Selected cases

  • Geyfords Ltd v O’Sullivan [2015] UKUT 683 (LC);
  • Garcha v Charity Commission for England and Wales [2015] W.T.L.R. 453
  • Shellpoint Trustees Ltd v Barnett [2012] 3 E.G.L.R. 115
  • Mohammadi v Shellpoint Trustees Ltd [2010] 1 All E.R. 433
  • Beardsley Theobalds Retirement Benefit Scheme Trustees v Yardley [2011] EWHC 1380
  • Trans-World Investments Ltd v Dadarwalla [2008] 1 P. & C.R. 18
  • Sahota v Singh [2006] EWHC 344 (Ch)
  • Mohammadi v Anston Investments Ltd [2004] H.L.R. 8
  • Soteriou v Ultrachem Ltd [2004] I.R.L.R. 870
  • Pratt v Medwin (2003-04) 6 I.T.E.L.R. 131
  • H (A Child) v S (Damages) Court of Appeal [2003] Q.B. 965
  • Straudley Investments Ltd v Mount Eden Land Ltd (No.1) (1997) 74 P. & C.R. 306
  • Mallory v Butler [1991] 1 W.L.R. 458

Publications

  • Recovery of legal costs as a service charge – what has changed since Arnold and Britton? L. & T. Review 2016,
  • The purpose of the filter’ published by Trusts and Estates Law & Tax Journal
  • The Financial Ombudsman Service – Timeshare related claims
  • The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)
  • Sub editor International Timesharing

Areas of Expertise

View Full Profile


Professional memberships

  • Property Bar Association
  • Professional Negligence Bar Association
  • Part time Tribunal Judge Residential Property Tribunal Service
  • Part time Tribunal Judge War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber

Education

  • BA Jurisprudence (1st class) Hertford College Oxford

Related News

Recovery of Legal Costs as a Service Charge – What Has Changed Since Arnold v Britton?

Recovery of Legal Costs as a Service Charge – What Has Changed Since Arnold v Britton?

The Supreme Court in Arnold v Britton [2015] A.C. 1619 has ruled that there are no special rules of interpretation which apply to service charge clauses. The old “restrictive” approach to the interpretation of service charge clauses has been criticised. The recovery of a landlord’s legal costs as a service charge remains a troublesome area, where the impact of Arnold v Britton is still being worked out.


Published: 23rd Feb 2016

Dispensing with the need to consult about service charges – at what cost?

Dispensing with the need to consult about service charges – at what cost?

The Supreme Court has changed the law about dispensing with the need for consultation for qualifying works or qualifying long term agreements where tenants of residential dwellings have to pay service charges: Daejan v Benson [2013] UKSC 14. The requirements for consultation in the 2003 Regulations (2003 SI 1987) are complex and lengthy. They vary according to


Published: 8th Mar 2013

More news

Awards & Recognition













Developed by CodeShore.Ltd