretched back to the 1970s and had previously been investigated without success. Change of plea to guilty after the third witness. Defendant attempted suicide on the first day of first trial.
R v AA: Male rape of a gay man by a Somalian man whom he had contacted using Blackberry messaging, and who then lured him to a remote piece of open ground in North London. Convicted.
R v K: Abduction, rape and false imprisonment of a 44 year old drunken woman with previous history of rapes, taken to a flat and held for two days by threats of violence and death. Trial at Wood Green, praised by the judge for sympathetic handling of the witness.
R v B: Took over a part-heard trial for prosecution due to the incapacity of Crown Counsel at close of the crowns case. After listening to the tapes of the complainant giving evidence, cross-examined the defendant and his wife, made a closing speech, which was said to be “excellent” by HHJ Lafferty and the defendant was convicted.
R v Al: Rape of a young Kurdish girl by her brother in a strict Muslim household. This case raised a number of difficult cultural issues, and demanded the utmost sensitivity. Convicted.
R v MG: Rape of a 4 year old boy by a 14 year old boy with learning difficulties, aided by an intermediary, and two consultant psychologists. Difficult points of law on fitness to plead were considered by the district judge in the youth court. Convicted.
Other serious crime
R v An: Death by dangerous driving and attempting to pervert the course of Justice. Commended by HHJ Carr for the way the case was conducted. Defendant guilty on count 1 regulation.
R v G: Prosecution of a bankrupt man who claimed to have borrowed money twice and lost it gambling in informal situations.
R v N: Definition of “Student” and “full-time” for the purposes of student loans and benefits. Short trial at Kingston.
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.
Tom Webb is a civil practitioner specialising in personal injury and clinical negligence matters. He has established a busy practice encompassing both advocacy and advisory work. He is recognised as a leading junior in the Legal 500.
In personal injury matters, Tom represents both Claimants and Defendants on the multi-track. Instructions frequently concern six and seven figure claims. Tom is experienced at all stages of such litigation, from pre-action advice and drafting, through to CCMC and trial. Amongst other areas, cases regularly arise from road traffic accidents, occupier’s liability and claims against employers. Please refer to Tom’s personal injury page for details of recent and notable cases.
Additionally, Tom has built a substantial practice representing Defendants where fraud and/or fundamental dishonesty is alleged. Tom has much experience in the application of s.57 CJCA and CPR r.44.16.
Tom’s clinical negligence practice encompasses a wide range of claims. As well as matters arising from hospital and GP treatment, Tom has dealt with claims against a range of medical professionals. This includes those providing cosmetic treatments. Tom has experience of clinical negligence claims arising in the context of military service.
Aside from his practice at the bar, Tom has lectured part-time at the Winchester University Law School and provided mooting coaching. He is a former Western Circuit Mooting Champion (2008) and Middle Temple Lowry Scholar (2009/10). In 2016 Tom was appointed as a panel member to the Thames Valley Police Disciplinary Tribunal. In 2019 Tom was appointed as a Fee-Paid Judge of the First Tier Tribunal and assigned to the Social Entitlement Chamber. In 2023, Tom was appointed as a Recorder, sitting on the Western Circuit.
Reported Cases
Caterham School Ltd v Rose [2019] 8 WLUK 277
Personal Injury
Tom conducts multi-track personal injury litigation for both Claimants and Defendants. Tom has a wide experience of all aspects of proceedings, from early advice on liability and the initial drafting of pleadings and schedules, through to representation at trial.
Tom is recognised in the 2023 edition of the Legal 500 as a leading junior for PI.
Instructions frequently concern claims arising from road traffic accidents (including claims against the MIB), public liability matters (including Highways Act claims), occupier’s liability and accidents at work (including noise-induced hearing loss). Where such matters have resulted in death, Tom is experienced in dealing with claims under the Fatal Accidents Act and related provisions. The claims arising from road traffic accidents regularly contain credit hire elements and Tom is well-versed in the law arising from such matters.
Tom is frequently instructed on behalf of Defendant insurers on both the fast and multi-tracks in cases where LVI and/or fraud are alleged and has significant trial experience of such matters. Consequently, Tom is also experienced in cases where findings of fundamental dishonesty are pursued in order to overcome QOCS protection. Tom has related experience of appearing at committal hearings.
Aside from his PI practice, Tom is experienced in matters related to the PI field, including disputes concerning contracts of insurance, usually involving property damage arising from road traffic accidents. Tom has recently been instructed in a matter concerning cancellation of a contract of insurance for material misrepresentation which is at the permission stage in the Court of Appeal.
Similarly linked to his PI practice, Tom has experience of representing current and former service members before the War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Tribunal. As well as FTT hearings, Tom has dealt with such matters at appellate level.
Recent or ongoing high-value cases have included:
Complex causation dispute (multiple accidents) with pleaded value of two million pounds.
£700,000 complex PTSD case settled at JSM.
Junior counsel in child brain injury case pleaded circa.£10,000,000.
Broken foot in accident at work with requirement for lifelong orthotics, pleaded at £500,000.
Shoulder injury at work pleaded in excess of £500,000.
Post-accident concussion claim pleaded at approximately £300,000.
Back injury in RTA pleaded in excess of £300,000.
Pedestrian vs car claim pleaded at £250,000.
Fatal Accident claim pleaded at more than £200,000.
Representing the defendant in a PL matter pleaded in excess of £200,000; settled for £25,000 at JSM.
Road traffic accident with liability denied on the basis of automatism – settled for £130,000.
Complex earnings claim against former employer, where self-employed client is now unable to pursue a business that would have expanded in time, pleaded at £200,000, of which around £150,000 is future loss of earnings.
Client with brain injuries sustained in accident during a sword fighting drill.
Multi-day liability and quantum multi-track trial (occupier’s liability).
A complex matter concerning an uninsured EU-National, killed on a road in the UK, but without a personal representative in the jurisdiction.
RTA claim involving damages for injuries requiring restorative plastic surgery.
Appeal against Summary Judgment .
Successful representation at appeal concerning the quantum of losses arising from a cancelled holiday.
Appeal arising from refusal to join two related claims where it is said that the alleged dishonesty in one is relevant to the other.
Recent LVI / fraud / fundamental dishonesty work:
Success on appeal in case concerning allegation of pre-action dishonesty.
Successful defence (claim abandoned) in £250,000 claim where Claimant’s employment evidence was found to have been fabricated.
Costs recovered on behalf of Defendant insurer in employer’s liability claim that was abandoned pre-trial. Application for finding of fundamental dishonesty (CPR PD44 paragraph 12.4) was successfully pursued resulting in recovery of an enforceable costs order.
Finding of fundamental dishonesty secured at trial resulting in enforceable costs order of more than £30,000. Key evidence being Instagram Reels.
Successful strike out of claim where LVI alleged and subsequent recovery of costs on basis that Claimant’s conduct was likely to disrupt the just disposal of proceedings.
Success at trial (for Claimant) where conspiracy alleged.
Claim pleaded at £200k abandoned due to surveillance evidence.
Claim including allegations of LVI, staged accident and phantom passenger. Key evidence included Facebook pages and address history.
Dismissal of claim by 3 claimants in an LVI matter.
Multiple findings of FD in various RTA fast track matters.
Related Cases of Interest
Representing the Defendant insurer in claims arising where vehicles had collided with:
A three-bed home
An historic railway bridge
A road bridge.
Representing the Defendant at multi-track trial concerning the spillage of oil on to the North Circular.
Ongoing appeal (presently at permission stage with Court of Appeal) concerning alleged GDPR breaches and breach of contract arising from the cancellation of a contract of insurance for material misrepresentation
Appearing for Appellants before the War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Tribunal in claims arising:
Non-Freezing Cold Injury
A heart condition exacerbated by the trauma of service
Atypical facial pain
PTSD.
Presently seeking permission from the Court of Appeal in a psychiatric injury AFCS case.
Clinical Negligence
Tom is experienced in a variety of clinical negligence matters, including claims arising from dental, GP, hospital and physiotherapy treatment. Instructions have included requests to draft pre-action correspondence under the protocol, as well as conduct of matters once issued. As well as claims against the NHS, Tom has experience of claims concerning private hospitals, partnerships and the military.
Tom acts for both claimants and defendants.
Tom’s PI practice has involved matters whereby cosmetic surgery is in issue (either in terms of injury undermining such previous surgery or where cosmetic surgery is recommended in the future) and so he is well placed to deal with clinical negligence claims arising in the cosmetic field.
In 2018 Tom was instructed as a junior in an ongoing multi-million pound child brain injury case. The claim arises from a negligent failure to respond to hypoglycaemia shortly after birth.
Examples of recent cases include:
Junior in multi-million pound child brain injury case (claimant).
Child brain injury at birth case, presently in early stages, with pleaded value likely to be in the millions (defendant).
Further child brain injury case, arising from alleged negligence by both ambulance service and maternity unit. Value to be ascertained (defendant).
Allegedly negligent laser removal of tattoo.
Claim against IVF clinic concerning testing of embryos.
Bowel injury sustained during an appendectomy.
Haemophiliac suffering extensive bleed during surgery due to alleged failure to adequately plan the operation.
Allegedly negligent conduct of a caesarean section.
Allegedly negligent failure to detect an ectopic pregnancy.
Negligent division of thumb tendon in a minor.
Failure to diagnose swine flu and pneumonia.
Wrong-level spinal surgery claim.
Brachial plexus injury at birth.
Still-birth following allegedly negligent care during pregnancy.
Tonia Clark is a senior barrister in the family law team at 3PB, specialising in both financial and Children Act cases.
Tonia’s considerable expertise in financial claims includes those brought in divorce, under TOLATA and Children Act Schedule 1 financial claims and she acts for husbands, wives and intervenors. Tonia’s academic background was in Business Administration and so she has an ability to soundly grasp aspects of company accounts and the tax implications of proceedings and the potential/suspected dissipation of assets. Her client base tends to typically involve consideration of a property portfolio and often a family business/company and not infrequently assets overseas.
Tonia is also a child law specialist, undertaking both public and private law work. She regularly acts for local authorities and guardians, as well as for parents and grandparents and extended family members. She has undertaken lengthy fact-find hearings involving allegations of NAI and alleged abuse. Tonia regularly acts for some very vulnerable clients in public law proceedings where ground rules may have to be considered in order to ensure a fair hearing. Tonia appears regularly in the County Court, High Court and Family Court.
She has a very approachable and down to earth manner and believes in the art of listening to the client and building a rapport in order to properly advise and represent people's best interests.
Tonia has been sitting as a Deputy District Judge in the Family Court and County Court since 2001, where she is authorised to hear Children’s Act, public law care, Court of Protection and family financial disputes as well as civil cases. She has also been appointed to sit in the new Financial Remedies Court on the Western Circuit. She is also a judge in the Property Tribunal. These bring her a wealth of experience in advising how the courts are likely to approach issues arising in a case.
She is able to conduct private FDR’s as well as be instructed to participate as an advocate
Family
Finance/ancillary relief
Tonia practises in both financial and Children Act cases. Many clients who experience difficulties in both areas on separation prefer the consistency of counsel and attention to detail that being a specialist in both areas provides. Her background in Business and Administration and Tax has also proved a valuable tool in such cases.
Most of Tonia’s cases involved one or more of the following:
Family businesses and often multiple company structures
Pensions funds (including NHS and Armed Services pensions)
Significant non-disclosure (including applications to vary existing orders and to set aside orders due to material non disclosure)
Inherited wealth
Non matrimonial property and the extent to which it plays a part in the overall division of assets
Third party interests
Tonia has recently been involved in a number of cases, including the setting aside of earlier orders, due to significant non-disclosure. In each case a tenacious approach was adopted in conference with the client and instructing solicitors and reaped significant benefit for the client in the overall result.
Tonia has also recently been involved in several cases where apparent third party interests in property structures have been successfully challenged to her clients’ benefit.
Recent assessment of her successes have included cases where Tonia has:
undertaken analysis of private individual business/company accounts
acted both for and against clients who have extensive property interests, including several cases acting for owners of care homes
acted for clients in the farming community which have often involved inherited wealth issues
analysed allegations of significant non disclosure, traced assets and property within the UK or overseas and whether there is a need for more detailed forensic investigation
acted for a significant number of medical professionals (surgeons/anaesthetists/ dentists)
Private Remote FDR Hearings
Tonia is available for private remote FDR hearings. For more information on private remote FDR hearings please click here.
Recent cases
R v R (2019)
Acting for wife. Significant and ongoing non disclosure by husband. Arguments by him concerning third party interests. Succeeded in obtaining order in which wife received majority of proceeds of sale of former family home.
M v M (2018)
Financial hearing (and Children Act proceedings) in which husband purported to have no interest in property (including the former family home) and business interests. Wife received generous lump sum and significant maintenance.
R v R (2016)
Acting for husband who was professional with significant wealth and connections in both Greece and Switzerland. Assets accumulated overseas. Argued successfully that deliberate non disclosure had not occurred and very limited add back arguments succeeded.
Children : Private Law Team
Tonia is frequently instructed in applications for child arrangements orders, specific issue orders and prohibited steps orders that often include one or more of the following features:
Living with and contact arrangements
Orders including internal or external relocation
Allegations of parental alienation
Children Act proceedings
Tonia frequently undertakes cases where one parent is allegedly hostile to the other and involving allegations of parental alienation. She has undertaken fact finding hearings where marital rape and severe emotional and physical abuse is alleged by one party against the other or abuse is alleged towards the child concerned.
She also regularly represents clients where issues have arisen concerning permanent removal of a child/children from the UK. For instance, she recently acted for a father who opposed the permanent removal of a child to Italy by the Italian mother. The first appeal by the mother (to a single judge of the High Court) was successful. However this was overturned by the Court of Appeal and the original order reinstated preventing the removal of the child.
Recent cases
J v L (2019)
Acting for child through their guardian in private law residence and contact dispute. Ultimately both parents in person. Procedure and hearing (including 4 day fact find) required extensive control and court required considerable assistance from counsel for the guardian (Tonia).
H v H (2019)
Acting for a father who was regularly working outside jurisdiction. Significant animosity between the parties. Secured live with order for father despite issues with working arrangements.
C v O (2019)
Acting for father. Child had been living with grandparents and significant attachment. Secured live with order for father. Appealed. Permission to appeal granted but appeal ultimately dismissed.
N v N (2018)
Acting for father against whom serious allegations were made. Allegations not found proved and court ordered direct contact with the children the same day for first time in 7 months. Issues over possible removal from jurisdiction by mother.
HJ v A (2018)
Father had not seen children for 4 years. Ongoing litigation and Tonia was brought in to advise and for final hearing only. Result was suspended residence order in his favour. Orders made that he spend time with children including staying alternate weekends and holidays. Final shared living arrangements order has now been made.
L v F [2017] EWCA Civ 2121
Tonia successfully argued for a father against an application by mother for external relocation of a child (to the country of birth of both parents) . Cafcass supported the proposed move by mother. Decision overturned on appeal and original decision restored on further appeal. Resulted in father maintaining an ongoing and significant relationship with the child.
Children : Public Law Team
Tonia acts for parents in care proceedings and has a particular interest in representing grandparents and extended family members in disputes involving children in care proceedings. She is also instructed by Local Authorities and acts for Guardians on a regular basis. Her work in public law proceedings frequently involves one or more of the following:
Care and adoption disputes
Third party intervenor applications
Fact finding and ground rules hearings
Grandparents’ and Guardians’ interests
Tonia recently acted for grandparents where one parent had been murdered by the other. She is regularly instructed in cases involving highly vulnerable parents and undertakes fact finding hearings. In one complex fact find of 19 days, she acted for the children through their Guardian. Ground rules hearings are common for Tonia.
Tonia brings a real understanding of court practice as she has been a Deputy District Judge in the Family and County Court since 2001, and is authorised to hear financial claims, public law (care and adoption), private children cases and Court of Protection cases.
Recent cases
Re O (2019)
A young mother in relation to 3rd child. All older children had been removed at or shortly after birth. Tonia successfully argued for an independent full assessment of mother on the basis that the mother was being written off by the Local Authority. This was in the face of extensive assessments by different workers in the earlier (and current) proceedings.
Re A (2019)
Fact find and final hearing involving allegations, against her lay client, of deliberate ingestion of toxic substances putting her child at risk of death.
Re B (2017)
Acting in 19 day fact find on behalf of the children through their guardian where allegations of serious sexual assault. Local Authority family witnesses changed their evidence part way through hearing and after evidence in chief which caused issues as to whether witnesses hostile and guardian’s counsel (Tonia) expected to deal with issues raised.
Anthony Bingham (Tony) is a specialist in Building & Civil Engineering litigation, arbitration, adjudication and alternative dispute resolution. Tony is a practising barrister, arbitrator, adjudicator and mediator. He joined 3PB in 1991. He joined 3PB in 1991.
Litigation
His main practice is Building and Civil Engineering in the nature of the Technology & Construction Court.
Arbitration
Became a Fellow of Chartered Institute of Arbitration in 1981 up until 2021 and now has significant experience as a sole Arbitrator and as President of 3-member tribunals. His arbitral appointments outside of UK include Sweden, West Indies and East Africa. Most appointments are for Civil Engineering & Building disputes since Tony Bingham is dual qualified being a Chartered Surveyor, Chartered Builder and practising Barrister.
Adjudication
Tony Bingham has been appointed to well over 100 Adjudication disputes. He is a member of the following nomination panels:
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
Chartered Institute of Building
Institution of Chemical Engineers
TeCSA
Construction Industry Council
Adjudication.co.uk
He will accept appointments as adjudicator as a Member of a Dispute Resolution Board.
Mediation
In recent years this dispute management system has become another important part of Tony Bingham’s practice.
Publications
Weekly legal columnist in ‘Building’ since 1987.
Hall of fame
Vanessa Meachin KC is a family law specialist and has developed a practice in which she enjoys the considerable mix of care, adoption, matrimonial finance and private law children act applications. In recent years she has coupled her family law practice with a developing interest in court of protection work. She appears frequently in complex and sensitive cases involving children in private and public law areas in the Family Division and Family Court. She represents parents, children and local authorities.
In Vanessa’s financial remedies practice, her cases routinely involve substantial assets, corporate assets and issues relating to land and foreign property. She also deals with cases involving financial provision for the family on death and financial provision for children.
Family
Vanessa was called in 1990. She is a family law specialist and has developed a practice in which she enjoys the considerable mix of care, adoption, family finance and private law children act applications. She has appeared in the Court of Appeal at regular intervals in her career. Since 2009 she has been a Recorder on the South Eastern Circuit (Family and Civil). She is a pupil supervisor and regular speaker at seminars. She is a member of ALC, CoramBaaf and FLBA. She is an affiliate member of Resolution. She accepts instructions under direct access.
Recent cases:
X County Council -and- BE(1) AD (2) CD (BY HER CHILDREN'S GUARDIAN) (3) [2021] EWFC 112
Lancashire County Council -v- M (1) F (2) and C (3 By his Children’s Guardian) [2020] EWFC 43
W (A Child) [2019] EWCA Civ 1966
RE B (A Child) (Post-Adoption Contact) [2019] EWCA Civ 29
Re M (Children) (Suspected Trafficking - Competent Authority) [2017] EWFC 56
Re D + Ors (Children) 2017 EWFC B87
Re C (a child) [2016] EWFC B110
Re D (Appeal: Procedure: Evidence) [2015] EWCA Civ 409/ [2016] 1 FLR 249
Re D [2015] All ER (D) 136
A local Authority V AB and others [2015] All ER (D) 14
Re K (Wardship: Publicity) [2014] 1 FLR 548
Re K (Wardship: Publicity) (No 2) [2013] EWHC 3748 (Fam)/[2014] 2 FLR 310
A Local Authority v X and a Child [2013] EWHC 3274 (Fam)/ [2014] 2 FLR 123
Re K (A child: Therapy) [2013] All ER (D) 367
Re W (a child) (removal at birth: contact) [2013] All ER (D) 254
Birmingham City Council v AG and A [2009] EWHC 3720 (Fam)/[2010] 2 FLR 580
Re R (Placement order) [2007] EWHC 3031 (Fam) [2008] 1 FLR 1259
Re B (Appeal: lack of reasons) [2003] EWCA Civ 881/ [2003] 2 FLR 1035
Re G (Leave to Appeal: Jurisdiction) [1999] 1 FLR 771
Care and adoption
Vanessa is experienced in complex public law cases under the children and adoption legislation. She has 26 years of experience of appearing for parents, other relatives, local authorities and children. She routinely appears in the High court in relation to cases relating to the death of a child by various mechanisms (including shaking, suffocation, possible consumption of drugs or infection caused by starvation). In other cases, where the child has not died, she has considerable experience of allegations of serious physical abuse (burns, bruising, head injuries, multiple fractures and attempted suffocation) sexual abuse (parent and or sibling), emotional abuse (including allegations of demonic possession), neglect, domestic violence and factitious illness. These cases will routinely involve the cross examination of a number of medical experts from multi disciplines.
She has acted in cases where the welfare of the children has required exploration and assessment of relatives abroad. This has included consideration of jurisdictional issues as between England and Wales and countries such as Iraq, Latvia and Lithuania.
She has acted in such cases involving Human Trafficking and cases involving the use of the Inherent Jurisdiction to enable a child to be securely accommodated in another country.
Her practice has included protective orders for young females encompassing forced marriage, female genital mutilation, declarations that a marriage was unlawful (coercion and rape) and reporting restriction orders.
She has represented parents from differing economic, cultural, social background and ages. Some may have issues such as drug, alcohol dependency, mental health difficulties, language difficulties or a combination of these problems.
Finance
Over the last 28 years Vanessa has accumulated extensive experience in applications arising in financial remedies, Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989, the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and more recently disputes involving civil partners. Her financial remedy work has included applications to set aside consent orders and presenting or opposing appeals. She is required routinely to conduct cases involving parties of medium to high net worth, business accounts, forensic expert reports and pension issues. Some interesting points have included consideration of the implications for a Wife following a foreign divorce, the consequences following a spouse's bankruptcy, an application to enforce maintenance arrears once the Husband’s mortgage fraud was identified and the approach to a personal injury award as a resource for the Husband.
Vanessa will often be instructed at an early stage when attempts are being made to resolve the financial aspect of separation, before court proceedings have been issued.
Vanessa has also been instructed to deal with other matters within the parties’ dispute including successfully resisting applications to set aside entitlement to decree nisi in two separate cases.
Her clients have been from a wide background including those with physical or mental disability. These have involved instructions being taken from a Deputy acting for the protected party (P) or from the Official Solicitor.
FDR Hearing Service
Vanessa is available for private remote FDR hearings.
Private Law
Vanessa has wide experience in private law applications, including cases where serious allegations of sexual abuse, physical abuse (against either the partner and or the child) or emotional abuse (against either the partner and or the child) and parental alienation have featured.
These cases have often included other issues such as the local authority becoming involved with the family, consideration of the child or children being separately represented and implacable hostility being shown by one parent to the other post separation. Vanessa has been involved in cases where the court has contemplated and changed the child’s living arrangements following a determination that the parent with care has been attempting to alienate the child from the other parent.
Vanessa has also been involved in cases featuring permission for children to travel out of the jurisdiction whether permanently or temporarily. Her cases have involved such varied countries as Kenya, Thailand, Australia and Spain.
Victoria Jones is an experienced Intellectual Property specialist. She is particularly well-known for her expertise in trade mark and passing off matters in relation to which she has acted for many well-known brands as well as many small and medium size enterprises. Victoria regularly appears before the Chancery Division of the High Court, the IPEC, the UKIPO and the Appointed Person.
Intellectual Property
“She is unfailingly commercial and is very clear and thorough in her advice and drafting.”
“Vicky is both knowledgeable and personable. She is a pleasure to work with.”
“She is commercially astute and quick to get to the heart of the issue.”
Chambers UK : Intellectual Property – The Regions (Bar) – Band 1
Victoria is an experienced Intellectual Property specialist. She is particularly well-known for her expertise in trade mark and passing off matters in relation to which she has acted for many well-known brands as well as many small and medium size enterprises. Victoria regularly appears before the Chancery Division of the High Court, the IPEC, the UKIPO and the Appointed Person.
Recent cases
Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management LLC v Ace Global Trading Ltd [2022] 11 WLUK 288
Chanel v Aya Design Group Limited BL O/887/22
Genius Brands International Inc v Guide Association [2022] 3 WLUK 820
Luen Fat Metal & Plastic Manufactory Co. Ltd v Funko UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 951 (IPEC)Oovee Ltd v Saber Interactive Inc BL O/327/22
Ghamkol Sharif UK v Dar Ul Uloom Islamia Rizwia (Bralawai) O-556-22
UK Gymnastics Ltd v British Amateur Gymnastics Association [2021] EWCA Civ 425
Speaking
Victoria will be taking part in 3PB’s annual IP seminar taking place at various venues in Bristol, Birmingham and London in Spring 2023.
Victoria Hamblen has experience in a range of commercial and public law matters, with a particular focus on property, planning, environment, mediation and international arbitration. She now has a broad commercial practice and accepts instructions in broad areas of civil law, as well as in public law and judicial review.
Victoria is also a member of the Attorney General's Junior Junior Scheme, which provides her with opportunities to work on cases spanning diverse practice areas.
In environmental law, Victoria has experience of advising and making submissions on Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulations requirements and the legal requirements for Local Authority Sustainability Appraisals.
She is currently a pro-bono adviser for the Environmental Law Foundation(ELF), and has advised on a plethora of environmental cases, including matters relating to water quality/pollution, contaminated land and rights of way, land development environmental impacts. Victoria also has experience of providing pro-bono assistance to organisations such as Lawyers Against Poverty (LAP) on international human rights cases, including cases relating to the land rights of indigenous peoples.
Victoria has a very client-centred approach to her work. She is compassionate and approachable, and adopts a solution-focused, pragmatic and adaptable attitude.
Victoria completed pupillage at 3PB in May 2022. During her practising pupillage, Victoria represented in matters such as:
Property: possession in trespass, and rent arrears cases;
Commercial: small claims, fast-track trials, settlement negotiations.
Victoria has also drafted advice pieces and pleadings covering a wide variety of contentious issues, including:
Consumer Rights Act
Debt recovery
Contract variation
The law of agency and principal
Professional negligence
Insolvency
Victoria has also previously assisted barristers on cases involving:
Constitutional Law: HRA and ECHR cases
Property Law: Proprietary estoppel, Law of Prescription, Landlord and Tenant disputes, Easement abandonment
Public Law: Judicial Review
Privacy Law: Compliance with SAR requests, DPA breaches
Aviation Law: Regulation 261/2004 cases
Immigration Law: Spouse visa applications, appeals to the Home Office
Victoria took the following elective modules during the Graduate Diploma in Law and Bar Professional Training Course:
Public International Law (UN Charter)
Judicial Review
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Immigration Law
Prior to the Bar, Victoria did pro-bono work with Immigration Tribunal Friends, the ULaw Law Clinic and worked as a paralegal and solicitor’s clerk at law firms specialising in immigration, family and employment.
Victoria has extensive experience working as a researcher. She conducted legal and policy research at an aerospace Consultancy, and policy and environmental science research at an Oxford-based sustainability consultancy. She also gained an insight into diverse practice areas and jurisdictions in Asia and Latin America when researching legal trends at Chambers & Partners Legal Directory.
Earlier on in her working life, Victoria co-founded and worked as an actor at Cyphers Theatre Company and taught English as a foreign language in Spain, Tanzania and China.
Victoria has a great interest in handling international work. Her first degree was in Chinese (Mandarin) and Politics of Asia and Africa. During her degree, Victoria volunteered in Tanzania, and lived and studied for a year in Beijing. She also studied modules on government and politics of the Middle East, government and politics of China, comparative political sociology of Asia and Africa, Gandhi and Gandhiism and the shaping of modern India and more.
Victoria was raised bilingual with English and Spanish, is proficient in French, and studied Mandarin at university.
Property and Estates
Victoria is well placed to handle the full breadth of residential and commercial property disputes. She takes an analytical approach to her work, working closely with clients to identify and address potential weak points in a case.
Recent work includes:
Public and private nuisance
Trespass
Easements (identification, interpretation and enforcement)
Rights of way disputes
Breaches of covenant
Prescription Act
Commercial and residential landlord and tenant disputes, including rent arrears and alleged breaches of landlord obligations
Possession hearings
Victoria is experienced in settling pleadings on claims involving injunctions, declarations and damages. She has also advised on a wide range of property disputes as to the benefit of a right of way, and nuisance. Victoria has previously assisted and advised on cases relating to proprietary estoppel and restrictive covenants, as well as broader land development planning cases, relating to Local Authority strategic environmental assessments and sustainability appraisals.
Victoria is particularly interested in handling cases relating to nuisance, which relate to broader environmental issues, and seeks to further develop this specialism. She has notable experience advising on pro-bono cases relating to a wide range of environmental impact issues. She welcomes cases which have an international dimension and representing in diverse forms of alternative dispute resolution.
Commercial
Victoria accepts instructions across the whole range of commercial and contractual disputes and is regularly instructed at all stages of proceedings, providing advice, settling pleadings and appearing in court at interlocutory hearings and trials. Victoria welcomes instructions in all commercial matters and has a particular interest and experience in claims relating to directors liabilities, fiduciary duties, misrepresentation, incorporation of terms and penalty clauses, and the enforcement of settlement agreements.
Recent work includes:
Advising in relation to a claim in relation to alleged breaches and dispute as to contract variations on a cruise
Debt recovery in relation to an employment dispute involving a recruitment agency
Acting on behalf of businesses and consumers in relation to claims under the Consumer Rights Act 2015
Advising on the law of agency and principal in relation to a business to business contracting contract
Advising a company on potential breaches of the Companies Act by an accountant and quantum
Appearing in a range of interim application hearings, relating to strike out, summary judgment, set aside applications, relief from sanctions applications, and case management conferences.
Victoria has previously completed an intensive course in commercial mediation and has experience of representing clients in mediations and settlement negotiations in a wide range of commercial contexts.
William Hansen specialises in public law, property law and commercial litigation.
He is authorized to sit as a High Court Judge in the Chancery Division and also sits as a Recorder, Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge (Administrative Appeals Chamber), a Deputy Chancery Master and a Judge of the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for both land registration and residential property cases.
He is a member of the Attorney-General’s ‘A’ Panel of Counsel to the Crown in civil matters and regularly acts for a variety of government departments and agencies including the Secretary of State for the Home Department, HMRC, MoJ, the NCA and the Secretary of State for Business.
He is a specialist in public law and judicial review and regularly appears in the Administrative Court acting for the Crown, particularly in the field of immigration, where he has a particular interest in citizenship and nationality, Article 8 ECHR, criminal deportation, asylum, human trafficking and unlawful detention.
His expertise extends to any case involving a challenge to the legality of a decision taken by a public body and he has particular expertise in all aspects of human rights.
His practice also encompasses all areas of real estate litigation including adverse possession, boundaries, conveyancing, co- ownership, easements, land registration, landlord and tenant, mortgages, options, restrictive covenants and trusts of land.
His commercial practice has a distinct chancery bias to it and includes company litigation (directors’ duties, shareholder disputes, and directors’ disqualification), partnership, insolvency and fraud.
William also sits as a Legally Qualified Chair for Police misconduct hearings and has wide experience of disciplinary proceedings against professionals. In addition to his police misconduct work, William has also appeared before the SDT, NMC and RICS.
William Hansen is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy. Please contact William for a copy of his privacy policy which sets out the basis upon which any personal data he may collect about you, or that is provided to him, will be processed by him. He will provide a copy of this policy to you within two working days of its request.
Public and Regulatory
William Hansen is a member of the Attorney-General’s ‘A’ Panel of Counsel to the Crown in civil matters and acts for a variety of government agencies, including the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the MoJ, the Department of Health, the Secretary of State for Business and HMRC.
As such he is a specialist in public law and judicial review and regularly appears in the Administrative Court acting for the Crown, particularly in the field of immigration, where he has a particular interest in citizenship and nationality, Article 8 ECHR, criminal deportation, asylum, human trafficking and unlawful detention.
His expertise extends to any case involving a challenge to the legality of a decision taken by a public body and he has particular expertise in all aspects of human rights.
William has wide experience of disciplinary proceedings against professionals and has appeared before the SDT, NMC and RICS.
William also sits as a Legally Qualified Chair for Police misconduct hearings and as a fee-paid Judge of the First Tier Tribunal.
Recent cases
R (on the application of O (A Child)) v SSHD, Supreme Court, [2022] 2 WLR 343
Statutory interpretation.
MY (Pakistan) v SSHD [2022] 1 WLR 238
What constitutes refusal of a human rights claim.
OA (Somalia) (CG) [2022] UKUT 00033
Country guidance case on Somalia.
R (oao Topadar) v. SSHD [2021] 1 WLR 2307
Leave to remain, variation application, s.3C leave, human rights claims.
R (oao Alam) v. SSHD [2021] Imm AR 516
Notice of curtailment decision, presumptions, deeming provisions.
R (oao Carlos) v SSHD [2021] EWHC 986 (Admin)
Credibility and fresh claim, Article 3 and suicide risk.
R (on the application of Williams) v. SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 98
Ultra vires and Article 8 and Article 14 ECHR.
Property and Estates
William Hansen sits as a High Court Judge in the Chancery Division and is also a Deputy Chancery Master and therefore has broad expertise in all areas of Chancery practice. His property practice encompasses all areas of real estate litigation including adverse possession, boundaries, conveyancing, co-ownership, easements, land registration, mortgages, options, restrictive covenants, property damage claims and trusts of land.
William also provides expertise in all aspects of the law of landlord and tenant, including business tenancy renewals, dilapidations, forfeiture, leasehold covenants and service charge disputes.
He is a Judge of the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for both land registration and residential property cases.
William’s expertise in property law extends to cases where property rights and principles of insolvency meet, and he has also been instructed in a number of cases involving disputes about sporting and fishing rights.
William acts for a wide range of clients and welcomes direct professional access work. He is also a trained mediator who can offer his services to those looking to mediate property disputes.
He is also a member of the Attorney-General’s A Panel of Counsel to the Crown in civil matters and regularly acts for a variety of government agencies.
Cases
Artist Court Collective Ltd v. Khan, [2016] EWHC 2453 (Ch), [2017] Ch 53
Part 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and rights of first refusal.
Bean v Saxton [2016] UKUT 168 (TCC)
Determined boundaries.
Top Brands Ltd v. Sharma [2015] EWCA Civ 1140
Illegality.
Orme v Lyons [2012] EWHC 3308 (Ch)
Approach of appellate court to inferences drawn by Adjudicator.
Wilkinson v. Farmer (CA), [2010] NPC 105
Proper approach to construction of 1898 deed.
Heslop v Bishton [2009] EWHC 607 (Ch), [2009] 2 EGLR 11
Diversion of easements.
Virdi v Chana [2008] EWHC 2901 (Ch)
Easements of parking.
Wallbank v Price [2007] EWHC 3001 (Ch), [2008] 2 FLR 501
Undue influence and duress.
Sims v. Mahon [2005] 3 EGLR 67
Term implied into covenant against building without prior approval of plans.
Mountney v. Treharne (CA) [2003] Ch 135
Equitable maxims and proprietary rights in the context of insolvency proceedings.
Eyre v. McCracken (CA) (2001) 33 HLR 16
Liability under repairing covenant to repair inherent defect.
Commercial
William Hansen's commercial practice covers the following areas with a distinct Chancery bias to it: Company litigation: directors duties, breach of fiduciary duty, shareholder disputes, unfair prejudice petitions, rectification proceedings and directors' disqualification.
Partnership
William has advised and acted in a wide variety of partnership disputes involving accountants, solicitors, vets, farmers, doctors and restaurateurs. He has advised on the full panoply of disputes that can arise including dissolutions and winding-up, partitions and buy-outs and detailed accounts and inquiries.
Fraud, Misrepresentation and Breach of Trust
William has wide experience of all aspects of civil fraud, including fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty and dishonest assistance. Recent cases include fraudulent misrepresentation by a vendor in the context of a sale of land and allegations of breach of fiduciary duty involving the diversion of a corporate opportunity by a senior manager alleged to be a fiduciary.
Commercial Arbitration and Mediation
William is a qualified mediator and also has wide experience of both international and domestic arbitration. His diverse case-load has included an international commercial arbitration against the UN involving UNIDROIT principles and a domestic arbitration involving a dispute about the proper interpretation of a reservation of sporting rights.
Recent cases
Top Brands Ltd v. Sharma [2015] EWCA Civ 1140
Illegality.
Top Brands v. Sharma [2014] EWCA Civ 761
Standing of former liquidator to challenge creditor’s proof of debt.
Balevents Ltd v Sartori [2012] EWCA Civ 1508
Breach of fiduciary duty, waiver of breach, fresh evidence.
Metro Nominees Ltd v. Rayment [2008] BCC 40
Permission to commence forfeiture proceedings against company in administration.
LCP Retail Ltd v. Segal [2007] BCC 584
Abandonment of distress.
Mediation
William Hansen is a qualified mediator and also has wide experience of both international and domestic arbitration. His diverse case- load has included an international commercial arbitration against the UN involving UNIDROIT principles and a domestic arbitration involving a dispute about the proper interpretation of a reservation of sporting rights.
Police Law
William Hansen has sat as an Legally Qualified Chair (LQC) on police misconduct hearings for a number of years and so has very extensive knowledge and experience of all aspects of police misconduct.
He is happy to accept instructions to act for the Appropriate Authority and is equally happy to accept instructions from officers who work for police authorities that do not retain him as an LQC.
He also has very broad and deep experience of judicial review as a member of the Attorney General's A list of Panel Counsel.
William’s practice comprises traditional land-based Chancery and town and country planning, both in the public and private sectors. He is the author, and also the co-author of text books on planning, easements, the registration of village greens, public rights of way, the listing of assets of community value and restrictive covenants.
Areas of expertise
Chancery
Planning
Land-related professional negligence
Property
Registration of land
Trusts
Village greens
Assets of community value
Public rights of way
Commercial landlord and tenant
Coastal defence and shoreline management
Public law issues involving sales/regeneration/compulsory purchase/appropriation/overriding restrictions on land
Publications
"Renewable Energy from Wind and Solar Power: Law and Regulation"
Published by Wildy, Simmonds and Hill in March 2021. The book runs to 310 pages and is the first comprehensive and authoritative coverage of the subject.
Click here to read the author's preface.
The book includes a foreword by Lord Justice Lindblom who is the senior planning judge in the Court of Appeal.
Foreword
William Webster has taken on, and performed, a formidable task. In describing and explaining the complex framework of regulation for electricity generation by the two principal sources of renewable energy in this country - solar and wind power - and in presenting a vast amount of law, policy and decision-making, he has filled an expanding gap in the literature on environmental and energy law. Indeed, he has produced the first comprehensive, and authoritative coverage of the subject in a legal textbook.
Rightly, the book places its examination of the relevant law and policy in the wider context of the United Kingdom's efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, the legally binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions in the Climate Change Act 2008, the international obligations under the Paris Agreement of 2015, the IPCC's "Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C" of October 2018, and the reports of the Committee on Climate Change in 2018 and 2019.
The book explores the arrangements for the approval of wind and solar energy projects in the planning legislation and the process of gaining consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. It connects that discussion to the legislation regimes for the protection of the environment, including the legislation for environmental impact assessment, with a particular focus on habitats and the historic environment. It illuminates the law on nationally significant infrastructure projects. It brings together the national policy and guidance bearing on wind and solar energy projects. And it devotes full chapters specifically to the development of wind farms, both onshore and offshore, and to the development of solar energy. All of this is lucid and thorough.
A feature of the book likely to be welcomed by practitioners is the series of case studies in chapters 8 and 10, which analyse recent decisions of the courts and of the Secretary of State, or an inspector and reporter, and draw out the salient principles - for example, on wind power or solar power development proposed in the Green Belt; or affecting important landscape or seascape, or a heritage asset or its setting; or biodiversity; or likely to harm the living conditions of local residents; or offering "community benefits"; or of a scale requiring a development consent order, with a wide range of implications for the local environment, and requiring powers for the compulsory acquisition of land. Here again the approach is both practical and meticulous.
William Webster's experience as a practitioner in this area of the law, the case he has taken in organising his material and the clarity of his text will, I am sure, bring this book the success it deserves.
The Right Honourable Lord Justice Lindblom
Royal Courts of Justice
August 2020
Click here to read a review of the book by Dr Ashley Bowes, Editor of the Journal of Planning and Environment Law.
Planning Law: A Practitioner’s Handbook
This book runs to 766 pages and includes a foreword by Lord Justice Lindblom. The book was published by Wildy, Simmonds and Hill in February 2019. It covers a wide range of planning topics and planning-related topics within a single volume.
Lord Justice Lindblom’s foreword to this book is as follows:
Foreword
In an area of the law that is constantly changing, and constantly growing in complexity, a new text book will always be welcome – the more so if it is thorough, reliable and insightful. This one undoubtedly is.
The challenges facing an author who aims to reflect recent changes to the legislative regime for planning, and to record the work of the courts in developing and clarifying the law, are formidable. Gathering the various themes into a clear and usable guide is no easy task.
William Webster has managed to cover his subject fully, with a sure grasp of the law, and a facility to point out the salient principles where they occur. His discussion of the principles governing development control and plan-making, the interpretation of national planning policy, planning conditions and obligations, environmental impact assessment, the enforcement of planning control, listed buildings and conservation areas, town and village greens, the lawfulness of planning decisions, and a host of other topics, is thoughtful, lucid and comprehensive. The analysis is sound, and amply supported by relevant case law.
Practitioners looking for answers to the questions they meet in advising clients on the law, and when preparing argument in proceedings before the courts, can expect to find answers here. For judges too, both in the Planning Court and elsewhere, the text will be enlightening.
I wish this excellent book the success it deserves.
The Right Honourable Lord Justice Lindblom
Royal Courts of Justice
Click here for more information about the contents of the book on the publisher's website.
Click here to read a review of the book in Thomson Reuters by Dr Ashley Bowes, Editor of the Journal of Planning & Environment Law.
Topics covered include:
Assets of community value
Town and village greens
Public rights of way
Gypsies and travellers (policy and enforcement)
It is written for busy planning practitioners in the private and public sectors. The book is a single up-to-date reference book and contains a substantial body of footnotes covering the material primary and secondary legislation and case law.
Restrictions on the Use of Land
This book was published by Wildy, Simmonds and Hill Publishing in November 2016 and extends to nearly 600 pages. It was co-authored with a colleague at 3PB (Robert Weatherley). The book contains sections on easements, village greens, public rights of way, restrictive covenants, assets of community value and elements of planning law. The authors are indebted to Lord Neuberger, then President of the Supreme Court, for his helpful foreword:
‘A book which analyses and explains this complex law (governing the use of land) 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.’
Direct Access
William is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public and professional clients under the Direct Access Scheme.
Property and Estates
Notable examples of recent work in the planning/public law sector:
JR challenge claiming misapplication of local/national policies and unlawfulness in decision-making in a case involving the provision of replacement facilities arising from the closure of a football stadium sited in an area targeted for regeneration.
Acting for a local authority in the case of a disputed land option which did not run with the land and loss of chance damages against original covenantor.
Acting for a football club at a public planning inquiry involving equivalence of proposed replacement facilities.
Acting for a football club on an appeal against listing of ground as an asset of community value.
Advice on regulatory functions in the case of coastal protection works and the delivery of Shoreline Management Plan policies.
Acting for local highway on judicial review of modification order.
Acting for a local authority on claims for compensation arising out of highway works.
A challenging cross-boundary planning appeal in the Midlands involving a proposal for enabling development to fund enhancements to the natural environment, an appraisal of biodiversity net gain using the DEFRA Biodiversity Metric Calculation Tool, and the largest spread of Japanese Knotweed experts had ever seen.
Planning enforcement and committal proceedings in multiple cases involving the gypsy traveller community.
A proposal within the site of a Scheduled Monument (buried Roman artefacts).
Planning conditions limiting the occupancy of new or converted dwellings to local inhabitants (William has also lectured on this topic).
Planning obligations which concerned developer delivery of school sites.
Advising a neighbouring owner in the case of a proposed 2-storey leisure centre spa building (in the grounds of a Grade 2 listed hotel complex in a conservation area) involving significant impacts on habitats and the prospect of unacceptable light and noise pollution.
Advice on tall buildings in Birmingham and London involving issues of excessive height and massing and adverse impact on the townscape, including the setting of heritage assets and harm to the historic environment (historic canals).
Advice on assessments made under the Habitats Regulations’ along with disputed mitigation contributions and design issues affecting a 100 plus residential development close to European sites.
Appeal involving village infilling exception on a site in the Green Belt.
Control of advertisements. Advice was sought on the likelihood of consent to the siting of an elevated digital display unit on a building overlooking a large roundabout having five exists and four entrances.
Planning enforcement – unlawful subdivision: the issue was whether children under the age of 18 counted as ‘residents’ for the purposes of a Class 4 use (Paramaguru v Ealing LBC [2018] EWHC 373 (Admin)).
Disputed claim to standing in Planning Court where neither appellant had made objections during the appeal process and merely lived in neighbouring properties (Crawford-Brunt v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 3580 (Admin).
Successful application to discharge an order made under section 215 of the TCPA 1990 (under which an authority may take steps requiring land to be cleaned up when its condition adversely affects the amenity of an area).
Acting in high value litigation between operators involved in the management, disposal and recycling of household waste.
Instructed by Surrey County Council to act as their non-statutory inspector in R (NHS) Property Services Ltd) v Surrey County Council [2019] UKSC 58, a case which ultimately went to the Supreme Court where William’s recommendation to the registration authority on the statutory incompatibility objection was upheld, as was his recommendation that the application to register be dismissed.
William also appeared as junior counsel in the Supreme Court in Taylor v Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd [2014] UKSC 6 (a village green case), now the leading case on non-peaceable use (William also speaks regularly on village greens and highways).
As an Inspector, William recently conducted the first remote village green inquiry in England and Wales for Wiltshire Council (land at Hilperton near Trowbridge).
Again as an Inspector, William also conducted Village Green Inquiries for Wiltshire Council (land at Semington near Melksham) and for Staffordshire County Council (land at Heath Hayes).
William regularly advises on public right of way (PROW) disputes and also appears for landowners at DMMO confirmation inquiries in the case of opposed modification orders.
William is currently acting for Staffordshire County Council on a landowner’s application for judicial review in the case of a challenge to an order made by the surveying authority to add a PROW to the Definitive Map despite the fact that the order has not yet been confirmed by the Secretary of State as an opposed order. The issue is whether, as a matter of fact and law, the landowner is in a position to pre-empt the statutory confirmation process.
Acting for Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council in a disputed confirmation appeal at a DMMO public inquiry where there were objections to the closure and diversion to a right of way, including in relation to disability discrimination (the new path had steps). The appeal outcome was reported.
William also regularly advises on the law and practice of assets of community value (ACV) (introduced in the Localism Act 2011). He acted for the listing authorities on the listing of the football stadia of Old Trafford and Anfield. He has also appeared at ACV review hearings where it is possible to rescind a listing prior to a challenge being taken to the First-tier Tribunal. Local listing is now a consideration of some weight in the planning process. William has recently been involved in challenges affecting the listing of pubs in Somerset and Gravesend (both Grade II listed buildings in conservation areas). William is also acting for Basingstoke Town Community Football Club in the case of the landowner’s pending appeal in the First-tier Tribunal in the case of their former ground at Basingstoke which has been listed as an ACV.
Advising a local authority on their powers to override easements and restrictive covenants under the Housing and Planning Act 1996 (ss.203-4) and generally in the case of the exercise of statutory powers, including advice on the authority’s power of appropriation and sale where land is affected by third party rights.
Advice in relation to the carrying out of coastal defence works by a coastal erosion management authority.
Acting for Surrey County Council in its capacity as Commons Registration Authority on an application to remove land from the Register of Common Land (application involved disputed curtilage of a substantial Grade II listed property set in an AONB).
Other recent private law land disputes:
TOLATA dispute and accounts involving ownership of a traveller site.
Acting for servient owner in an action for an injunction and damages arising from the use of a right of way by a garden centre for the sale of goods outside the range of goods allowed to be sold within the scope of the permitted private right of way.
Boundary dispute in the countryside involving the development of land claimed to be within the curtilage of a neighbouring SSSI.
Advice on right to light loss and assessment of quantum arising from overshadowing commercial development in an historic Bath street.
Advice on breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment/derogation from grant in the case of the acts or omissions of a commercial landlord.
Advice on nuisance arising from the shared use of a right of way (business) and the recovery of sums spent on improvements.
Tenant’s claim to set aside Tomlin Order (involving a business tenancy) which lacked prudent safeguards, along with an associated trespass to goods claim involving the unlawful removal of externally located refrigeration plant which resulted in severe financial loss to the client’s business.
Claimed negligence against a planning consultant arising from failed applications for a prior approval planning permission for a Class O use.
Advising Parish Council on the recovery of promised community benefits arising from the development of a solar farm.
Advising owner of a two-storey training venue for boxing and other community uses in relation to claimed trespass and serious nuisance arising from adjoining infill development.
Advising multiple tenants of long leases in a large building in relation to claimed long-standing breaches of landlord’s repairing covenants, including subsidence damage. Claim involves specific performance of repairing covenants and differing claims for damages for breach of the covenants for repair/loss of quiet enjoyment (including for loss of assessed rental value).
Multiple cases involving land registration issues including, in one case, where a restriction had not even been registered against the holder of the unregistered title and, in another, where the deed containing the restrictions had not even been executed by the original covenantor.
Multiple cases involving advice, the drafting of applications and a hearing in the Upper Tribunal for orders for discharge or modification of restrictive covenants.
Professional liability
William’s experience in his field of chancery work allows him to examine, advise upon and conduct claims where professional negligence issues arise. His expertise in property issues lead him to be called in where there may have been negligence by professional advisers such as counsel, solicitors, surveyors or valuers.
William Charlesworth specialises in Construction & Engineering law and accepts instructions for the provision of advisory, advocacy and Alternative Dispute Resolution services. Dual qualified as a Chartered Surveyor, William brings considerable industry experience and added qualifications to his role as a barrister and possesses significant court and advisory experience. Instructing solicitors describe him as “tenacious”, “meticulous”, “conscientious”,” courteous” and “client-focused.”
William has substantial construction disputes experience, having worked as a managing consultant in the construction disputes & advisory services sector. He specialised in the provision of expert evidence in relation to the quantum of construction and engineering disputes; a role that included advising on some of the largest international construction disputes ongoing at the time. He has further notable experience of working alongside sector leading construction teams at UK and international law firms.
He is further able to demonstrate a commercial acumen, having formally been employed as a senior fund/development monitor. Within his role, he provided consultancy services to clearing banks and other international lending organisations in relation to risk associated with development finance. Having worked on a number of flagship schemes, he has experience undertaking technical reviews of legal documents including the construction contracts, professional appointment documents and collateral warranties, as well as ensuring the requisite ongoing compliance by the borrower.
Prior to moving to London, William spent eight years in the Northwest of England working as a surveyor and contracts manager for a PQS consultancy and a contractor respectively.
Construction and Engineering
William’s practice covers the full range of construction and engineering disputes, including defective workmanship or design, delay and disruption, payment adjudications, variations, terminations, final accounts and Contractors’ All Risks (“CAR”) matters. His practice sees him appear regularly in the TCC and County Court TCC lists on construction matters, and act for both employers and contractors. William’s work includes a particular focus on professional negligence claims against surveyors, architects and other professionals acting in the construction sector.
William has extensive experience in the provision of advice to parties concerning development finance, and has acted on behalf of the senior funder in the operation of step-in rights. William’s advice further extends to the provision of advice to industry bodies on the development of professional guidance, including the undertaking of bespoke contracts reviews on behalf of such organisations.
William primary work includes receipt of instructions to act for parties during both adjudications and associated enforcement proceedings. He further provides advice on the merits of case for parties involved in ongoing disputes including the drafting of the associated statements of case.
Examples of recent work include:
Acting on behalf of the successful Claimants in TCC adjudication enforcement proceedings defended on both natural justice and jurisdictional grounds.
Acting as Sole counsel for the First Defendant in a 3 day multi-track trial concerning the powers and conduct of a local authority arising from the demolishing of a dwelling property under S.78 of the Building Act 1984
Advised Freeholder on the prospects of success and quantum of a claim against the Contract Administrator and Contractor resulting from significant water damage arising from defective remedial works of a listed property.
The representation of a Developer in multi-million pound proceedings brought against both the Contractor and Contract Administrator arising from defective work and/or negligence.
The representation of a Responding Party in an adjudication seeking a declaration by the Adjudicator concerning the correct interpretation of provision pertaining to nominated sub-contractors.
Advising a property purchaser in a claim for professional negligence against a building surveyor arising from property defects that were not identified within a pre-purchase building survey.
Advising a sub-contractor on the prospects of success and quantum in a multi-jurisdictional claim for costs arising out of design modifications.
Advised Freeholder on the prospects of success and quantum of a claim against the Contract Administrator and Contractor resulting from significant water damage arising from defective remedial works of a listed property.
Commercial
William’s commercial practice focuses on civil fraud, bribery, misrepresentation and corruption. Combining experience gained within the disciplines of audit and finance with an in depth understanding of criminal law, William has experience in the representation of parties in proceedings brought under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, including those pertaining to the obtaining of restraint orders and the enforcement of confiscation orders over assets in both the UK and Internationally.
His practice includes the representation and provision of advice in company matters comprising those concerning partnership and shareholder disputes, including claims involving directors and shareholders; breach of director and fiduciary duty matters; issues associated with fraudulent conduct and breach of restrictive covenant claims.
William’s commercial practice further extends to matters concerning the Insolvency Act 1986, and he has appeared in the High Court on multiple occasions concerning the presentation of winding petitions. Such experience includes the seeking of injunctions so as to prevent such presentation in matters arising out of alleged debts in the statutory demands.
Recent and Ongoing cases:
Appointment by order of the High Court as an independent barrister in the review of documentation concerning a claim brought on account of alleged deceit and conspiracy relating to a multi-million pound revolving facility agreement.
The provision of advice in a claim by a UK Company established as a vehicle for joint venture in conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, bribery and dishonest assistance against its former director, CEO and his associate. The ‘secret profits’, totalling in excess of $16,000,000 were alleged to have been distributed amongst offshore companies owned by the Defendants via the utilisation of four different banks.
The successful representation of a corporate entity in a claim brought on the basis of multiple allegations of misrepresentation, fraud by false representation and deceit including pyramid selling.
The representation of a company in proceedings concerning a Property Freezing Order on account of alleged illegitimate income and involvement in criminal conduct.
The advising of an individual concerning an alleged false misstatement made in support of an insurance claim, including the steps the individual was required to address so as to mitigate the impact of any finding against them.
Dr Zhen Ye is a specialist commercial/insolvency, property and construction litigation barrister.
Prior to joining 3PB, Zhen was a dispute resolution/litigation paralegal at two London law firms King & Wood Mallesons and Mishcon de Reya, drafting various documents including witness statements, preparing complex exhibits and proofing lengthy translations.
Zhen is fluent in English and Mandarin Chinese and proficient in Cantonese Chinese and specialised in supporting China and South East Asia clients including attending a high-value international arbitration to provide supports and identify any "lost in translation" moments in real time.
Advocacy, written and negotiation skills
Zhen is a skilled and natural advocate, and appears in court on a frequent basis. She likes to engage with opposing counsel to get a good outcome for her client; and has good understanding of daily procedure and practice in UK courts and is comfortable appearing before a variety of judges.
She also accepts instruction to produce written advice in all areas of her expertise.
Commerciality/Client care
Having worked at law firms, Zhen has an excellent understanding of the business needs and commercial reality of instructing solicitors and lay clients. She works hard to prepare cases and has a reputation for using strong judgement in making decisions about case strategy at court.
Chinese language skills and casework
Zhen played an integral role in a joint venture Chinese business in their acquisition of a well-known English football team.
Zhen used her Chinese language skills to ensure seamless liaison between clients and solicitors and translated a variety of documents, including land registration applications, leases and licences. This again involved working to critical, urgent deadlines, commercial outcomes and solicitors’ in-house style and worked long hours to produce concise, detailed research.
Public speaking and training
A well-known public speaker and trainer, Zhen was a guest speaker on Cambridge University's MPhil in Development Studies from 2009 until 2014.
Outside her busy work diary, Zhen’s interests are reading, especially Chinese literature, and hot yoga.
Publications
Controlling insider dealing through criminal enforcement in China, Journal of Financial Crime, 26 June 2020
Regulation of Insider Trading in China, Research Handbook on International Financial Crime, January 2020
Commercial
Zhen Ye’s Commercial practice focuses on commercial disputes, insolvency, and business entities (Company Law, LLPs and joint ventures). A significant proportion of the matters in which she acts raise questions on the application of commercial and contract law to complex, multi-party arrangements.
Zhen has a particular interest in cross-border commercial disputes and international arbitration, having studied competition law and financial regulations in a comparative context, and being involved in several international arbitration cases.
Prior to joining 3PB, Zhen was a dispute resolution/litigation paralegal at two London law firms King & Wood Mallesons and Mishcon de Reya, drafting various documents including witness statements, preparing complex exhibits and proofing lengthy translations.
Recent/on-going commercial cases:
GLAS SAS (London Branch) v. European Topsoho SARL and Ors
Commercial court claim by a trustee against the issuer of €250m Secured Exchangeable Bonds, claiming breach of a failure to pay on the maturity date. The underlying dispute concerns a battle for the control of a high-brand fashion company listed on Paris Euronext.
A T I & E C Ltd
Advising the client on challenging an LMAA’s award under section 67 of the English Arbitration Act 1996…
Phones 4U Limited v. EE Limited & Ors
Zhen as 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).
Toucan Energy Holdings Limited Toucan Gen Co Limited v Wirsol Energy Limited [2021] EWHC 895 (Comm); [2021] 4 WLUK 35
Zhen as instructed by Enyo Law to assist in a junior capacity in relation to the litigation of a dispute worth £7,000,000 within the context of the telecoms industry.
Her past experience includes:
researching case law on implied indemnity for a pension dispute, discussing the possible legal arguments and producing first draft of advice; and
acting in extradition proceeding against a well-known Russian oligarch including drafting documents, reviewing witness statements for experts and preparing complex exhibits and proofing lengthy translations. Met all the court and client deadlines and worked in a team of 25 partners and associates.
Zhen also now frequently provides written advice, court advocacy, assisting clients in mediations on smaller-scale disputes such as contracts for building services and sale of goods claims.
Company law
In addition to her experience in corporate insolvency, Zhen has substantial experience in general company law matters and frequently appears and advises on matters such as applications to rectify the register of charges under the Companies Act 2006.
Property and Estates
Dr Zhen Ye frequently provides advice and representation on matters such as:
Residential and Commercial possession claims
Forfeiture and Relief from Forfeiture
Rent arrears and service charge
Boundary Disputes Nuisance
Trespass Easements
Leasehold dispute
Zhen has recently appeared in a recorded case in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
Insolvency and bankruptcy
Zhen is regularly instructed to advise and represent clients on the following insolvency and bankruptcy matters:
Partnership insolvencies
Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation
Creditors’ Voluntary Arrangements
Zhen frequently appears at the winding-up court at the Rolls building.
Zhen also has experience in representing individuals in bankruptcy proceedings and frequently appears in London and in county courts for such cases.
Construction and engineering
Zhen is the newest member of 3PB’s prolific and much-respected Construction and Engineering Group, and frequently acts in a wide variety of residential and commercial construction matters.
Recent cases include:
Represented builders—unpaid invoice for building works and counterclaim for defective works
Represented homeowner—return of deposit for unbuilt conservatory
Represented homeowners—unpaid invoice for building works and counterclaim for defective works
Advised on prospects in claim against negligent conveyancer
Advised and drafted proceedings in dispute with builder over pavement works
Advised and drafted proceedings in dispute with builder over kitchen and cottage conversions
Drafted proceedings against employer for unpaid invoices under JCT contracts
Advised on prospects against installer of flooring for poor workmanship
Advising and drafting proceedings in multi-track claim for non-payment of invoices in building works
Advised and drafted proceedings in dispute between contractor and sub-contractor
Adjudication – advised on recovery where unknown to the parties. Matter governed by Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
Hall of fame