5 Stone Buildings logo

5 Stone Buildings

Show options

Barristers

search
Miranda Allardice
Miranda Allardice
Experienced Chancery and Family Finance Barrister and Mediator.  Miranda offers a specialist mediator service dealing with the following areas in which she has extensive expertise: Inheritance Act and probate claims; administration of estates and trust claims; TOLATA, cohabitee, and proprietary estoppel claims; vulnerable elderly and Court of Protection matters; complex family finance matters. Miranda uses her knowledge garnered as a senior barrister dealing with the above areas of law to facilitate the mediation process.  She is adept at conflict resolution in these technical and highly emotionally charged areas of law. She is able to offer mediation; ENE and private FDRs to secure a cost effective outcome for the parties.  She has conducted on-line mediations in the Covid-19 crisis. Notable reported cases as an advocate: Costa v Germain [2019] EWHC 3324 Probate dispute.  Musa v Holliday [2012] EWCA Civ 1268 Inheritance Act claim. H v Mitson [2010] WTLR  193 Inheritance Act claim.
Tracey Angus KC
Tracey Angus KC
Barrister specialising in general Chancery work with an emphasis on equity and trusts; probate; land law; family provision; Court of Protection and professional negligence claims in these areas. Her reported or notable cases include: Cowan v Foreman [2019] EWCA Civ 1336 (family provision time limit); Wesley v Chantler [2018] EWHC 21 (trusts); Dellal v Dellal [2015] EWHC 907 (family provision); re Lucian Freud dec’d [2014] WTLR 1453 (will construction, secret trusts); Curtis v Pulbrook [2011] EWHC 167 (imperfect gift); Gill v Woodhall [2010] EWCH Civ 1430 (disputed will, proprietary estoppel); Curtis v Pulbrook [2009] EWCH 1370 (undue influence); Holman v Hayes [2008] 1 FLR 1217 (trust of land); Kostic v Chaplin and others TLR 11Jan 2008; P v G, P and P [2006] 1 FLR 431 (family provision); Burrell v Burrell [2005] STC 569 (trusts).
Raj Arumugam
Raj Arumugam
Raj has a broad Commercial Chancery practice with a particular emphasis on Trusts and Offshore, Insolvency, Company and Commercial litigation. Raj has been involved in major offshore disputes such as the Investec Trust v. Glenalla litigation as well as leading insolvency and company law cases, such as recently representing the successful liquidator in the landmark decision in System Buildings Services Group Ltd v. Michie [2020] EWHC 54 (Ch). Before joining the Bar, Raj was a solicitor in the City, qualifying at Herbert Smith in 2002 and then practising for 6 years as a commercial litigator at a leading US law firm. Raj has also spent 6 months seconded to a leading offshore law firm. As a result, Raj is a team player who understands the needs of solicitors and overseas lawyers when instructing counsel. Raj has been appointed to the Attorney General’s B Panel of Junior Counsel. He regularly represents and advises Government departments and public bodies including HMRC, HM Treasury, BEIS, the DfE, the MoD, the Official Receiver, Companies House and the DVLA. In 2008, Raj served as a Judicial Assistant in the Court of Appeal (working principally for the then Lady Justice Arden). This gave Raj an invaluable insight into appellate work.
Mark Baxter
Mark Baxter
Contentious and non-contentious traditional chancery practice, with particular emphasis on estates and family provision, trusts and equitable claims, Court of Protection (especially in connection with high net worth families), personal and trusts taxation, and related professional negligence. Regularly appears in County and High Courts, and Court of Protection. Notable reported cases include: Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind v Beasant [2021] EWHC 2315 (Ch); Roberts v Fresco [2017] EWHC 283 (Ch); Randall v Randall [2014] EWHC 3134 (Ch), [2016] EWCA Civ 494; and two decisions in Re Z [2018] EWHC 1488 (Ch) and [2019] EWCOP 55.
Toby Bishop
Toby Bishop
Toby is a contentious Chancery practitioner focused on succession and trusts disputes, including: probate, trusts of land, 1975 Act claims, the administration of estates and trusts, the removal of fiduciaries, domicile and equitable relief. Recent cases: Bhusate v Patel [2020] EWHC 52 (Ch) (appeal against the extension of time for a 1975 Act claim by 25 years and 9 months); Re Ali; Rehman v Hamid [2019] EWHC 3692 (Ch) (a domicile and forum non-conveniens dispute in a probate context); Re Bascoe; Barnaby v Johnson [2019] EWHC 3344 (Ch) (a probate claim, issues of capacity, undue influence, knowledge and approval and forgery); Ninian v Findlay [2019] EWHC 297 (Ch) (an application for relief against forfeiture for a wife who accompanied her husband to Dignitas).
Mark Blackett-ord
Mark Blackett-ord
Barrister specialising in trusts, partnership, professional negligence, probate and general Chancery litigation. His recent cases include: Manning v English [2010]; Hopton v Miller [2010]; Mary Grey Ritchie deceased [2009]; Olins v Walters [2009] Ch 212 (mutual wills); Tann v Herrington [2009] EWHC 445 (partnership); Re St Peter’s Draycott [2009] Fam 93 (Court of Arches); Hopper v Hopper [2008] EWCA 228 (proprietary estoppel); M Young Legal v Zahid [2006] 1 WLR 2562 CA, where Wilson LJ at para 31 refers to ‘Mr Blackett-Ord’s excellent book.’; Sandhu v Gill [2006] Ch 456 CA; Price v Williams-Wynn [2006] WTLR (for the claimant); Braymist v Wise Finance Co [2002] 2 AER 333 CA; Polly Peck Plc v Nadir [1992] The Times 30.7.92 CA..
Hugh Cumber
Hugh Cumber
Joined chambers after completion of pupillage in 2014. Spent nine months seconded as Judicial Assistant to Lord Neuberger at the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Experience in all areas of Chambers’ practice including, trust disputes, challenges to the validity of wills, contentious and non-contentious estate administration including related taxation and professional negligence advice, family provision claims, challenges to vulnerable transactions, and proceedings in the Court of Protection.  Hugh has experience in mediation of disputes in his underlying areas of practice.  Hugh acted for the appellant charities in Ilott v Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17 (led by Penelope Reed QC) the leading case on family provision claims for adult children, and for the taxpayers in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in the Staveley litigation (led by David Rees QC) an important case on key provisions of the inheritance tax legislation in the context of pensions.
Eliza Eagling
Eliza Eagling
Eliza has a chancery practice specialising in contentious trusts and probate, 1975 Act claims, the removal of personal representatives, constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel.  Eliza also acts in contentious Court of Protection matters, both financial and health and welfare.   Eliza was recently Junior Counsel for the Appellant in the highly publicised 1975 Act case of Cowan v Foreman in the Court of Appeal. She is a member of the LexisNexis Expert Panel for Family Law and Private Client.    Eliza has completed a five-month secondment in the trusts and succession disputes team at Withers LLP, where she handled and advised on a wide range of trust and probate disputes.  
Thomas Entwistle
Thomas Entwistle
Barrister with a practice covering all areas of Chancery work including both non-contentious advice and litigation. He focuses particularly on: probate, estates, family provision, trusts, Court of Protection, taxation, and related professional negligence. Notable cases include: Lomax v Lomax [2019] 1 WLR 6527, CA and [2020] 1 FLR 30 (court’s power to order ENE); Public Guardian v DA [2018] 3 WLR 2017 (validity of provisions in lasting powers of attorney); Cotton v Earl of Cardigan [2015] WTLR 39, CA (court’s blessing of proposed sale of trust land); Re Duffy [2013] EWHC 2395 (Ch) (charitable gifts and distribution of an estate in reliance on counsel’s opinion); Brudenell-Bruce v Moore and Cotton [2012] WTLR 931 (ownership of paintings and the self-dealing rule); Ketteringham v Hardy [2011] WTLR 1367 (beneficial ownership of land); Ashcroft v Barnsdale [2010] STC 2544 (rectification of deed of variation for mistake); Re S & S [2010] 1 WLR 1082 (appointment of a deputy for property and affairs and best interests).
Sarah Haren KC
Sarah Haren KC
Barrister with a practice incorporating a wide range of Chancery work, both contentious and non-contentious, primarily comprising: probate and the administration of estates, claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, trusts and related taxation, Court of protection matters and property disputes (particularly those involving questions of trust or estoppel). She regularly appears in the Court of Protection as well as the High Court and county courts. She also has experience of litigation in the Cayman Islands. Notable cases include: Re JMA [2018] EWCOP 19; Akyuz v Akyuz [2017] EWHC 2726 (Fam); Graham-York v York [2015] EWCA Civ. 72; Simon v Byford and ors [2014] EWCA Civ 280; Pullan v Wilson [2014] EWHC 126 (Ch); Bennett v Petit [2013] EWHC 988 (Ch); Gorbunova v Berezovsky [2013] EWHC 76 (Ch); JSC Aeroflot v Berezovsky [2013] EWHC 1210 (Ch); Wood v Gorbunova [2013] EWHC 1935 (Ch); Simon v Byford and others [2013] EWHC 1490 (Ch); ;TWM Trust Corporation Ltd v Attorney General & ors [2010] All ER D 139.
Jordan Holland
Jordan Holland
General chancery, private client, succession, trusts; Court of Protection; related professional negligence. Has particular expertise in cases involving art and cultural property. Reported cases include: Watts v Watts [2015] EWCA Civ 1297 (Ch) (will forgery); Dellal v Dellal [2015] EWHC 907 (Fam) (anti-avoidance in 1975 Act Claims); Trilogy Management Ltd v Harcus Sinclair [2016] EWHC 170 (Ch) (professional negligence in relation to offshore trusts); Tish v Olley [2018] EWHC 1069 (Ch) (maintenance clauses in wills) and Re Earl Bathurst Deceased [2018] EWHC 21 (Ch) (construction of life interests). Jordan also has a notable offshore practice, especially in the Channel Islands. He acted in the long-running Trilogy litigation and for the professional trustee in the Crociani litigation.
Ruth Hughes KC
Ruth Hughes KC
Ruth has a private client practice focusing on taxation, trusts and estates (in all cases both contentious and non-contentious) and Court of Protection. Ruth has experience in resolving all manner of property, tax and litigation related problems which arise in these areas. She frequently deals with complex cross-border estates and large landed estates within the UK. Ruth is often involved in very high value disputes, for example the Ingenious tax litigation worth in excess of £1bn. She has a particular interest in the judicial review of HMRC. Ruth has a wide range of advocacy experience especially in the High Court and the Tax Tribunal. Her written and oral advocacy were described as “exemplary” by King LJ in Quan v Bray, charity/matrimonial trusts dispute. Ruth is able to advise on all pre-and post-death planning issues which is also of assistance in her contentious practice. She frequently advises on tricky (and sometimes esoteric) issues of Inheritance Tax and associated Capital Gains Tax and draft the documents necessary to effect her advice. Ruth is also a trained mediator and is able to bring this experience to bear in negotiating the best practical solutions for her clients.
Henry Legge KC
Henry Legge KC
Barrister dealing with non-contentious and revenue work as well as litigation; particular experience in complex and multi-jurisdictional trusts and estates; probate disputes and pensions law. He has acted for claimants and defendants in professional negligence cases relating to these areas and to many other areas involving complex legal issues or evidence (including a number of cases of actuaries’ negligence). Extensive experience of offshore work. He has an additional area of expertise in cases involving works of art and chattels. His reported cases include: Thywates v Sotherbys [2014]; IBM UK Holdings Ltd v Dalgleish [2014] EWHC 980; Re Nortel Networks Canada (expert witness); Gorbunova v Berezovsky and Wood v Gorbunova [2013] EWHC 1209 and 1935 (also at [2013] 5 Costs LR 713); Avrora Fine Art Investment Ltd v ChristieManson and Woods [2012] EWCH 2198; Trilogy Management v YT Charitable Foundation [2012] JRC 093; Re Coronation of the Virgin, acted successfully for Courtauld Gallery before Spoilation Advisory Panel; Page v West [2010] WTLR 1811; BT Pensions Scheme Trustees Ltd v BT plc [2011] EWHC 3388, [2011] EWHC 2071 and [2010] EWHC 2642; Spencer v S Franses Ltd [2010] (purchase consignment of an important medieval embroidery); Government of Canada v Hertel [2010] EWHC 2305 (Divisional Court); Martin v Triggs Turner [2009] EWHC 1920 and (on a separate point) Times 5.2.08 (negligence claim in relation to drafting of will and administration of estate); Stow v Stow [2008] Ch 461 (family provision); Mubarak v Mubarik [2008] JLR 430 (matrimonial); MT v OT [2008] 2 FLR 1311 (acted as joint expert in this important case on the structuring of orders made under schedule 1 to the Children Act); WF v NF [2007] EWHC 3050; Dellar v Zivy [2008] WTLR 17 (conflicts of law arising on death of French testator with English will where proceedings had been commenced in France); Re Horley Town Football Club [2006] WTLR 1817 (unincorporated associations); Burrell v Burrell [2005] BTC 8011 (principle in Hastings-Bass; Alexander Forbes v Jackson [2005] PLR 33; Francis Bacon litigation; Al-Bassam litigation (multi-jurisdictional probate claim); Re West [2006] WTLR 157 (legal treatment of accounting balances in trust accounts).
Michael O’Sullivan
Michael O’Sullivan
Barrister whose current practice incorporates: trust litigation and advice both onshore and offshore, contentious and non-contentious probate applications, Inheritance Act applications (often in relation to high value estates worth several millions), professional negligence (particularly in relation to claim against solicitors and accountants and tax consultants) in relation to negligent conveyancing and tax advice, Court of Protection applications, capital gains tax and inheritance tax planning, real property litigation (particularly in relation to easements, restrictive covenants and contracts for the sale of land), pensions litigation. He has been involved in a number of important and notable cases, including: Naylor v Barlow [2019] EWHC 1565 CH (will construction and conditions subsequent) : Re Jones [2014] EWCOP 59 (will claim); Khan v Crossland [2012] WTLR removal of executor under 5116 SCA 198; EB v RC [2011] EWCH 3805 (CoP) Removal of Deputy; Re P [2009] EWHC 163 (Ch) [2009] 2 All ER 1198 (the leading modern case on statutory wills in the Court of Protection); Carr v Ennals [2008] EWHC 2859 (Ch) (probate challenge on grounds of lack of capacity); PEER v EMC [2007] E.C.D.R 1 [2006] EWHC 2883 (succession issues relevant to claim to UK copyright in various jazz compositions by Cuban artists (as featured in ‘the Buena Vista Social Club’); Allardyce v Roebuck [2004] 3 All ER 754 (time limits for testamentary options to purchase property); Tchillingrian v Ouzounian [2003] WTLR 709 (probate challenge to will on grounds of mental incapacity, lack of knowledge and approval and undue influence); Asylum Seekers Management Ltd v Adelphi Hotels Ltd (CA) [2003] EWCA Civ 1892 (construction of break clause in commercial agreement relating to management of properties occupied by asylum seekers); Shirley v D J Freeman [2002] 01 EG 74 (CS) (successful striking out of a negligence claim where solicitors were alleged to have failed to advise client competently in relation to rights of way over common land and highways issues); Banks v Cox [2001] (CA) Estates Gazette 2001: Comm Law Journal 2001 (fraudulent misrepresentation on sale of a business and test for admission of new evidence on appeals under the Civil Procedure Rules); Re Lady Price [2000] (construction of gift of chattels in will and meaning of word ‘furniture’ and whether it included pictures, porcelain jade and other objects d’art in context of an estate that included chattels worth £5m); DPR Futures Ltd (In Liquidation) [1993] (approval of a compromise among various classes of creditors in relation to the infamous collapsed futures trading company that had been involved in fraudulent trading); Denetower v Toop [1991] (CA) 1 WLR 945 (Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 – first Court of Appeal case dealing with construction of the provision relating to the tenants’ right to buy the freehold);
Matthew Paton
Matthew Paton
Matthew has a wide practice encompassing all aspects of traditional and commercial chancery with a particular focus on litigation in the areas of trust and probate, related company matters, insolvency (particularly cross-border issues), and civil fraud. He regularly appears in the county and higher courts. Matthew is also ranked as a Leading Individual in Offshore (Legal 500). He has appeared in the courts of a number of offshore jurisdictions including the Privy Council. As well as being called to the Bahamas Bar, Matthew frequently advises in matters arising from all of the principal offshore jurisdictions, including BVI, Bermuda, Cayman, the Channel Islands, and more recently St Kitts & Nevis. He has also acted as an expert on Bahamian law in the English and US courts. As well as acting as sole counsel Matthew has significant experience and welcomes being instructed as part of a larger team.
Penelope Reed KC
Penelope Reed KC
Barrister with a wide Chancery practice and a special emphasis on trusts, wills, contentious probate, family provision claims, professional negligence, and tax. Her  reported cases include: Ilott v Mitson [2018] AC 545; Cowan v Foreman [2019] EWHC 349 (Fam); Re Bhusate [2019] EWHC 2275 (Ch); James v James. [2018] EWHC 43 Crociani v Crociani [2017] JRC 146; [2018]JCA136A; Perry v Neupert [2019] EWHC 2275 (Ch) Kahrmann v Harrison-Morgan [2019] EWCA Civ 2094; Shah v Forsters [2017] EWHC 2433 (Ch);  Cotton v Earl of Cardigan [2014] EWCA Civ 1312; Fielden v Christie-Miller[2015] W.T.L.R. 1689. King v The Chiltern Dog Rescue and Redwings [2015]; Loring v Woodland Trust [2014] EWCA Civ 131; Simon v Byford [2014] EWCA Civ 280; ; Re Christou Dec’d [2014] EWHC 79 (Ch); Re M [2013] WTLR 681; Green v Astor [2013] EWHC 1857 (Ch); [2013] WTLR 1489; Berger v Berger [2013] EWCA Civ 1305; Burgess v Hawes [2013] (CoA); Suggitt v Suggitt [2012] WTLR 1607; Brudenell-Bruce v Moore and Cotton [2012] EWHC 1024 (Ch) ; RSPCA v Sharp [2010] WTLR 855 [2010] EWHC 268 (Ch) ); Alkin v Raymond [2010] 7/5/10 ; Jiggens v Low [2010] EWHC 1566 ; Perrins v Holland [2010] EWCA Civ 840; Servoz-Gavin [2010] 1 All ER 410 (privileged wills); Thorner v Major [2009] 1 WLR 776;).
David Rees KC
David Rees KC
Barrister with a traditional Chancery practice encompassing trusts, probate, wills, adminstration of estates, family provision and capital taxation.  Has a particular specialisation in Court of Protection and mental capacity work including cross-border incapacity cases and is regularly instructed by the Official Solicitor to represent persons lacking mental capacity: Reported cases include: Parry & Others v HMRC [2017] UKUT 4 (TCC) (Inheritance Tax on transfer between pension schemes); Watt v ABC [2016] EWCOP 2532 (Use of personal injury trust as alternative to deputyship); Re D [2016] EWCOP 35; [2016] COPLR 432 (Appeal against decision to dispense with service of statutory will application on affected party); Re Vindis Deceased (2016) (Application by widow for provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 in substantial estate); Lloyd v Jones & Others [2016] EWHC 1308 (Ch) (Contentious probate; testamentary capacity and want of knowledge and approval); Re PJV; PJV v Assistant Director Adult Social Care Newcastle City Council & Another [2015] EWCOP 87 and [2016] EWCOP 7 (Interaction between roles of the Court of Protection and Criminal Injury Compensation Authority where award of compensation is to be held on trust for an incapacitated person); Aidiniantz v Riley [2015] EWCOP 65; (Extensive welfare and deputyship dispute); Re PD; Health Service Executive of Ireland v CNWL [2015] EWCOP 48 (Recognition and enforcement of order of Irish High Court by Court of Protection which has the effect of depriving person of their liberty in England and Wales. Whether affected party needs to be joined as a party); Health Service Executive of Ireland v PA & Others [2015] EWCOP 38; (Recognition and enforcement of order of Irish High Court by Court of Protection which has the effect of depriving person of their liberty in England and Wales); Re XZ; XZ v The Public Guardian [2015] EWCOP 35 (Limits to the role of the Public Guardian in regulating restrictions and conditions in a lasting power of attorney); An English Local Authority v SW & Others [2014] EWCOP 43 (Cross-border jurisdiction of the Court of Protection. Meaning of "habitual residence" in the context of Schedule 3 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005); Re Gladys Meek; Jones v Parkin & Others [2014] EWCOP 1 (Statutory will in the context of significant financial abuse by deputies having taken place); Re AB [2014] COPLR 381 (Principles upon which the Court of Protection should act where dispensing with service on a party affected by a statutory will application); Baker Tilly v Makar [2013] EWHC 759 (QB) (Need for medical evidence when assessing capacity of a litigant in civil proceedings); Re HM [2012] WTLR 281 (Appointment of deputy preferable to personal injury trust); Re G (TJ) [2011] WTLR 231 (Application of "best interests" principle in relation to statutory gift applications and role of "substituted judgment" under Mental Capacity Act 2005); Re D [2012] Ch 57 (Extent to which Court of Protection should authorise statutory will to forestall contentious probate proceedings); Re MN [2010] WTLR 1355 (Leading authority on Court of Protection's international jurisdiction. Extent to which Court of Protection entitled to have regard to "best interests" on application to recognise and enforce order of foreign court in relation to incapacitated person); Baker v H [2009] WTLR 1719 (Test case on the criteria for setting the level of security bonds for deputies); Re P [2010] Ch 33 (Application of "best interests" principle in relation to statutory will applications); Re J [2010] Ch 33 (Registration of EPA appointing successive attorneys)
Patrick Rolfe
Barrister with a contentious Chancery practice, specialising in real property. He deals with all aspects of the acquisition, ownership and use of land, and has a particular interest in the areas of landlord & tenant, mortgages and easements. He also acts in professional negligence disputes associated with these areas of work. His reported cases include: John D Wood & Co v Craze [2007] 50 EG 108) (entitlement to commission on Sale of Land); Macepark v Sargeant [2003] 1 WLR 2284 (use of right of way to access non-dominant land); Paragon Finance plc v Banks [2003] 1 WLR 284 (CA) (limitation periods in respect of mortgage debts); and Wellcome Trust v Hamad [1998] 2 WLR 156 (CA) (lease of business premises containing both business and residential users).
Mathew Roper
Mathew Roper
  Chancery barrister specialising in contentious and non-contentious trusts and estates, related professional negligence and the property and affairs jurisdiction of the Court of Protection. His cases include: Cotton v Earl of Cardigan (blessing application); Fielden v Christie-Miller (rectification of a deed of appointment and proprietary estoppel); RNLI v Headley [2016] 1948 (Ch) (claim for an account and disclosure of trust documents); Bullard v Bullard [2017] EWHC 3 (Ch) (rectification of a settlement); ADS v DSM [2017] EWCOP 8 (statutory will application); and Re AR [2018] EWCOP 8 (authority and remuneration of deputies); Almond v Goff (will construction) Brown v New Quadrant Trust Corporation Ltd [2021] EWHC 1731 (Ch) (injunction to restrain and a counter application for directions blessing a proposed sale of trust assets).
Leon Sartin
Leon Sartin
Barrister whose practice covers all areas of Chancery work, with an emphasis on trusts, probate, tax and estate planning, inheritance and family provision, real property and landlord and tenant and related professional negligence. He regularly advises on capital taxation and is experienced in drafting trust documentation. His work includes contentious disputes of all kinds involving trusts, estates, patients of the Court of Protection, real property and landlord and tenant. His recent cases include: Hughes & ors v Bourne & ors [2012] EWHC 2232 (Ch); Lilleyman v Lilleyman [2012] EWHC 821 (Ch) [2012] EWHC 1056 (Ch); In the matter of the Wedgwood Museum Trust Ltd [2011] EWHC 3782 (Ch); Fine v Fine (rectification of deed of appointment) [2012] WTLR 1745 EWHC 1811 (Ch); Maskell v Denham and UBS Pensions Trustees [2010] LTL AC9200991 (spousal bypass trust set aside on grounds of mistake); Franks v Sinclair [2007] WTLR 439; EWHC (Ch) 3365 (probate action in which plea of want of knowledge and approval was successfully raised); Clarke v Brothwood [2007] WTLR 329; EWHC (Ch) 2939 (rectification of will); Mausner v Mincher [2006] EWHC (Ch) 1283 (costs of probate action); Re F [2004] 3 All ER 277 (registration of enduring power of attorney); and Elvidge v Coulson, The Times, 27 August 2003 (distribution of assets of friendly society).
Andrew Simmonds KC
Andrew Simmonds KC
Barrister specialising mainly in pensions work, but also undertaking litigation in the professional negligence, trust, probate and financial services fields.  Pensions experience covers advice and litigation relating to all manner of problems and disputes arising between trustees, employers and members, complaints to the Pensions Ombudsman, the powers and duties of the Pensions Regulator and the Pension Protection Fund and claims against pensions professionals.  In the professional negligence field he has particular experience of claims against solicitors, barristers, actuaries and accountants but has also acted in claims against insurance brokers, fund managers, stockbrokers and others.  He has also represented the Conservative Party in a major probate action (Re Kostic), defended Equitable Life in a class action launched by 400 policyholders and has acted in the first inheritance claim based on proprietary estoppel to reach the House of Lords (Thorner v Majors)  and the first pensions case to reach the Supreme Court (Bridge Trustees Ltd v Yates). Recent reported cases include: Foster Wheeler Ltd v Hanley [2009] PLR 229; Thorner v Majors [2009] 1 WLR 776; Independent Trustee Services Ltd v Hope [2009] PLR 379; Prudential Staff Pensions Ltd v Prudential Assurance [2011] PLR 239; Bridge Trustees Ltd v Yates [2011] PLR 313; IBM UK Pension Trust v IBM UK Holdings Ltd [2012] PLR 469; Premier Foods v RHM Pension Trust [2012] PLR 151; Trustees of the Lehman Bros Pension Scheme v Pensions Regulator [2013] 4 All ER 744; Honda Motor Europe Ltd v Powell [2014] PLR 255; Sarjeant v Rigid Group Ltd [2014] PLR 143; Secretary of State for Culture v BT Pension Scheme Trustees/BT [2014] PLR 647; Merchant Navy Ratings Pension Fund v Stena Line [2015] PLR 239; IBM UK Holdings Ltd v Dalgleish [2018] PLR 1; Buckinghamshire v Barnardo’s [2019] PLR 84; Lloyds Banking Group Pension Trustees v Lloyds Bank [2019] PLR 95.
Christopher Tidmarsh KC
Christopher Tidmarsh KC
Barrister with a wide ranging Chancery practice. Since taking silk, he has focused on trusts and probate, tax, pension schemes and associated professional negligence. He is experienced in both contentious and non-contentious aspects of the administration of trusts (UK and off-shore), estates and pension schemes. Before taking silk he was a standing Junior Counsel to the Inland Revenue and brings that experience to bear in his private practice. Has extensive experience in tax cases before the special and general commissioners and in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. He was involved in the litigation surrounding the T&N Pension Scheme (concerning the recovery by pension scheme trustees of debts due from an insolvent employer), the KPMG pension scheme (meaning of money purchase scheme), Re Rogers (test case concerning probate and LLPs) and has been advising on various regulatory matters for the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries. He regularly advises public bodies such as the Pension Protection Fund, the Pension Regulator, the Inland Revenue and the Bank of England. Reported cases include: Boyer Allen Investment Services Ltd v Revenue and Customs [2012] UKFTT 558 (TC); Greenbank v HMRC [2011] STC 1582; Re Nelson Dance Settlement [2009] EWHC (Ch) 71; Johnston Publishing North v HMRC [2008] EWCA Civ 858; Underwood v HMRC [2008] EWCA Civ 1423; Random House (UK) Ltd v Rupert Allason [2008] EWHC (Ch) 2854; Sargeant v Reese [2008] 1 P8CR DG8; Hearn v Dobson [2008] EWHC (Ch) 1620; Re Rogers [2006] 1 WLR 1577; Re T&N [2005] PLR 33; Hearn v Younger [2005] PLR 49; Property Co v Inland Revenue [2005] STC (SCD) 59; and Aon v KPMG [2004].
Shan Warnock-Smith KC
Shan Warnock-Smith KC
Barrister who is an adviser and a litigator in the whole range of trust, estates and charity matters and has a particular interest in wealth structuring for international families from both the advisory and the litigation standpoints. In addition to her English practice, she practises extensively in the offshore jurisdictions, particularly in the Caribbean. She established ICT (International Chancery and Trusts Chambers) in Cayman and has been admitted to practice there. In 2008 she was admitted to practice in the Courts of the Dubai International Finance Centre. She is at the forefront of developments in the private client field. She appeared in Re Yorke (deceased) [1997] 4 All ER 907, the test case on estates of Lloyd’s Names, and is the author of the subsequent Practice Direction permitting paper applications to the court in such cases. Among some of her other reported cases are: Midland Bank v Wyatt [1995] 1 FLR 697 (the first English case on sham trusts); A v Rothschild Trust Cayman Ltd [2006] WTLR 1129 (establishing the availability of the Hastings-Bass jurisdiction in Cayman); AN v Barclays [2007] WTLR 565 (validity of no contest clause) and Re Circle Trust [2007] WTLR 631 (nature of power to appoint a protector); MEP v Rothschild and Sutton v England [2010] WTLR 335 [2009] EWHC 3270 (Ch) (use of court’s power to confer administration powers of partition). She has also appeared in numerous important and often highly sensitive unreported cases dealing with variations of trust, construction and rectification proceedings, breach of trust claims and applications for directions by trustees, particularly those concerning the sale or management of family companies. Shân is a mediator of trust and estates disputes.