Charles Irvine > 3PB > London

Charles Irvine is regularly instructed in the Court of Appeal, High Court, County Court and the Tribunals on a range of civil matters covering property, trusts, commercial & insolvency proceedings. He is able to accept instructions on a direct public access basis.

Property and Estates

Charles enjoys a busy property practice and his experience includes:

Real property, with a focus on trusts of land, proprietary estoppel and the interpretation of deeds.
Landlord and Tenant: Commercial and residential landlord and tenant law, including possession, advising on secured and assured tenancies, 1954 Act renewals and forfeiture and surrender

Recent and reported cases:

Hambling & anor v Wakerly & anor [2023] EWHC 343 (Ch); [2023] All ER (D) 77 (Feb)
Charles was successful at both first instance and at appeal in a claim brought against his clients for: (i) interference with a right of way, which was dependant on the interpretation of a transfer; (ii) interference with a right to light; and (iii) proprietary estoppel. Charles won on all issues at first instance. On appeal, the issue centred on whether the interpretation of a right of way and whether there was any “ancillary” use arguments which would benefit a right of way. Again, Charles was successful in opposing the appeal.

The case attracted a significant amount of national press interest:

Gillbac Ltd v (1) Clinkett & (2) Persons Unknown [2023]
Charles successfully represented the Claimant in complex commercial possession proceedings involving the removal of a former business tenant from premises to be sold to developers as part of a £2.8million development. The former tenant took forceable repossession of the site to operate from and refused to leave on the basis that the local council had failed to find alternative premises for him to operate from. The matter attracted a national press interest.

Uddin & Begum v Hussain & Islam [2023]
Charles successfully obtained a High Court injunction on behalf of the Claimants to prevent the Defendants (their son and daughter-in-law) from selling a home in which they all lived in. In the substantive claim, the Claimants seek to set aside/void a fraudulent transfer deed which transferred the property into the Claimants’ son’s sole name. The Claimants assert that their son forged for his parents’ signature on the transfer deed. Alternatively, the First Defendant made his parents sign the transfer deed on the basis of a fraudulent misrepresentation and/or as a result of applying undue influence and/or by mistake.

Carshalton Beeches Bowling Club Limited v Seaton House School [2020]
Charles successfully represented the Defendant, Seaton House School, named Independent Preparatory School of the Year 2018, at a 3 day trial in the County Court at Central London. The claim concerned a business lease renewal under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and a claim for a new lease under the principles of proprietary estoppel. The case has attracted news coverage including in The Telegraph, The Times, the Evening Standard and the Daily Mail.

Shah & Shah v Greening & Greening [2015]
A 2 day trial in the High Court concerning the specific performance of a contract for sale which raised issues of illegality and exceptional hardship.

Pressland v Sonigara [2015]
A 2 day trial at the County Court at Central London concerning the surrender of a lease by operation of law.

Hayatt v Cherwell District Council [2014]
First Tier Tribunal Property Chamber (Residential Property) appeal against the refusal to revoke an Interim Management Order.

Commercial

Charles is a specialist commercial barrister with an established reputation for handling complex, high-value disputes involving company law, insolvency, and commercial litigation. He is regularly instructed in matters requiring urgent intervention, including interim injunctions, freezing relief, strike out applications, and other emergency remedies—particularly in the context of shareholder disputes, boardroom deadlock, insolvency proceedings, and business-critical commercial disputes.

Charles is especially recognised for his expertise in contentious insolvency and company disputes, acting for insolvency practitioners, creditors, directors, shareholders, partnerships, and high-net-worth individuals. His practice spans individual bankruptcy matters through to multi-million-pound corporate insolvencies, unfair prejudice petitions, misfeasance claims, partnership breakdowns, and asset protection disputes.

He is frequently instructed in disputes involving distressed businesses, allegations of fiduciary misconduct, unlawful diversion of corporate opportunities, misuse of company assets, and disputes requiring urgent preservation of trading operations or corporate control.

Recent cases include:

C& anor v O Ltd & ors (2025–ongoing)

High Court unfair prejudice petition acting for minority shareholders in a multi-million-pound unfair prejudice petition arising from the breakdown of a restaurant venture established by former business partners from a two Michelin-starred business. The claim concerns exclusion from management, unauthorised related-party transactions, diversion of several million pounds to associated companies, and the transfer of valuable intellectual property.

Re PLL Ltd (A Company) [2026]

Charles successfully obtained a just and equitable winding up order in the High Court arising from a deadlocked company, where one of the Company’s directors had removed the other director unlawfully.

Re D Ltd (A Company) [2026]

Charles successfully opposed a just and equitable winding up petition in the High Court. The main issue was whether the substratum of the Company had been exhausted and whether there was any tangible benefit in the winding up. Charles successfully argued that the although the substratum may have been lost, there would be no tangible benefit in the winding up and the Petitioner had alternative remedies (such as an unfair prejudice petition) such that just and equitable relief should be refused.

Re G Property Holdings v W & ors (2025)

Charles successfully obtained urgent High Court injunctive relief for a founding director of a property holding and management company with assets worth several million pounds, reversing an unlawful attempt by co-directors to remove his client from office, restoring his position as director, and obtaining declaratory relief concerning the invalidity of the purported corporate resolutions.

Re SSS v P (2025)

Charles successfully struck out an urgent winding up petition presented against a national retailer with profits exceeding £3 million and approximately 200 stores nationwide. The petition arose from disputed commercial lease liabilities following vacation of premises. Charles successfully established that the petition was an abuse of process and that the underlying debt was genuinely disputed, raising significant insolvency and property law issues.

Re In the matter of PL Estatea LLP, in administration (2025)

Charles successfully obtained an administration order on behalf of creditors in relation to a family LLP holding assets worth approximately £3 million, principally real estate. Faced with irreconcilable deadlock between partners and attempts to withdraw partnership assets, Charles devised and implemented a strategic administration process that protected secured creditors and facilitated a solvent exit.

W v L (2025)

Charles acted for a shareholder and former director in an unfair prejudice petition concerning a quasi-partnership property holding company. The claim raised novel issues as to whether a refusal to maximise land development opportunities constituted unfairly prejudicial conduct. Charles secured a substantial settlement at mediation.

Restraint of Trade Injunction (2025)

Charles successfully obtained an emergency interim injunction restraining a former employee from competing with his client’s business following the theft of confidential client and patient information. The matter involved complex issues concerning the enforceability of restrictive covenants and protection of goodwill.

Cross-Border Freight Services Injunction (2025)

Charles acted in urgent High Court proceedings concerning threatened suspension of critical data synchronisation services used in over 200,000 daily freight shipments, representing approximately 40% of the US LTL freight market. Charles successfully secured undertakings preserving business continuity while alternative operational arrangements were implemented. The dispute involved complex contractual interpretation and jurisdictional issues.

In the matter of M (2023)

Charles successfully defended a debtor facing bankruptcy proceedings in respect of liabilities of approximately £500,000, together with related High Court proceedings concerning a disputed debt of £375,000 arising from the alleged assumption of company liabilities by a director.

S v H (2022)

Charles successfully negotiated a substantial settlement in an unfair prejudice petition arising from a quasi-partnership dispute involving allegations of misappropriation of company assets, breaches of fiduciary duty, and undisclosed dividend and remuneration payments.

G P Ltd v C (2021)

Charles successfully represented a former employee (C) in getting a High Court claim brought by her former employer (G) dismissed and opposing an interim injunction being entered against her for a purported breach of confidentiality. It was alleged that C obtained G’s commercially sensitive information and passed it onto her new employer. The context was that the G’s former founding director had left G to set up a rival company and C had left G to join him. These proceedings were part of an attempt to obtain information to sustain G’s claim against the former director.

In the matter of Sinton European Logistics Ltd (2019) [2019] 2 WLUK 327

Charles successfully represented the liquidator of Sinton European Logistics in a claim brought against the former director of the company that had gone into creditors' voluntary liquidation. The director was liable to pay £20,360 to the liquidator in respect of various payments made, before the company had gone into liquidation, in breach of his fiduciary duty as director. (LTL 22/2/2019 EXTEMPORE: [2019] 2 WLUK 327)

Greatbatch v Sirius Marine Service Ltd (Re Rhapsody) [2018] EWHC 4062 (Admlty)

Charles successfully brought proceedings in the Admiralty Court in respect of defective workmanship carried out by the Defendant. The case raised issues as to the correct measure of damages for pleasure vessels.

Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v Technosport London Ltd & Agyeton [2016] EWHC 797 (IPEC)

High Court trial concerning passing off and trade mark infringement of the BMW word mark and roundel logo.

Doctor Associates Inc v Hussain [2014] EWHC 3384 (IPEC)

High Court application to set aside default judgment on terms in a passing off case.

GHML v Maroo [2012]

Led by David Berkley KC of 3PB for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the fiduciary duties owed by directors. Advising a large group of companies on their standard terms and conditions and updating the same in light of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Professional Negligence

Charles regularly leverages his commercial litigation experience to advise and represent clients in range of professional negligence matters. He has acted in claims involving accountants, finance professionals, solicitors, surveyors, valuers, and architects. Notable work includes:

Advised the claimants in a claim brought against former accountants, raising complex issues concerning recoverable losses. The case involved complex consequential losses which arose from the negligent accountancy advice, in particular, a personal injury element caused by the cancellation of private medical insurance.

A High Court claim concerned the Defendant’s negligent survey of a yacht prior to the Claimant’s purchase of it. There were issues as to the extent of the contract, whether the Defendant was negligent and the amount of recoverable damages. Charles successfully secured a substantial settlement for the client, almost double the value of the vessel.

Successfully brought proceedings in the Admiralty Court in respect of defective workmanship carried out by the Defendant. The case raised interesting issues as to the correct measure of damages for pleasure vessels.

Legal 500

FAQs

Marketing

Careers

Contact us

3PB

Charles Irvine

Work Department

Position

Career

Education

Mentions

Commercial litigation

Company and insolvency

Property and construction