Our working arrangements and important information during the Covid-19 pandemic

Following Government guidance, members of chambers, clerks and staff are now working remotely. During this period clerks and staff will be available by email, on their direct dial and mobile numbers. Our switchboard will also be in operation during chambers working hours (Monday-Friday, 08.30-18.30).

Paul Bunting
(Senior Clerk)


020 7420 9502

07971 843023

Darren Madle
(Senior Clerk)


020 7420 9504

07769 714399

Oliver Ventura
(First Junior Clerk)


020 7420 9505

07845 079675

Aron Hanks
(Second Junior Clerk)


020 7420 9506

07508 032811

Brandy Forrester
(Fees Manager)


020 7420 9507

07702 496628

Charlotte Crane
(Marketing Manager)


020 7420 9501

07585 445470

Please note that as we are working remotely we will not be able to accept deliveries to chambers, therefore please speak to one of the clerks who will be able to provide an alternative address or solution to this.

For more information please see our response to Covid-19.

Edward Bennion-Pedley

Call: 2004

Ed is a commercial chancery barrister. He has a strong commercial practice but with a particular focus on disputes over land and professional negligence and cases involving fraud.

  • Commercial
    • Frederick (2019) (to be heard by the Supreme Court over two days in February 2019) – seeking to establish a modern unified theory of vicarious liability that permits the application of the Christian Brotherstwo-stage test to agency relationships and that a principal’s liability for his agent’s wrongs is no longer governed solely by concepts of actual and ostensible authority. The claim arises out of the fraudulent actions of the Defendant’s agent (a financial adviser) when arranging mortgage transactions to fund a building development.
    • BC v PVL (2019) – a claim to avoid a settlement agreement between co-investors on the grounds that it was procured by fraud as part of a scheme to secure an investor’s exit from a business for a sum several million pounds lower than (it is said) would otherwise have been the case.
    • Pescara International Ltd (2019) – a series of claims arising out of the fraudulent disposal of a number of high value performance vehicles and the extent to which purchasers were able to bring themselves within s.2 of the Factors Act 1889.
    • Re: an accountant (2019) – whether an ‘investment club’ constituted a collective investment scheme and so regulated activity for the purposes of establishing a right to recover property transferred to it.
    • ICC International Arbitration (2018) – a claim for commissions due following the sale of satellite communication equipment to the Turkish Navy.
    • Norddeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale (2018) – acting for the claimant bank to recover payments due under a finance agreement entered into by a member of a prominent royal family to facilitate the purchase of an aircraft.
    • P1 World LLP (2017) – concerning commissions said to be due to an agent in respect of the future work of two TV personalities.
    • AKD v AA (2017) – the extent to which the director of the defendant company could be held personally liable for alleged breaches by his company of a joint venture to build re-creation Aston Martin DB4 Zagato vehicles.
    • Re: a company registered in Anguilla (2016) – obtaining a freezing order to recover money lodged pending unsuccessful commercial negotiations and thereafter to establish liability against directors for accessory liability for breach of trust in respect of that part which had been dissipated.
    • Budd v Bank of Scotland (2016) – a claim following a mis-sold IRHP to a property investor to hedge rates across his Central London property portfolio and in particular the extent to which losses following the sale of the properties by LPA Receivers were recoverable.
    • LCIA International Arbitration (2015) – acting for the Applicant in this claim for USD 4.2 million due in commissions following the sale of aircraft engines and associated maintenance packages in Turkey.
  • Professional Negligence
    • Re: a solicitor (2019) – defending a claim for losses in excess of £16m said to have been incurred by reason of the grant of rights to light over a development site in West London.
    • Centenary Homes (2019) – a claim against LPA Receivers alleging breaches of the receivers’ subordinate duty to avoid preventable loss when managing a lettings business and the subsequent sale of sixteen apartments over two sites.
    • CHS v HSBC (2019) – a claim arising out of a flawed investment strategy which included the use of structured products in respect of which the capital protection provision had been misstated.
    • Re: a solicitor (2018) – acting for defendant solicitors following the failure, by process servers, to serve within limitation. The underlying claims arose out of the purchase of a portfolio of buy to let properties that relied, in part, upon mortgage funding obtained fraudulently permitting a defence of illegality.
    • Re: a solicitor (2018) – a claim arising out of the purchase of a property in Notting Hill to which the developer claimant intended to add a multi-level subterranean extension and the extent to which a solicitor is required to consider and/or warn that existing consents obtained whilst the local authority was actively reviewing its local policy on basement extensions might be susceptible to Judicial Review.
    • Re: a planning consultant (2017) – alleged failure to identify the planning potential of a site in Alderley Edge and whether the claimant would in fact have pursued the intended purchase.
    • Re: a solicitor (2017) – acting for a defendant solicitor accused of misleading his client in order to force through a settlement at mediation so as to cover up earlier alleged negligence.
    • Waistell (2016) – acting in a substantial claim arising out of the defendant’s failure to observe and/or warn of (amongst other things) the presence of Death Watch Beetle in a 15th Century timber framed building in Herefordshire.
  • Property
    • Pinisetty v Manikonda (2018) (and thereafter on appeal) – concerning the degree of certainty required to enforce an informal agreement for the sale of a business and associated property by way of proprietary estoppel.
    • Thavanesan (2018) – whether a buyer of property was entitled to use a DS1 to cancel a legal charge when that DS1 had been provided by the seller’s solicitor in breach of his authority.
    • Re: a protected party (2018) – acting for a protected party to recover secret commissions paid and losses sustained following the sale of property by an estate agent in breach of his contractual and fiduciary obligations.
    • Howell v Hayward (2018) (and thereafter on appeal) – a claim to enforce a failed option agreement over a terrace of properties in Penarth by way of proprietary estoppel.
    • Patel v Patel (2017) – trial over several weeks to establish the beneficial ownership of property in England and to defend the setting aside of property and business transactions said to have been undertaken fraudulently and/or in breach of fiduciary duty.
    • Satara v Habib Bank AG Zurich (2016) – a claim, by a wife, to establish a beneficial interest in a family home and thereafter that it was an overriding interest taking priority over the bank.
    • Galaxy Investments Limited v North of England Estates Limited (2015) – a claim concerning land intended for development and a failure by the vendor to obtain the release of part of the land from a pre-existing option in favour of a third party joint venture vehicle leading to allegations of conspiracy between various connected companies.
    • Kember v Hamer (2014) – a trial to establish a Pallant v Morgan trust over Welsh agricultural and amenity land purchased by the Defendant at auction pursuant to an informal agreement between the parties in respect of subsequent division and access rights.
  • Legal 500 2020