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.

Our strength
is in our groups

Areas of Expertise

View Full Profile

Edward Bennion-Pedley

Call 2004
Telephone 020 7831 0222
Email edward.bennion-pedley@42br.com


Profile Privacy Notice vCard


Ed is a commercial chancery barrister. He has a strong commercial practice but with a particular emphasis on professional negligence in respect of land and within the financial services sector.


  • Solicitors describe Ed as having an engaging manner with clients and being a pleasure to work with. He has also been praised as an experienced and tactically astute litigator who produces work of the highest quality and who is trusted to “bring trials safely home”.

Examples of work

  • ICC International Arbitration (2018) – a claim for commissions due following the sale of communication equipment to the Turkish Navy.
  • Norddeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale (2018) – acting for the claimant bank to recover payments due under a finance agreement entered into by a member of a prominent royal family to facilitate the purchase of an aircraft.
  • Pinisetty v Manikonda (2018) – concerning the degree of certainty required to enforce an informal agreement for the sale of a business and associated property by way of proprietary estoppel and thereafter in respect of restitutionary remedies.
  • Frederick v Positive Solutions Limited (2018) – a second appeal that sought to establish vicarious liability for the fraudulent actions of the Defendant’s agent (a financial adviser) arising out of mortgage transactions to fund a building development.
  • Clark v Natwest (2018) – assigned claims arising out of a mis-sold IRHP and the Company’s subsequent transfer to the defendant bank’s Global Restructuring Group.
  • Centenary Homes (2018) – a claim alleging professional negligence against LPA Receivers and in particular breaches of the receivers’ subordinate duty to avoid preventable loss.
  • Re: a solicitor (2017) – acting for defendant solicitors following the failure, by process servers, to serve within limitation in circumstances where the underlying claims arose out of the purchase of a portfolio of buy to let properties that relied, in part, upon fraudulent mortgage funding.
  • Re: a planning consultant (2017) – a claim alleging a failure to identify the planning potential of a site in Alderley Edge.
  • Patel v Patel (2017) – trial over several weeks to establish the beneficial ownership of property in England and to defend the setting aside of property and business transactions said to have been undertaken fraudulently and/or in breach of fiduciary duty.
  • P1 World LLP (2017) – concerning commissions said to be due to an agent in respect of the future work of two TV personalities.
  • A Kahn Design (2017) – the extent to which the director of the defendant company could be held liable for alleged breaches by his company of a joint venture to build re-creation Aston Martin DB4 Zagatos vehicles.
  • Re: a solicitor (2017) – acting for a defendant solicitor accused of misleading his client in order to force through a settlement so as to cover up earlier alleged negligence.
  • Re: A company registered in Anguilla (2016) – obtaining a freezing order to recover money lodged pending unsuccessful commercial negotiations and thereafter to establish liability against directors for accessory liability for breach of trust in respect of that part which had been dissipated.
  • Howell v Hayward (2016) – a claim to enforce a failed option agreement over a terrace of properties in Penarth by way of proprietary estoppel.
  • Satara v Habib Bank AG Zurich (2016) – a claim, by a wife, to establish a beneficial interest in a family home and thereafter that it was an overriding interest taking priority over the bank.
  • Budd v Bank of Scotland (2016) – a claim arising out of the mis-selling of an IRHP to a property investor to hedge rates across his Central London property portfolio and in particular the extent to which losses following the sale of the properties by LPA Receivers were recoverable.
  • Waistell v E.Surv Limited (2016) – acting in a substantial claim arising out of the defendant’s failure to observe and/or warn of (amongst other things) the presence of Death Watch Beetle in a 15th Century timber framed building in Herefordshire.
  • LCIA International Arbitration (2015) – acting for the Applicant in this claim for USD 4.2 million due in commissions following the sale of aircraft engines and associated maintenance packages in Turkey.
  • Galaxy Investments Limited v North of England Estates Limited (2015) – a claim concerning land intended for development and a failure by the vendor to obtain the release of part of the land from a pre-existing option in favour of a third party joint venture vehicle leading to allegations of conspiracy between various connected companies.
  • Re: An LLP (2014) – injunction proceedings on behalf of a trader on LIFFE against leading counsel to restrain presentation of a petition. The intended petitioner was the LLP’s former managing corporate partner and the debt was said to have arisen out of a termination agreement. The matter turned on the proper construction of a number of financial milestones and/or whether the termination agreement was susceptible to a claim for rectification.
  • Kember v Hamer (2014) – a trial to establish a Pallant v Morgan trust over Welsh agricultural and amenity land purchased by the Defendant at auction pursuant to an informal agreement between the parties in respect of subsequent division and access rights.
  • Pebbles One Limited v Southend BC (2014) – acting for the defendant local authority in what was effectively a test case arising out of a major project to regenerate the sea front in Southend. The claimant alleged that the local authority had conducted the works contrary to assurances given to the local traders’ association and sought significant damages in negligent misstatement.
  • Scott v Greaves Properties Limited (2014) Ch D a dispute concerning the proper construction of a facility letter and whether the funder was entitled to pull funding and if not whether the development could have been successfully completed within the period for which funding would otherwise have been available. Also whether funds advanced for the development were subject to a purpose trust allowing recovery against third parties for alleged misapplication.
  • Carbon Smart Limited v Prevista Limited (2014) (and thereafter in the Court of Appeal) a dispute as to proper construction of a contract to provide European Regional Development Fund funded business support and whether the supplier was bound to comply with various evidence requirements.
  • Venture Construction and Developments Ltd v Hira and others (2013) a trial over four weeks concerning the final account after two substantial packages of works and more particularly recoverability against directors personally and a number of other additional parties based on alleged fraud and breach of trust.
  • Bains v Bains and others (2013) – acting for the Claimants in a claim to set aside two share transfers for (inter alia) alleged undue influence and consequential accounts in respect of dividend income in the interim.
  • Re: A Solicitor (2013) – acting for defendant solicitors in a claim for substantial damages arising out of a failed property development in which the claimant claims its costs of unsuccessful mitigation and alleged loss of profits.
  • Re: A Solicitor (2013) – acting for defendant solicitors in a claim arising out of a failure to register title over part of a development site which in turn led to delays in re-financing and alleged loss of profit.
  • Ward v Coope and others (2013) – a trial concerning liability between neighbours for the cost of replacing a retaining wall between their two properties and specifically how the measured duty of care operates against a background of easements of support.
  • Alemil Holdings Ltd v Rysaffe Nominees and others (2012) – concerning the enforceability of a sale and purchase agreement negotiated in the small hours in a Moscow hotel room and in particular issues of capacity and agency.
  • Moore v Goudes Surveyors (2012) – the extent to which liability for allegedly false statements made in a professional consultant’s certificate within the meaning of the CML Handbook could extend to defects arising out of deficiencies in design as opposed to departures from approved drawings.


  • Queen Mary College, University of London (BSc Hons), City University and Inns of Court
  • School of Law

Scholarships and Awards

  • Harmsworth Scholar (Middle Temple)

News & events