Paul
de la Piquerie

Paul acts in cases involving breaches of commercial contracts including those for the provision of goods and services, option agreements and joint ventures, insurance disputes, and consumer credit law. The latter have included a number of recent cases concerning the applicability and implementation of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, in particular the provisions of sections 140A – D, and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Paul undertook a secondment to HSBC Bank in order to assist with an internal review of the miss-selling of interest-rate hedging products. His role was to assess consequential losses arising from the miss-selling of such products in relation to loans made and secured over borrowers’ properties.

Commercial
Paul acts for both landlords and tenants in opposed and unopposed lease renewal claims under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Paul also advises and attends court in claims involving forfeiture, breach of covenant, terminal dilapidations and rent review. Recent cases include:

1. acting, successfully, for a tenant of large commercial premises in a dispute as to the inclusion of a landlord’s redevelopment break clause in the new lease, the terms of future repairing obligations upon the tenant and a dispute as to rent worth approximately £5m over a ten-year term.
2. acting for the tenant of six commercial premises on a business park in a dispute about whether the landlords’ omission to specify the premises in notices under section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 rendered the notices invalid for failure to comply with section 25(8) of the Act. Paul won summary judgment.
3. acting for the Claimant landlords in 123 joined claims against Boots Chemist as Defendant tenant in a dispute as to the term length and break clauses in new commercial leases to be granted.
4. several current cases involving landlord’s opposition to the grant of a new lease under grounds (f) and (g) in section 30(1) of the 1954 Act.
5. representing a tenant claiming that their landlord had unreasonably withheld consent to assign and breached its statutory duty under section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988. Paul won summary judgment.
6. Representing a landlord of a leading Chinese restaurant in Soho accused of withholding a rent deposit on the basis of a wrongful dilapidations set-off. Paul won at trial.
7. Acting for an Oxford Street tenant retailer alleging wrongful forfeiture and consequently seeking injunctive relief and damages. Paul won at trial.

Residential
In the last twelve months Paul has acted in residential landlord and tenant disputes in the County Court, the High Court, and the First-Tier Tribunal. These included:

1. a widely-reported five-day trial in the Technology and Construction Division of the High Court (Tejani v Fitzroy Place Residential Limited [2022] EWHC 2760) in which Paul acted for the successful Defendants in a claim brought by a tenant in nuisance, breach of covenant and derogation from grant.
2. a four-day hearing in the First-Tier Tribunal on behalf of a landlord seeking, successfully, a determination that it was reasonable to maintain and repair, rather than to replace, the roof of a large, listed block of flats in Nottingham.
3. a three-day trial in the Chancery List in which his client successfully claimed a life tenancy arising from a proprietary estoppel.
4. acting for the Claimant landlord of a block of flats in Kensington alleging, and establishing at trial, trespass against a commercial tenant arising out of the tenant’s location of mechanical plant.
5. defeating a disrepair claim brought by tenants of a flat on the basis that they had caused the landlord’s inability to repair the matter complained of, with the result that the ‘reasonable period of time’ for repair never started to run, and the Claimants were not entitled to the relief sought in equity.
6. acting for various sports, TV and arts celebrities in residential landlord and tenant disputes involving some of the most expensive properties in the UK in London and the South-East of England.

Paul also often acts for tenants and landlords in service charge disputes, disrepair claims, Party Wall etc. Act 1996 disputes, claims involving the construction and rectification of long leases and applications under the Landlord and Tenant Acts 1985 and 1987.

Paul appreciates that the early settlement of a dispute on good terms is often the best outcome for a client. He adopts a sensible, calm and constructive approach to mediation and other forms of dispute resolution that leads to the avoidance of further litigation provided the other side reciprocates. Paul represented clients in claims at seven mediations in 2023, three resulted in settlement and the other four he won at trial.

Paul acts for both Claimants and Defendants in a wide range of professional negligence actions.

Paul recently acted for the Claimants in a six-day trial in the County Court at Central London Chancery List alleging negligence and breach of retainer, as well as breach of a collateral warranty against a firm of estate agents who had procured a tenant for the Claimants’ house.

Paul recently settled a multi-million-pound claim brought by property developers against a firm of solicitors that wrongly advised, prior to purchase, that planning permission for the development of a large house in Kensington remained valid.

Paul also recently acted on behalf of the Defendant firm of solicitors in an asserted multi-million-pound claim brought by former private equity clients who allege that a failure to advise on the application of the Electronic Communications Code brought into force by the Digital Economy Act 2017 caused them to have to reduce the sale price of a large commercial block.

In recent years Paul has frequently acted in co-ownership disputes involving constructive trusts and the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. Other claims also involved trespass, adverse possession, boundary disputes, and arguments over easements and injunctive relief. He is well-versed in obtaining and using the appropriate expert evidence required to win such claims and the arguments required to address such technical points.

Paul often acts for banks and mortgagors in cases concerning the proper construction of charges, the appointment and powers of receivers, and registration priorities and problems.

Recently Paul has been asked to advise in a number of claims in which the Claimant sought rectification of the register of title at HM Land Registry under Schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002 and the mortgagee opposed such claims and/or sought an indemnity.

Paul is currently instructed in several noise nuisance claims, some of which have been widely reported in the national and international press, and has recently given a number of well-received seminars and talks on the subject.

Paul is also currently instructed in several boundary disputes, one of which will go to a six-day trial in the Summer of 2024, all of which involve related allegations of trespass, harassment and alternative adverse possession claims under both the ‘old law’ prior to the coming into force of the Land Registration Act 2002 and the new regime contained in the 2002 Act.

Tejani v Fitzroy Place Residential Ltd [2022] EWHC 2760 (TCC) (October 2022)

Paul was led by Gary Blaker KC for the Defendant landlord and building developer in a claim for damages in excess of £4m. The Claimant flat owner in a deluxe Central-London development alleged a curious popping noise was causing him an actionable private nuisance, was a breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment, and was a breach by the developer of the development contract. The matter went to a 5-day trial before Mrs Justice Veronique Buehrlen in the High Court Technology and Construction Division. The claim was dismissed in full, and the Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendants’ costs. The judgment contained a concise statement of the fundamental principles of private nuisance and the circumstances in which they may be engaged, as well as the extent to which an omission can constitute a breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment. The argument also included analysis of the correct method of quantifying unliquidated damages for nuisance per the speech of Lord Hoffman in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] UKHL 14. The reported judgment, and the case generally, was widely reported in the national and international papers and online press.

Press Coverage:

Man loses £1million after claiming he could hear non-stop ‘Bubble Wrap popping’ noise – Mirror Online

Tycoon loses his £1m fight over ‘bubble wrap’ noise | Evening Standard

Man who complained of ‘bubble wrap popping noise’ in £2.5M London flat faces £1M court bill | Daily Mail Online

I’m suing after splashing out £2.5MILLION on a luxury London home – and now can’t sleep over ‘unbearable’ popping noise | The Sun

Property tycoon who bought £2.5m luxury apartment sues over ‘unbearable’ mystery noise | Daily Mail Online

Tycoon loses his £1m fight over ‘bubble wrap’ noise (yahoo.com)

Tycoon loses £1 million after claiming ‘bubble wrap popping noise’ in London flat – EasternEye

Man who complained of ‘bubble wrap popping noise’ in £2.5M London flat faces £1M court bill (msn.com)

Tycoon suing over £2.5m flat ‘popping like bubble wrap’ – Daily Express

Tycoon loses £1 million after claiming ‘bubble wrap popping noise’ in London flat – Srilanka Weekly

HSBC UK Bank Plc v ‘G’ (ongoing)

Paul acts for the Defendant mortgage borrowers in a claim for possession and a money judgment in excess of £6m. The parties entered into various loan and guarantee agreements which are regulated mortgage contracts pursuant to Article 61(3) of Chapter 14A of Part 2 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001/544. It is the Defendants’ case that the Claimant failed to comply with various paragraphs of sections 2 and 13 of the Mortgage Conduct of Business Rules; implied into the loan agreements, such that the Claimant brought the claim pre-emptively and currently has no cause of action. At a preliminary hearing Paul obtained an order striking out the Particulars of Claim for lack of particularity.

‘W’ Ltd v ‘S’, ‘C’ & ‘G’ (ongoing)

Paul acts for the Third Defendant in a claim brought for possession of an expensive residential property in Somerset. The central issues in the case are whether there is a valid trust, the beneficial ownership of the property-owning company, proprietary and/or promissory estoppel, and whether the Defendants are bound by an alleged judicial determination in the Bahamas that the alleged trust is a ‘sham’.

‘K’ & ‘K’ v ‘X’ Solicitors (a former firm) & Ors (ongoing)

Paul acted for the ultra-high net worth Claimants who instructed the Defendant firm of solicitors to act for them on the purchase of a £16m house in Kensington. The Defendant firm provided a report on title stating that the property had planning permission for a 2-storey subterranean development when, in fact, it did not. The claim is brought in breach of retainer and negligence.

Re ‘X’ (ongoing)

Paul acts for the potential Defendant firm of solicitors in a threatened professional negligence claim with an asserted value of approximately £4m arising out of the applicability or otherwise of the Electronic Communications Code under Schedule 2 of the Digital Economy Act 2017.

INC (Holland House) Limited v BNP Paribas Depositary Services (Jersey) Ltd & Ors

Paul acted for the Defendant bank former landlord of commercial premises in London. The Claimant former tenant sought relief from forfeiture for non-payment of rent. Prior to the issue of the Claim Paul successfully acted for the Defendant as Respondent at the return date of an application by the Claimant in the Chancery Division for interim injunctive relief requiring readmission to the Premises. In a remarkably scathing judgment delivered by Mr Justice Richard Smith the Defendant succeeded in setting-aside two orders granting such interim relief on the basis that the Claimant had failed to comply with its duties in equity by deliberately and repeatedly lying in an orchestrated campaign of deceit against the Court.