Edward Risso-Gill > Chambers of Sir Geoffrey Cox KC > London, England > Barrister Profile

Property:

Edward Risso-Gill has expertise in a broad range of property-related work, including commercial landlord and tenant and property-related professional negligence. He has also appeared in property-related appeals before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Edward’s practice covers the following core areas:

• Landlord and tenant (residential and commercial);
• Leasehold enfranchisement;
• Mortgages and charges;
• Easements and boundaries;
• Restrictive covenants;
• Conveyancing;
• Equitable proprietary remedies;
• Co-ownership and trusts of land;
• Property-related professional negligence;
• Property-related insolvency.

Landlord and Tenant The majority of Edward’s landlord and tenant work has involved commercial leases, including central London high street lease renewals with well known national multiple lessees.

Covenants Edward’s experience has included dealing with an attempt to enforce the burden of a positive covenant against freehold successors-in-title and assessing the effect of an historic restrictive covenant in the context of compulsory purchase.

Conveyancing He has particular expertise in dealing with claims for damages following the breach of conveyancing contracts and collapsed conveyancing chains.

Property Related Professional Negligence He was instructed for the claimants in group claims against solicitors by 214 buyers and lenders in Mediterranean property developments, for professional negligence, breach of trust and breach of contractual duties as escrow agents by failing to provide the promised security for the funds advanced in purchases and loans.

Other Related Areas of Practice Edward appeared before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for the Government of Mauritius, together with Sir Geoffrey Cox QC, in an appeal which concerned the interface between public and private law in relation to the termination of leases. Previous experience also includes appearing for the Government of Mauritius with Sir Geoffrey Cox QC in a leading Mauritian property case concerning the proper construction of a purported ‘bail permanent’ (permanent lease) granted by the colonial government in 1901 (Raphael Fishing Company Ltd v State of Mauritius & Anor [2008] UKPC 43). He therefore has experience of dealing with the law of property under the Napoleonic Code and related French jurisprudence.

He has, in addition, experience of advising a Commonwealth government in a dispute involving public and planning law, which included claims for compensation for the alleged expropriation of property as a result of the designation of land as a World Heritage Site.

Commercial Law & Professional Negligence:

Edward’s practice covers company law, partnership and shareholder disputes, financial services, commercial fraud and breach of trust and the negligence of solicitors and other professionals in a commercial context.

He has dealt with a substantial claim against solicitors for negligent advice on the investment structures of an English public company and their compliance with financial services regulation.

He has been instructed in a number of group and other large claims, in addition to the group claims in respect of the Mediterranean property scheme noted above.

More recent instructions include dealing with a complex set of multiple claims against professionals, working with a team at Herbert Smith Freehills on multi-stranded litigation, delivering drafting, advocacy and advice.

They also include representing one of the defendants in SKAT v Solo Capital and others, a claim by the Danish revenue authorities for over £1bn.

Edward appeared before the Commercial Court in an important insurance coverage dispute arising out of the Mediterranean property scheme group case noted above. (AIG Europe Ltd v OC320301 LLP [2015] EWHC 2398 (Comm); [2016] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 147) and in the subsequent appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court ([2016] EWCA Civ 367; [2017] 1 All E.R. 143; and [2017] UKSC 18; [2017] 1 W.L.R. 1168). These were the first decisions on the construction of the aggregation clause in the Law Society’s Minimum Terms and Conditions for the provision of professional indemnity insurance to solicitors.

Regulatory and Disciplinary Law:

Edward has had experience of a variety of regulatory and disciplinary cases, including regulatory proceedings under FSMA and sporting and professional disciplinary actions. He also has expertise in dealing with private law claims brought following regulatory infringement.

Administrative and Public Law:

Edward’s experience includes cases involving the regulation and internal governance of professional associations, licensing, prisoners and housing. He appeared for the Government before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in a judicial review of a decision of the Mauritian Health Ministry. He also appeared for widowers claiming discrimination in the award of bereavement benefit in the High Court and subsequently on appeal up to and including in the House of Lords (R (Hooper & Others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 29; [2005] 1 W.L.R. 1681).

Public Inquiry:

Between 2021 and 2022, led by Sir Geoffrey Cox QC, Edward was instructed by Withers on behalf of the Attorney General and Elected Government of the Virgin Islands, in the BVI Commission of Inquiry.

International Arbitration:

Edward accepts instructions in international arbitration, a field in which he has a growing interest. He has advised in a substantial ICSID dispute. In 2016 he addressed the Female Fraud Forum on the impact of the UK Bribery Act 2010 in the field of international arbitration.

Criminal Law:

Edward has dealt with proceeds of crime and money laundering litigation in both the civil and criminal courts and is well placed to advise on related issues arising in his other areas of civil practice. His previous practice in the criminal courts gave him substantial advocacy experience. It involved a high proportion of complex and serious financial crime. He appeared in cases involving the evasion of Community customs duty, multi-handed insurance fraud and the execution of bills of exchange.

Privy Council:

Edward has appeared before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in both civil and criminal appeals and has experience in dealing with the Napoleonic Code and related jurisprudence.

Significant and Reported Cases:

• Westminster City Council v McDonald [2003] EWHC 2698 (Admin) [2005] Env L.R. 1

• R (Hooper & Others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 29, [2005] 1 W.L.R. 1681; [2003] EWCA Civ 813; [2003] 1 W.L.R. 2623; [2002] EWHC 191 (Admin); [2002] U.K.H.R.R. 785 (led by Geoffrey Cox QC)

• Gujadhur & Ors v. Gujadhur & Anor (Mauritius) [2007] UKPC 54; [2007] 7 WLUK 764 (led by Geoffrey Cox QC)

• Raphael Fishing Company Ltd v State of Mauritius & Anor [2008] UKPC 43 (led by Geoffrey Cox QC)

• Gokool & ors v Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Health & Anor [2008] UKPC 54 (led by Geoffrey Cox QC)

• Hill v Department of Business Innovation and Skills [2011] EWHC 3436 (Admin); [2012] B.C.C. 151

• Celine v State of Mauritius [2012] UKPC 32; [2012] 1 W.L.R. 3707

• Beezadhur v The Independent Commission against Corruption [2014] UKPC 27; (2014) 158(34) S.J.L.B. 37 (led by Geoffrey Cox QC)

• Rainbow Insurance Co Ltd v Financial Services Commission [2015] UKPC 15; [2016] 1 B.C.L.C. 273 (led by Geoffrey Cox QC)

• AIG Europe Ltd v OC320301 LLP [2015] EWHC 2398 (Comm); [2016] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 147

• AIG Europe Ltd v OC320301 LLP [2016] EWCA Civ 367; [2017] 1 All E.R. 143; [2016] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 289

• AIG Europe Ltd v OC320301 LLP [2017] UKSC 18; [2017] 1 W.L.R. 1168; [2017] Lloyd’s Rep I.R. 209; [2017] P.N.L.R. 22

• Gunesh v National Transport Corp [2019] UKPC 17

Articles/Publications:

• ‘Value Judgment’ Estates Gazette 13 June 2009, p.88 (an examination of the Wroth v Tyler principle in the assessment of damages for failure to complete on a conveyance)
• ‘Home Truths’ Estates Gazette 10 July 2010, p.76 (anticipating the new avenue of defence opened up by the decision of the Supreme Court in Manchester City Corporation v Pinnock for Hammersmith v Monk, joint tenancy/notice to quit cases)