The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

Living Wage
Work 0115 947 2581
Fax 0115 947 6532
Ropewalk Chambers, Soofi Din, Nottingham, ENGLAND

Soofi Din

Work 0115 947 2581
Ropewalk Chambers (Ropewalk Chambers)

Work Department

Property and chancery, commercial.


Soofi began his practice in London after a pupillage in The Temple and New Square, Lincoln’s Inn and a tenancy in New Square. In 1989 he joined Ropewalk Chambers and has since specialised in all areas of chancery work focused in London, Birmingham and Leeds. He has a special interest in land law, particularly relating to all aspects of trusts and mortages and other securities affecting land. He is registered with the Bar Council to undertake Public Access work and is able to receive instructions directly from lay clients, as well as those on the traditional professional client basis. Notable cases include: Thompson v Foy (Lewison J) [2010] 1 P & CR 16 (an undue influence contest between the claimant and secured lender. A number of important points arose. The land registration point concerned ‘actual occupation’ under the LRA 2002. It has been applied by Court of Appeal in Link Lending Ltd v Hussein [2010] 2 P. & C.R. DG15); Beauchamp Pizza Ltd v Coventry City Council [2010] EWHC 926 (Ch) (the claimant was a company which had the benefit of a premises licence to operate a night club in Coventry. The company was struck off the Register and dissolved before the CA 2006 was in force. It was subsequently restored by the new administrative restoration procedure. Coventry CC contended that the new procedure did not apply but relented on seeing Soofi Din’s skeleton argument. HHJ Cooke ruled that the effect of the restoration was to bring the licence back into operation, with s1028 of the Companies Act 2006 providing that the company shall be deemed to have continued in existence as if its name had not been struck off); Derbyshire County Council v (1) Glen Neil Fallon (2) Tracy Jayne Fallon (2007) 25 EG 182 (CS) (on appeal the judge decided that the adjudicator had the power to refuse an alteration that had been won on the law and evidence because the applicant may be refused an injunction in any action brought to prevent a trespass); Archer Structures Ltd v Griffiths [2003] EWHC 957 (Ch); [2004] BCC 156; [2004] 1 BCLC 201; [2003] BPIR 1071 (where a defendant director’s new company had a name that suggested a clear association with a liquidated company, the director could not rely on differences in get up to avoid the thrust of the Insolvency Act 1986 s216. Also the director’s attempt to rely on an insolvency set off failed in the face of the joint and several liability imposed by s216).


Called 1984. Direct Access.


Chancery Bar Association; Professional Negligence Bar Association.


University of Manchester (BA Hons).

Back to index

Legal Developments worldwide

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