The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

Living Wage
Work 0115 947 2581
Fax 0115 947 6532
Ropewalk Chambers, Andrew Prestwich, Nottingham, ENGLAND

Andrew Prestwich

Work 0115 947 2581
Ropewalk Chambers (Ropewalk Chambers)

Work Department

Motor vehicle contract disputes.


Having had a busy and successful full-time career at the Bar, Andrew now only works part-time but retains his interest in pursuing contractual disputes involving motor vehicles. Notable cases include: Brookfield v Drury Chancery Division Registry (Leeds), 13 February 2009 (conveyancing mistake); Manches LLP v Green (t/a Green Denman & Co) Queen’s Bench Division, 29 April 2008 [2008] EWHC 917(QB); [2008] 6 Costs LR 881 (professional negligence); Re Clapham (Deceased) Chancery Division, 01 December 2005 [2005] EWHC 3387 (Ch); [2006] WTLR 203; [2006] 2 P & CR DG5 (trusts, negligence); Ward v Jeld Wen UK Ltd Sheffield County Court, 01 April 2004 [2004] CLY 2874 (NIHL); Hirst v Doncaster MBC Doncaster County Court 15 March 2004 [2006] CLY 2914 (RTA); Leicester City Council v Aldwinkle [1991] 24 HLR 40 (The Court of Appeal holds that it is not an abuse of process for a local authority both to apply for and then to execute a warrant of possession of a dwellinghouse even when the defendant tenant is absent from the premises due to ill health); Hollis & Co v Stocks Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 09 May 2000 [2000] UKCLR 658; [2000] IRLR 712 (restrictive covenants); Kevin Christopher Weet v (1) Roger Parker (2) Laverne Parker (1999) CA (Civ Div) (Buxton LJ, Hale LJ) 1/12/99 (where a judge had plainly indicated in court what the Scott schedule was to contain, and both parties had been represented in court by counsel, it was foolish to ignore that indication and to merely rely on the actual terms of an unless order that a Scott schedule be served); Michael Anthony Clarke (2) Stephen Clarke (T/A T Clarke & Sons) v Barry Winsley (1998) CA (Nourse LJ, May LJ) 8/6/98 (where a judgment was deficient in the reasons given for the judge’s findings the Court of Appeal would not interfere if it was possible to determine the basis on which the judge had made those findings); Harrison v Leake & Anor (1989) CA (Slade LJ, Balcombe LJ) 10/10/89 Times, October 12, 1989 (a court can only assess damages on the basis of evidence put before it and cannot enter judgment on a bare claim for unliquidated damages).


Called 1986.


University of Birmingham (LLB).

Back to index

Legal Developments worldwide

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to