3PB

Aimee Fox

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 Hodge

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.

Andrew Lorie

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 MacPhail

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.  

Audrey Archer

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

Caroline Stone

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

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

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.    

Charlotte Hadfield

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

Cheryl Jones

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.  

Christopher Edwards

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.

Christopher Whelan

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

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

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.  

Craig Ludlow

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.  

David Swinstead

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.

David Richards

David Richards is committed to the practice of criminal law. This applies as much to regulatory law as to ‘traditional’ crime. His background of 25 years in practice both prosecuting and defending across all courts in England and Wales and beyond, together with his study of international criminal law, maritime law and the law of armed conflict, demonstrates a breadth of expertise and interest that reflects his passion for criminal law across a range of areas of life and practice. Unlike some he is not ‘a prosecutor’ or ‘a defender’ rather he approaches every case with a forensic scrutiny of the issues and a determination to find how best to advance his client’s case. In the last 7 years (2015-2022), David has prosecuted gross negligence manslaughter and other homicide cases of the utmost complexity involving incidents at sea with multiple fatalities and on army firing ranges; he has also defended high value importation and complex healthy and safety cases. He has led for the Crown and the defence in lengthy multiple defendant cases. For two decades he has also regularly appeared in courts martial defending and prosecuting in matters of homicide, rape, child sexual abuse, fraud and bullying. David's advisory practice has encompassed several complicated maritime fatality inquiries and Inquests; he has also advised the MoD on charging decisions arising from the inquiries into alleged war crimes in Iraq, drawing together tens of thousands of pages of evidence, working with service police and some of the country’s leading silks. He has advised on matters as diverse as responsibility for the disposal of waste water held on vessels destined for China through to challenges to the Marine Management Organisations’ penalty points scheme for commercial fishing, review of the Thames Cockle Fishery Order and liability for unlicensed deposits; and has assisted government departments on the draft of new Victims Right of Review schemes. David's marine regulatory practice has taken him across the South, to Newcastle, London and the Falkland Islands. He is the consultant Editor of Halsbury Laws 2022 (volume 51): Fisheries and Aquaculture. His prolific health and safety practice, concerning systems of work in construction sites and office maintenance, includes cases in London, the South West, the Midlands and North of England. David is appointed to the Specialist Regulatory Advocates in Health and Safety as well as the Environmental Law List. David is a Grade 4 prosecutor and CPS Rape specialist and has defended and prosecuted in cases concerning the full calendar of sexual offences including rape and multiple victim child sexual abuse. This takes him across the South and South West, to London, the Midlands and military court centers in the north and south of England. Crime David believes those caught up in the criminal process: defendants facing charge and the fear of the consequences of conviction; witnesses required to attend court to talk about stressful events; victims appearing in court just because their rights have been abused: all deserve the best service and assistance in coping with and navigating the experience of the court case. From 2015 to 2020, David has deliberately chosen to focus on the more complex casework. His study of maritime law and international criminal law, together with his work as the Principal Legal Adviser to the Director of Service Prosecutions and a background as an army officer (1992-1996), his interest span a variety of sub areas within criminal and regulatory law. Noted for his sympathetic manner with clients and complainants he is often instructed to prosecute or defend in cases requiring a particularly sensitive approach e.g., with vulnerable victims or witnesses, and cases where deaths have been caused through driving. One recent case concerned a 15-year-old accused charged with the rape of younger children. His cases have involved murder, manslaughter, multi-million pound fraudulent importations, multi handed drugs conspiracies, maritime fraud and collisions at sea; he has prosecuted and defended in cases of historic child abuse, rape and domestic abuse. Notable cases  R v ML and MH: in February 2023, prosecuted the skipper and owner of the Seadogz experience ride after the rib with 11 passengers on board was driven into the Netley Buoy in Southampton Water causing multiple injuries to passengers and the tragic death of a 15 year old who was on board with her sister and parents. R v MB and others - defending first defendant on indictment in trial for importation of 1.4 tonnes of cocaine from Colombia; acquitted after 4-week trial. R v EB - Portsmouth Crown Court September 2022: defended man accused of rape in nightclub, who was acquitted. R v Gayle and Others – Portsmouth Crown Court Sept 2019 and February 2020: led for the prosecution in 7 handed county lines conspiracy. Following discharge of original jury at end of the prosecution case, retrial resulted in all accused convicted. R v M – Lewes Crown Court December 2019: prosecution of fisherman charged with Merchant Shipping Act offence arising from the deaths of 3 leisure fishermen. R v X - Kingston Crown Court April - August 2019: David led Audrey Archer of 3PB in the defence of man charged with coordination of a £12.2million evasion of the duty on hand rolling tobacco by two organised crime groups. The case against their client turned on detailed financial and telephone evidence together with extensive undercover work by HMRC. R v Hicks and others: Operation Attica - the successful prosecution of conspiracies to supply heroin, cocaine and cannabis in Bristol, the West Midlands and Reading. David led for the prosecution in this 6 week trial. In May and June 2018 David was led by Nigel Lickley QC in the successful prosecution of an Army Captain for the gross negligence manslaughter of a soldier on ranges he was running in Castlemartin, Wales in May 2012. The case concerned the safe operation of a live firing range; experts in ballistics, pathology and range management were called to address the key factual issues of where the fatal round came from and the extent of the fault that attached to the accused. Also tried by the same court were a Lieutenant Colonel and Sgt Major both of who were convicted of negligent performance of their duties in the planning for, setting up and running of these ranges. The prosecution followed investigations by Dyfed Powys police, the Health and Safety Executive, the Army’s Land Accident Investigation team and a coronial inquest. Despite complex legal challenges and an extremely complicated factual scenario the case was brought to trial and successfully prosecuted. CPS & MCA v Doug Innes and Stormforce Coaching (Cheeki Rafiki) (2018) Prosecuted defendant charged with 4 counts of manslaughter by gross negligence after failing to ensure the safety of the yacht Cheeki Rafiki that capsized in the Atlantic causing the deaths of the four crew.  Technically complex. Led by Nigel Lickley QC. R v W (Winchester Crown Court April 2016) Prosecution of 15 year old charged with multiple rapes of 11 and 13 year old children. R v Brown (Winchester Crown Court December 2016) - led by Nigel Lickley QC in the prosecution of mother who murdered her 19 day old baby. R v T (Winchester Crown Court April 2017) - prosecution of attempted murder R v TB - Newcastle Crown Court July 2015 - Accused charged with substantial fraud on the European Fisheries Fund. Negotiated pleas with the prosecution to regulatory offences; fined £2,800 total. Re: HP June 2015 -  Inquest into the death of marine scarp yard worker. R v A [2015] 2 Cr App R (S) 12 -  The Court of Appeal gave guidance on the drafting of multiple incident counts and indictments. R v F (Bournemouth Crown Court August 2014) - Successfully argued the accused, suffering acute psychotic disorder, was not guilty by reason of insanity R v Conlin (Winchester Crown Court July 2014) - Led by Nigel Lickley Q.C. in the successful prosecution of a. father for the murder by shaking / trauma of his 4 and a half month old daughter. Case involved complex expert evidence relevant to causation and timing of injury. R v S 2013 - Defence of soldier charged with causing death of two civilians in road traffic collision Afghanistan. R v G 2013 - Defence of high value watch trader charged with substantial VAT fraud. R v F 2011 - Defence of man charged with serial rape and sexual assault of five victims from 1980 to 2010. R v AL (2011) - Child cruelty - parent causing severe injuries (multiple fractures) to 5 month old child. R v P (2011) - Haulier carrying catering trailer charged with causing death by dangerous driving when hatch opened and collided with traffic lights, resulting in death of pedestrian. R v W and S (2011) - Defence of accused charged with wide ranging conspiracy to steal from fruit machines at service stations across the midlands and south of England. R v B and B (2010) - Two men charged with the rape and buggery of a school friend when in Cyprus in 1988; neither had further connection with military but due to location and date of offence court martial the only available venue; successfully challenged terminating ruling by Judge Advocate. R v S (2010) - Defence of the first ever prosecution by trading standards for selling legal highs. R v F (2010) - Prosecuting international conspiracy to clone and distribute false credit cards. R v MoD (ex p Al Sweady) (2009) - Judicial review of conduct by British Army at the ‘Battle of Danny Boy’ in Iraq. Articles Appeal against Court Martial sentences: has anything changed? [1999] Crim L R 480 The Armed Forces Act 2006 - Civilianising Military Justice? [2008] Crim L R 191 Military  As the PLA at the Service Prosecuting Authority, David has been responsible for overseeing the entire case work of the prosecution at courts martial. He has introduced new arrangements for coordination between the service police and the SPA. Working on behalf of the DSP and JAG he has helped guide the introduction of Better Case Management to the UK military courts. Having appeared in military courts for defence and prosecution throughout his career and having written and lectured on the Armed Forces Act 2006, he is a pre-eminent expert on the service justice system. Public and Regulatory  Marine and Fisheries Full / further Details appear under the Marine and Fisheries section. David has a commitment to maritime law demonstrated by his successful completion of a masters degree in Maritime Law at Southampton University in 2014-15 whilst in full time practice at the Bar. He wants to engage with the maritime community both in safe regulation and in supporting those caught in processes they are not prepared for in their every day lives at sea.” In the last 5 years he has appeared in courts across the UK and in the Falkland Islands on matters relating to collisions, marine navigation offences, fisheries offences and fraud on the European Fisheries Fund. He has  advised the MCA and defence solicitors and clients on matters arising from oyster fisheries in Kent, the MMO’s penalty points scheme for commercial fishing, the disposal of waste water held on board cargo vessels destined for Turkey and China. He has advised prosecution and defence on the prospects of conviction in various cases concerning marine fatalities. He has advised on applications for disclosure from the MAIB before the High Court in Winchester and Hull. He has recently advised as to the regulations governing disposal of water held on board a vessel following a fire in Southampton Docks. He has represented the regulator and the operator of a scrap yard at inquests arising from marine fatalities. Other Public and Regulatory work David has a busy practice advising on public and regulatory law issues. Cases include: March 2021: Represented owner of a window cleaning firm charged with health and safety offences in the Crown Court after incident where furniture fell from the 8th floor of a central London building, resulting in severe injures to pedestrian passing by on the pavement. Following a guilty plea S received a suspended sentence. February 2020: appeared in Westminster Magistrates Court for shopfitting company charged with offences arising from unsafe erection of hoarding in central London site. July 2019: appeared for a London Window Cleaning Company charged with health and safety offences arising from unsafe practices operating at height. July 2018 Bulford Military Court Centre - led by Nigel Lickley QC prosecuting three army officers for their role in the gross negligence manslaughter of a soldier shot dead on army ranges in 2012. The case involved detailed consideration of the regulations applicable to ranges  and the safe operation of live firing exercises. All three accused were convicted after trial. He has represented estate agents prosecuted under the HMO regulations. He has advised as to the proper packaging of foodstuffs. In August 2018 he appeared for a large midlands roofing company in responding to applications for enforcement notices before Coventry County Court. David has appeared for national supermarkets charged with selling out of date food; he has represented dockyard scrap merchants at inquest proceedings. He appeared for the defendant in the first ever trading standards prosecution for the sale of legal highs. Led by Nigel Lickley QC in CPS & MCA v Doug Innes and Stormforce Coaching (Cheeki Rafiki) (2018) he prosecuted a defendant charged with 4 counts of manslaughter by gross negligence after failing to ensure the safety of the yacht Cheeki Rafiki that capsized in the Atlantic causing the deaths of the four crew.  A technically complex case. He has experience of cases concerning the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) regulations 2013. He has appeared in the County Court for the defence in opposing enforcement orders under the Enterprise Act 2002. In 2018 in Folkestone he appeared for care home owners charged with breaches of noise abatement notices. In 2014 at Bournemouth Crown Court he appeared for the defence against the local authority involving the alleged wide scale breach of trade mark and copyright he was determined and uncompromising in resisting the claims against his clients who had inadvertently fallen foul of the local trading standards department. He has represented car dealers charged under the unfair trading regulations. He has represented local authorities prosecuting the deposit of waste without a waste management licence. He has lectured local authorities in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight on the EU Toy Safety Directive and the Toys (Safety) Regulations 2011 and the implications for market surveillance and enforcement thereunder. He has represented Sussex Police and applicants before council committees in matters of alcohol and entertainment license applications. Road Haulage David has appeared before the Traffic Commissioner in Birmingham and Chelmsford and at public enquiries on behalf of hauliers seeking goods vehicle operators licenses. He has developed particular expertise in cases of death through driving and has been involved in more than a dozen such cases in the last five years. These have ranged from two accused racing on country lanes, to a blacksmith with a defective trailer and a haulier with an allegedly insecure load (R v P). He has become adept at dealing with complex issues of causation and analysis of road traffic collisions. This latter case of R v P required a detailed forensic examination of the reliability of locking mechanisms on a catering trailer; the prosecution evidence that failure of the locks was impossible was challenged, resulting in a volte face by the prosecution expert accepting the possibility of the locks appearing secure yet failing during the course of the journey. David was praised for the clarity of his advice in this matter, without which the client (54 years old, never been in court before) would have found the case overwhelming. In 2013 he represented a driver charged with causing the death of two Afghan civilians through careless driving of a 15 ton vehicle. Through challenging the prosecution expert evidence the case was dropped by the SPA. Police Law David has appeared on behalf of and advised claimants against the police for the excessive use of force and libel / slander / breach of duty. He has advised on the options open to a claimant aggrieved by police action amounting to potential false imprisonment and malicious prosecution of a judicial office holder. He has appeared for the police at disciplinary tribunals. He has advised and assisted the police in obtaining various orders including Risk of Sexual Harm Orders and Premises Closure Orders Service Law David served in the Army from 1992 - 6, deploying on operations in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. He knows the stresses of service life. He wants to assist those caught in the service justice system in navigating the processes that can be immensely daunting to people unfamiliar with the criminal process, having spent their working lives in the service of their country. In May and June 2018 David was led by Nigel Lickley QC in the successful prosecution of an Army Captain for the gross negligence manslaughter of a soldier on ranges he was running in Castlemartin, Wales in May 2012. The case concerned the safe operation of a live firing range; experts in ballistics, pathology and range management were called to address the key factual issues of where the fatal round came from and the extent of the fault that attached to the accused. Also tried by the same court were a Lieutenant Colonel and Sgt Major both of who were convicted of negligent performance of their duties in the planning for, setting up and running of these ranges. The prosecution followed investigations by Dyfed Powys police, the Health and Safety Executive, the Army’s Land Accident Investigation team and a coronial inquest. Despite complex legal challenges and an extremely complicated factual scenario the case was brought to trial and successfully prosecuted. From 2015 to 2016 David held the  post of Principal Legal Adviser to the Director of Service Prosecutions. This role placed him at the heart of the Service Justice System. He introduced new measures for cooperation and engagement between the service prosecuting authority and the service police. Working with the Judge Advocate General he guided the introduction of Better Case Management in the Court Martial. This builds on his background as an army legal service officer (1992-6) and his regular and frequent appearances before the Court Martial. He has defended cases of attempted murder, rape, corruption, service fraud, gbh with intent and child abuse. He has been instructed to prosecute cases of rape on behalf of the Service Prosecuting Authority (SPA). He has previously represented the SPA in the Administrative Court (R v MoD (ex p Al Sweady) [2009]) and has taken a case (R v Bulford Court Martial ex p Bowyer (1999) EWHC 239) to the House of Lords. He secured the first successful challenge to a terminating ruling by a judge advocate (R v B and B [2010]. His articles on the service justice system have appeared in the Criminal Law Review and he has lectured the Service Prosecuting Authority and defence solicitors. He has Developed Vetting Security Clearance. Marine and Fisheries Law  David has a commitment to maritime law demonstrated by his successful completion of a masters degree in Maritime Law at Southampton University 2014-15 whilst in full time practice at the Bar. He is also consultant Editor of Halsbury Laws 2022 volume 51: Fisheries and Aquaculture.  In the last 5 years he has appeared in courts across the UK and in the Falkland Islands on matters relating to collisions, marine navigation offences, fisheries offences and fraud on the European Fisheries Fund. He has  advised the MCA and defence solicitors and clients on matters arising from oyster fisheries in Kent, the MMO’s penalty points scheme for commercial fishing, the disposal of waste held on board cargo vessels destined for Turkey and China. He has advised prosecution and defence on the prospects of conviction in various cases concerning marine fatalities. He has advised on applications for disclosure from the MAIB before the High Court in Winchester and Hull. He has recently advised as to the regulations governing disposal of water held on board a vessel following a fire in Southampton Docks. He has represented the regulator and the operator of a scrap yard at inquests arising from marine fatalities. Notable Cases R v ML and MH: in February 2023, prosecuted the skipper and owner of the Seadogz experience ride after the rib with 11 passengers on board was driven into the Netley Buoy in Southampton Water causing multiple injuries to passengers and the tragic death of a 15 year old who was on board with her sister and parents. R v David Marr (Brighton Crown Court) : in March 2021, prosecuted the master of a scallop dredger for failure to keep a proper lookout as a result of which three men, out night fishing, drowned; Marr was convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. R v M – Lewes Crown Court : in December 2019, prosecution of fisherman charged with Merchant Shipping Act offence arising from the deaths of three leisure fishermen. Re K: advised commercial fishing company as to the proper application of and challenge to the Marine Management Organisation’s penalty points scheme resulting in suspension of licences for fishing vessels. R v Innes (Winchester Crown Court) : (’The Cheeki Rafiki’ trial) in April 2018, led by Nigel Lickley QC, prosecuting the managing operator of a commercial yacht for the unsafe operation of the vessel resulting in the death of four sailors while crossing the Atlantic in the vessel Cheeki Rafiki. R v S (Hull Crown Court):  defence of a pilot in November 2017 charged under s.21 Pilotage Act 1987 following collision between the City of Rotterdam and the Primula Seaways in the Humber at about 8.30pm on 3rd December 2015. The case involved multiple experts as to both the design of the vessel and the duties of pilots and masters under Coll Regs and IMO Res 960. R v B (Newcastle Crown Court) - Defence of owner of crab processing factory in July 2015 facing charges of fraud relating to the European fisheries fund. Inquest (Portsmouth): into death of PH in June 2015, representing owner of marine scrap yard following death of sub-contractor on site. R v B September (Portsmouth Crown Court): Defence in November 2015 of alleged fraud on the European Fisheries Fund. R v F (Bournemouth Crown Court) - Successfully argued the accused in a case heard in 2014, suffering acute psychotic disorder, was not guilty by reason of insanity. Articles   David Richards reviews Fleet Maritime Services v the Pensions Regulator, on the applicability of automatic pensions enrolment for peripatetic employees Seminars  David hosted a seminar exploring the implications of Brexit for the UK fisheries industry. Together with Andrew Oliver of Andrew Jackson and Co. they discussed future regulation following Brexit with representatives of the industry from across England and Wales and from both fishers, POs and regulators. Following presentations and a round table discussion the meeting concluded that areas of most concern looking forward are: Whether the Great Repeal Bill will be an exercise in buying time by the government The need to reclaim territorial waters for exclusive use of the UK inshore fleet and to serve notice under the London Convention 1964 The need to strengthen the economic link requirements for flag ships The assertion of UK regulation of technical requirements, as is done by Norway and Iceland To ensure proper, full and as far as possible unified input from the whole industry to the Government’s Brexit Group Monthly Meeting Inquests (Personal Injury)  David Richards has appeared at Inquests for regulators, emergency services and employers. He has substantial experience of litigation arising from deaths at sea including fisheries and commercial operations of small and large vessels. He has advised the MCA, the SPA and the HSE in matters arising from the loss of lives of employees of emergency services, the armed forces and where criticisms have been made of emergency response. He has also defended those charged with offences arising from their duties on board vessels and advised on proceedings against those whose conduct fell short of relevant health and safety regulation. He has particular expertise in the regulation of the marine environment, being Consultant Editor of Halsbury’s Laws 2022 (volume 51): Aquaculture and Fisheries. Recent significant cases include: Inquest into the death of GF – Hull 2022 – ongoing: Inquest into the death of CR: Liverpool 2022 – inquest following death of woman in New Brighton, Merseyside. The hearing focussed on a dispute between emergency services as to priority of response and the selection of assets to achieve the rescue. Extensive correspondence ahead of the hearing was advised on and drafted for instructing solicitors to ensure the other agencies did not pursue inappropriate line of argument critical of David’s client Inquest into the death of NW: Medway 2018: walker lost at sea when trying to rescue his dog. Inquest into the death of JJ: Portsmouth 2012. The deceased died as result of cable snapping back on to him in dockside scrap yard. David represented the scrap yard owners to resolve issues of causation linked to work practices set down and those adopted. Police Law  David Richards has appeared for police forces in the following matters: licensing: firearms, liquor and entertainment licensing - before local authority committees and Magistrates courts Sexual Harm Prevention Orders and Sexual Risk orders - appeals in the Crown Court Cash seizure proceedings in Magistrates and Crown courts Police Disciplinary Tribunals - matters of violent and sexual misconduct and dishonesty He has also advised the police on obtaining of medical records prior to charging; crack house closure orders and conflict of jurisdiction (ref service personnel) in matters of historic sexual allegations.

Derek Pye

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.

Duncan McNair

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

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.

Elisabeth Hudson

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

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.  

Emma Griffiths

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

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 Harman

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 Southern

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.

Esther Lieu

Esther Lieu is a specialist family lawyer with an emphasis on private law children and financial remedy matters and cases involving financial provision following divorce or dissolution of marriages and separation of unmarried couples. Her private law children practice extends from domestic applications to jurisdictional disputes and international enforcement, as well as cases involving fact finding hearings, parental alienation and transfer of residence. Esther’s financial remedies practice encompasses all matters arising between married couples (from first appointment to contested final hearings) and unmarried couples (including property disputes and applications for child support). She has appeared in the High Court seeking injunctive relief and permission to proceed following an overseas divorce and regularly advises on settlement to assist clients in managing their costs. She has been described as ‘outstanding’, ‘supportive’ and ‘knowledgeable’ and enjoys regular repeat instructions. Esther is a strong and tenacious advocate who always ensures that her client is comfortable and confident with her representation. She is rigorous in her case preparation and prompt in responding to her professional clients. Esther spends most of her spare time chasing after her two young sons, normally outdoors and often in the mud. Esther Lieu is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public and professional clients under the Direct Public Access scheme. Family Esther Lieu is a specialist family lawyer with an emphasis on private family law matters and cases involving financial provision following divorce or dissolution of marriages and separation of unmarried couples. Finance Esther has a busy practice in financial remedies (from pre-nuptial and separation agreements through to contested final hearings), including applications brought under ToLATA and Schedule 1. She is a forceful negotiator at an FDR and balances the costs of further of litigation against the overarching aim of achieving the best outcome for her client. In particular she has experience of the following: Applications brought under ToLATA including equitable accounting claims Maintenance applications (brought under MCA 1973, Schedule 1 CA 1989 and CSA 1991) Interveners and third party interests Inherited wealth Non-matrimonial property Variation and enforcement applications Applications for financial relief following overseas divorce (MFPA 1984) Applications for injunctive relief Recent cases H v H (2019) Acted for the husband in a case that involved the wife’s receipt of a significant inheritance at the time of separation, and the death of the husband’s mother during proceedings resulting in his own inheritance (that was tied up with other family members). B v A (2019) Represented the father in an application brought under Schedule 1 CA1989 by the mother for  child maintenance to extend beyond the child’s 18th birthday on account of special circumstances.. Both applications were successfully opposed following detailed analysis of the Child Support Act 1991. M v M (2017), J v C (2017), K v M (2017) Advice provided in several cases concerning division of property owned by un-married couples, to include instances where there was no declaration of trust, an application to set aside a declaration of trust, calculation of beneficial interests and claims for equitable accounting. P v P (2017) Acted for the Russian wife in protracted proceedings which included successfully obtaining permission to apply for financial relief following an overseas divorce in the Royal Courts of Justice, obtaining injunctive relief against the husband’s attempt to dissipate assets, countering the husband’s father’s claim to a third party interest in the property and achieving a very positive outcome at final hearing. Private Law  Esther is regularly instructed in applications for child arrangements orders, specific issue and prohibited steps orders, as well as injunctions, enforcement applications, fact-finding hearings and contested final hearings. In particular, she has experience in cases involving: Parental alienation/ intractable hostility Transfer of residence Disputed jurisdiction (within the U.K. and international) Internal and international relocation Allegations of domestic violence and finding of fact hearings Recent Cases W v W (2019) Represented the father during a 3 day fact-find within a long-running application for child arrangements orders, and successfully defended him in committal proceedings brought by the mother. B v B (2019) Acted for the father in successfully opposing the mother’s application to relocate with the parties’ children who lived with her. S v S (2019) Acted for the father following the unlawful removal of his children by the mother to Scotland. Successfully obtained an interim order that the children be returned to England and successfully argued (against the mother) that England retained jurisdiction to hear the matter. The children were returned to the father’s care and he was ultimately granted a live with order in respect of both. E v E (2018) Represented the Children’s Guardian in an application by the father for a transfer of residence. A fact-find established that the mother had alienated the father from the children; subsequently the Guardian recommended a transfer of residence which was ultimately ordered by the court following a contested final hearing. V v G (2017) Acted for the father seeking contact and then residence orders in respect of his daughter in a long running protracted matter in the High Court which included the appointment of r.16.4 Guardian, committal proceedings against the mother (she was found guilty of contempt), a finding of fact (which established that the mother had alienated the father) and the making of Interim Supervision Orders in respect of the child. FDR Hearing Service Esther is available for private remote FDR hearings.

Gareth Graham

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

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 Chapman

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 White

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.  

Hamish Dunlop

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.

Ian Edge

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.

James Davison

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)­­­­­­­.

Jodie Mittell

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

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.

Joseph England

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.  

Joshua Dubin

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

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.

Karen Moss

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.  

Katherine Anderson

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.

Lachlan Wilson

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.

Louise Worton

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

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

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

Mark Sullivan

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

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 Lomas

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

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.

Martin Strutt

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

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.

Mathew Gullick

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.

Matthew Curtis

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

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.

Melanie de Freitas

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

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).  

Michelle Marnham

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.  

Nicholas Cotter

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.

Nick Robinson

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

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.  

Nicola Frost

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 Martin

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]  

Nicole Bollard

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.

Nikolai Lazarev

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.

Omar Malik

Omar Malik is a family practitioner and specialises in all aspects of public and private children law acting for parents, guardians, extended family members and intervenors. He has appeared at all levels of the Family Court, in the High Court, and in the Court of Appeal. Public Law  Omar has great experience of dealing with Care cases, primarily for parents but has also represented various Local Authorities and represented the Child Guardian. His cases have ranged from the neglect type case to those involving non-accidental injuries and physical/sexual abuse of children. Private Law  Omar also undertakes private law children cases involving the whole range of such applications that can be brought before the court. Hague Convention  Omar also has a real interest in Hague Convention cases and the development of this fascinating area of family law. Family  Children - Public law Omar represents clients at all stages of care proceedings. He regularly acts for parents, guardians, extended family members and intervenors. Omar has great experience in dealing with cases involving neglect and sexual abuse but has a particular interest in NAI cases and has appeared in cases involving brain and skull injury, rib fractures, limb fractures, and extensive bruising. Omar is experienced in representing parties in care cases involving: Non accidental injury / death of a child Expert / medico-legal issues Chronic neglect, drug and alcohol addiction (including cases in the FDAC / PSCM) Domestic violence and sexual abuse Serious mental health problems Adoption / Special Guardianship / Wardship Parents or children with special needs / cognitive impairment and capacity issues Revocation of placement orders / discharge of care orders Reported cases: A Local Authority v G (Parent with Learning Disability) [2017] EWFC B94 (18 December 2017) Acted for the father in care proceedings involving chronic neglect of children and where the mother was learning disabled and partially deaf. SGO and 12-month supervision order made in respect of the eldest child, and care and placement orders in respect of the other 2 children. Re LC ( A Child) ( Habitual Residence ) sub nom Poole Borough Council v (1) EC (2) MC (3) LC ( By his Childrens Guardian ) [2016] EWFC 31 Acted for the Guardian in proceedings as to whether the child was habitually resident in the Republic of Ireland or England for the purposes as to which country’s court had jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility over the child. Recent cases: Led in a Fact Find Hearing before the High Court where we acted for the mother of a dead baby that had suffered multiple fractures. Pool finding made re the rib fractures with the Local Authority no longer seeking findings as to who caused the death. Acted for a 17-year-old intervenor in a Fact Find Hearing where he was in the pool of perpetrators who may have caused severe bruising to a young girl. He was successfully removed from the pool at the end of the hearing. Acted for a Father in a Fact Find Hearing involving a skull fracture to a baby. Findings made against another father. Acted for a father in a Fact Find hearing where the mother made a late attempt to blame him for the extensive bruising to the child. Court declined to do so and made a pool finding. Acted for grandparents at a final hearing where the Local Authority and Guardian recommended the child should be placed for adoption. The court made an order placing the child with his grandparents. Acted for a father in a long running case where a number of children had made various serious allegations against both parents of sexual abuse to them including rape and forcing the children to abuse each other. Children - Private law Omar Malik represents clients at all stages of private law children disputes. He regularly represents parents and rule 16.4 guardians in disputes about the living arrangements for children, disputes about contact arrangements, and disputes about the exercise of parental responsibility. Omar has acted in cases in cases involving: Entrenched / intractable disputes Parental alienation Split hearings / finding of fact hearings Domestic violence and abuse including serious sexual abuse / offending Mental health problems and substance abuse issues impacting on child arrangements Removal from the jurisdiction Wardship Abduction and international issues.`

Paul Newman

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

Peter Aeberli

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.

Peter Jennings

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 Kent

Peter Kent is a civil practitioner with extensive experience of advocacy in High Court, County Court and ADR venues. He practises in all areas of matrimonial law, including Inheritance Act and TOLATA cases. He is a member of the Institute of Family Law Arbitrators (“IFLA”). Peter is also a member of our construction group and property/chancery group. Areas of expertise include professional negligence in the conveyancing context, banking and O’Brien type cases. As a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, he was on the FIMBRA arbitration panel dealing with financial services until it was wound up. He has acted within construction arbitrations. He is now a member of IFLA: see below. Peter enjoys one-to-one interaction with clients. Experience makes him especially alert to the need to be informative and frank about the costs of litigation, and to calm clients in what is often, to them, a very frightening experience. Peter lives near Worcester. Hobbies include Real Tennis, skiing and classic cars. Married with two daughters. Speaks conversational French. Peter is an Accredited Mediation Advocate. FAMILY Children: Private law Peter Kent finds job satisfaction in getting parents to put aside their differences and concentrate on the practicalities of childcare and, importantly, the best interests of the children. He has acted in the full gamut of family cases including removal of the child from the jurisdiction, all types of Section 8 orders and cases with a foreign element. Children: Public law This is a stressful area especially for parents who often lack the objective insight that is needed. Peter has been involved in public law cases since qualification and has seen and adapted to many changes. He acts both for local authorities and parents. While this is increasingly a technical area, he is determined that matters can be resolved as efficiently as the system permits, and ultimately in the best interests of the child. Ancillary Relief  Peter enjoys the practical challenge of understanding family finances and has extensive experience of dealing with high value and complex cases. As well as this, Peter is alert to the difficulties of low monetary value cases which can be just as difficult as those with high net worth. He has acted on and advised in many TOLATA claims and takes a particular interest in the conveyancing process when acting for unmarried people or for the elderly. He also deals with the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (applications for financial relief following a foreign divorce). Institute of Family Law Arbitrators This scheme was inaugurated in 2012 and Peter qualified as an Arbitrator within the scheme in the early days. The scheme covers: financial disputes arising from divorce; claims on inheritance from a child, spouse etc; financial claims made in England and Wales after a divorce abroad; claims for child maintenance between unmarried parents; disputes about ownership of a property between cohabiting couples and civil partnership financial claims. While procedure is flexible, arbitrators apply the MCA 1973 and relevant case law. IFLA developed the arbitration scheme to enable parties to resolve financial disputes more quickly, cheaply and in a more flexible and less formal setting than a court room. It is also expected to save court resources and reduce pressure on the already stretched family courts. Peter will accept instructions as an advocate where disputes are within the scheme or to be nominated to act as arbitrator. Members of IFLA all hope that we can offer a user friendly alternative to those seeking a solution to their dispute. We hope, too, that the flexibility within arbitration can keep costs down and enable a speedier resolution of cases. Notable cases  3rd September 2014 Peter Kent and Tanya Zabihi advised in the recent reported case of Re K (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 1195

Peter Collie

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.

Richard Tyson

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

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

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.  

Robert Grey

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.

Robert Weatherley

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.  

Robin Leach

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.

Sarah Jennings

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

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

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 Langford

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.

Seb Oram

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.  

Sharan Sanghera

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

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.

Stephen Wyeth

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.

Steven Howard

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.

Stuart Kennedy

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

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 Solomon

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)

Thomas Evans

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

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.

Thomas Tyler

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.

Timothy Bradbury

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

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.

Tonia Clark

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.

Tony Bingham

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.

Victoria Jones

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.

William Hansen

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.