We use cookies to offer you a better experience and analyse site traffic.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.


Since joining 42BR in November 2020, Andrew has built a busy mixed practice predominantly in the Business and Property and Employment teams. Andrew is regularly instructed in Landlord and Tenant disputes (forfeiture, service charges, renewals and termination), TOLATA, and in commercial disputes involving land, including conveyancing, easements, and registered charges.

In his employment practice, Andrew has acted in unfair dismissal cases, discrimination and harassment claims, insolvent employers, and breach of TUPE. He has also advised on breach of directors’ fiduciary duties.

Andrew also accepts briefs in the Family jurisdiction and recently acted in a case involving fraudulent dissipation of marital assets.

Housing Law

Andrew accepts instructions in housing law dealing with anti-social behaviour, homelessness appeals, and Equality Act challenges. He has acted in possession proceedings in secure and non-secure tenancies and has advised on rights of succession in secure tenancies.

Areas of Expertise

View Full Profile

Qualifications & Appointments

  • BA (Hons)/LLB (Monash)
  • Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice
  • Bar Transfer Test
  • Australian Lawyer (December 2013)

Related News

Social Mobility Advocates 2021

Social Mobility Advocates 2021

Members Andrew Carter and Rachel Chan have been chosen by the Bar Council to be Social Mobility Advocates.

Published: 26th Oct 2021

London Legal Walk

London Legal Walk

A team of barristers from 42 Bedford Row are walking with the Lord Chief Justice and thousands of lawyers to raise funds for the London Legal Support Trust which funds Law Centres and pro bono agencies in and around London.

Published: 18th Aug 2021

Re A, B and C [2021] EWCA Civ 451 – Case note

Re A, B and C [2021] EWCA Civ 451 – Case note

The Court of Appeal has found that a trial judge had misapplied Lucas in finding that a juvenile’s consciousness of guilt that he had sexually abused another child was the only reasonable explanation for his lies at trial.

Published: 12th Apr 2021

More news

Developed by CodeShore Ltd