It is said of him in the 2023 editions of Chambers and Partners and Legal 500:
“Paul is extremely practical, friendly and approachable. He provides concise and targeted advice within quick turnarounds, taking into account the priorities and unique needs of his clients. He is willing to set out the pros and cons of particular actions decisively, assisting his clients enormously.”
“Paul De La Piquerie is a great junior who I know I can trust with complex matters.”
Previous editions have stated:
“He is a commanding presence in the courtroom and goes that extra mile to ensure no stone is left unturned.”
“He offers an air of assurance when dealing with difficult opponents.”
“Extremely client and judge-friendly and is able to put both at ease.”
“He is particularly impressive in addressing the Court and knowing when to push a point or not.”
“Worth every penny, especially on landlord and tenant issues.”
“Excellent written advice, and very commercial and creative in his approach. A strong advocate and good on his feet. He thinks about how he can help you rather than demanding a list of things he needs. He acts as a member of the team.”
“He is a go-to on urgent injunctions and he is very willing to go the extra mile to help clients. He is able to turn things around very quickly.”
“incisive, approachable and very commercial; great to put in front of clients.”
“His friendly and pragmatic approach proves invaluable across a range of matters. A great team player.”
“An excellent all-rounder who always provides an absolutely first-class service.”
Paul regularly appears in the High Court, County Court (predominantly in the Business and Property Courts and the Technology and Construction Courts), and the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and Upper Tribunal. He accepts instructions in any and all areas of property and commercial law but with a particular emphasis in recent years as follows below. He is also happy to accept instructions on a direct access basis.
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.
Landlord and Tenant
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. The claims settled.
- Paul also has 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Acting for an Oxford Street tenant retailer alleging wrongful forfeiture and consequently seeking injunctive relief and damages. Paul won at trial.
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:
- a widely-reported five-day trial in the Technology and Construction Division of the High Court in which Paul acted for the successful Defendants in a claim brought by a tenant in nuisance, breach of covenant and derogation from grant.
- 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.
- a three-day trial in the Chancery List in which his client successfully claimed a life tenancy arising from a proprietary estoppel.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Mediation and ADR
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 2022, 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.
In January 2022 Paul 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 established breach of duty and retainer at trial.
Paul is currently instructed in 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 is also currently instructed 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 2023, 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  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  UKHL 14. The reported judgment, and the case generally, was widely reported in the national and international papers and online press.
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 acts 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
‘X’ & ‘Y’ v DeHavilland Studios Limited (November 2022)
Paul acted for the Defendant landlord in a disrepair claim brought by a tenant couple seeking injunctive relief and damages. The case was unusual because the Claimants had frustrated the landlord’s ability to actually undertake the repair work that they required. The Claimants lost at trial and were ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis. The claim centred upon the contractual principle that a party cannot take advantage of a breach of contract to which it has contributed, as well as an analysis of the circumstances in which a Court will refuse the award of an equitable remedy.
Wai Fan Cheung & Anr v Acorn Limited (January 2022)
Paul acted for the Claimant house-owning couple who had instructed the Defendant estate agent to find them a tenant for their property. The Defendant found a tenant who then set up a cannabis farm at the property and burned it down. The Claimants alleged that the Defendant had breached a collateral contractual warranty given to find a “high-quality tenant”, had additionally been negligent, and sought damages. The Claimants established breach of duty, retainer and collateral warranty at the 5-day trial in January 2022.
HPUT Trustee No.1 Ltd & Anr v Boots UK Ltd (2021 – 2022)
Paul acted for the Claimants in 123 joined sets of proceedings in the County Court at Central London in which the Defendant chemist sought new commercial leases of premises under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The terms of those new leases were opposed. The claims were dealt with in ‘batches’ according to the dates upon which notices were served. The points in dispute were the insertion of a break clause and the period of notice to be provided thereunder, rent, and term length. Paul also acted in contested interim hearings addressing case management issues such as whether it was feasible to shorten the periods of time between ‘batches’ so as to expedite the conclusion of the entire portfolio.
Malvern Court Residents’ Association v Kapila (November 2021)
Paul acted for the Claimant landlord of a block of flats in South Kensington in a dispute with a commercial doctor’s surgery tenant on the ground floor. The claim was in breach of covenant under the lease, trespass, and nuisance. It went to a 3-day trial in the County Court at Central London in November 2021. The Claimant established trespass. The case then turned on the quantification of damages and the circumstances in which the Court will award damages in lieu of injunctive relief under section 50 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
Pricewatch Ltd v ‘S’ & Ors (July 2021)
Paul was led by William McCormick KC on behalf of the Defendants in a claim brought in the High Court Chancery Division. The dispute was as to the beneficial ownership of shares in companies that owned various highly successful petrol stations across England. In particular, Paul advised on the Defendants’ response to interim injunctive relief the Claimant obtained preventing the Defendants from possession of two sites and the issue of whether the Defendants’ company had somehow assigned or relinquished its apparent entitlement to occupy those sites under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
N3 Living Limited v Burgess Property Investments Limited & Ors  EWHC 1711 (Ch.)
Paul acted in the High Court of Justice Business and Property Court for the proposed buyer of premises in a vendor and purchaser summons under the little-used section 49 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The reported decision is a comprehensive statement of the principles of the doctrine of overreaching under section 2(1) of the 1925 Act, in particular the requirement of “good faith” in section 205(1)(xxi) of the Act, and the correct exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court under section 49(1).
Shepherds Court Harrow Limited v WE Black Limited (2020)
Paul acted in the County Court at Central London Business and Property Court in a 3-day trial for a landlord who had received two notices under section 13 of the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The question was whether either or both of the notices was valid and/or whether the issue by the company of two sets of contradictory proceedings (each said that the notice in the other was invalid) was an abuse of process and/or gave rise to an estoppel preventing the Claimant from asserting the validity of either notice.
Southern Grille & Gate Limited v Petchey Industrial Properties (No.1) Limited (2020)
Paul acted for the Claimant tenant of commercial premises in a 1-day preliminary issue trial in the County Court at Central London. The issue was whether a notice from the landlord served under section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 complied with section 25(8)(a) of the Act and, if it did not, whether its validity was capable of being upheld by the application of Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Assurance Co Ltd  AC 749. Paul won. The case appears to be the only decision on what constitutes compliance with section 25(8)(a) of the Act and the consequences of non-compliance.
Fairlawne Estate Company Ltd & Anr v Galbraith & Anr (2020)
Paul acted for the Defendants in a high-value boundary dispute between rural premises. The Claimants were well-known property development companies funded by a Middle-Eastern Royal. The Claim turned on the correct construction of the various conveyances, but also the appropriateness and calculation of equitable damages in lieu of injunctive relief under section 50 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
Zak v Angsana Witthayawatthanarat & Phatomporn Phathomrattanahiran (2019)
Paul was brought in to act for the Defendant tenants of restaurant premises. They opposed a claim for forfeiture and related damages and sought, in the alternative, relief from forfeiture. Despite the Judge being highly critical of the conduct of the Defendants, Paul managed to obtain relief from forfeiture, which was strongly opposed, on manageable terms which he had advised the client to begin to implement prior to trial.
Allos & Anr v Wishart & Anr (2019)
Paul acted for the Defendants in a claim in which the Claimants alleged that the Defendants made negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations to the Claimants in pre-sale enquiries in a flat sale. Paul successfully opposed the Claimants’ application for summary judgment and obtained a costs order against the Claimants.
United Trust Bank Ltd v Miller (2018)
Paul acted for the Claimant mortgagee bank seeking possession of residential premises occupied by the mortgagor Defendant. The Defendant defended the action on the basis of alleged breaches of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, breaches of the Mortgage Code of Business Regulations, fraud, and section 136 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. After a series of difficult hearings, much of which were taken up with the issue of the Defendant’s alleged lack of capacity, Paul obtained an order for possession and a money judgment without the need for a substantive trial, or oral evidence.
Ali-Khan v Shuttari (2018)
Paul successfully acted for the Claimant in a dispute as to the beneficial ownership of residential premises bought in 1984. The judge found against the Defendant after three days of a trial listed for five.
Kavuri v Kavuri (2018)
Paul acted for the Claimant son in a dispute with his father. The primary dispute was as to the beneficial ownership of a residential property in London. The Claimant sought declaratory relief and rectification of the register of title under Schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002. The Claimant obtained summary judgment on the latter at an early stage of proceedings on the basis that the deed under which he had transferred his interest in the property to his father did not, apart from anything else, comply with the statutory requirements for such a deed. In a second claim, issued by the client’s father, the Defendant sought injunctive relief for the delivery up of various damning documents obtained by the Claimant on the basis that they had been obtained in breach of confidence. Following the entry of summary judgment above the matter then settled on terms favourable to the Claimant.
Siddiqui v Rahman (2017)
Paul acted for the Defendant landlord of commercial premises in a contested lease renewal claim brought by the Claimant under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The matter was listed for three days. After Paul’s instruction the Defendant issued an application for summary judgment on the basis that it appeared to be the case that the Claimant had failed to issue the claim before the expiry of the notice that the tenant had served under section 26 of the Act. The argument was resisted on the basis that the Defendant was estopped from asserting that the Act did not apply. The Defendant succeeded on the application and judgment was obtained at the end of the first morning of the trial.
Ali Amzed v Fedorowicz (2017)
Paul acted for the Claimant tenant of commercial premises alleging that the Defendant landlord had failed to comply with the statutory duty imposed by section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 to consider and respond to a tenant’s application for consent to assign the term of years under the lease within a reasonable period of time. The Claimant won summary judgment.
Quivira v Dumra & Anr (2017)
Paul acted for the Claimant mortgagee bank in a claim for possession of residential premises in Knightsbridge. The Defendant was in occupation. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant had been allowed to remain in occupation under the terms of a tenancy granted by the landlord borrower which bound the Claimant. At a preliminary hearing Paul established that the tenancy agreement was a sham. The Claimant subsequently responded to a series of further applications made by the Defendant to set-aside or vary and also to appeal that order. The Claimant won each of the applications and obtained vacant possession.
Mondial Assistance (UK) Ltd v Bridgewater Properties Ltd (2016)
Paul was led by Mark Warwick KC in an unopposed claim by the tenant for a renewal of a commercial lease of large premises in Croydon. At issue was whether the landlord should be entitled to the inclusion of a redevelopment break clause in the new lease, the scope of the repairing obligations to be imposed upon the tenant, the term and the rent. The claim settled on favourable terms shortly before trial.
The case also led to the reported decision at https://selbornechambers.co.uk/important-new-decision-expert-evidence/ on what constitutes an expert under CPR Part 35 and the admissibility of expert opinion evidence from someone for whom permission has not been given by the Court.
Keelwin Ltd v Wong Kei Restaurant Ltd & Ors (2016)
Paul acted for the Defendant landlord of a popular restaurant in Soho. The tenant sued at the end of the tenancy for the return of a rent deposit. The landlord counterclaimed in set-off as a result of losses caused by breaches of the tenant’s repairing obligations under the lease. The case turned on the construction of the repairing clauses in the lease and related management agreement, and the law of equitable set-off. The Defendant won at trial.
IBB solicitors v X (2016)
Paul acted for a firm of solicitors suing for fees incurred in representing a client at various stages in litigation. The Defendant asserted that the agreement between the solicitor and the client under which the claim was brought was procured by undue influence/duress and/or should be set aside or varied under the Solicitors Act 1974. The Defendant settled immediately after the cross-examination of the Defendant’s main witness on the second day of trial.
Red Rooster Restaurants Limited (in liquidation) v Kaushal Corporation (2016)
Paul acted for the Defendant landlord of restaurant premises. The tenant claimed that the landlord had unreasonably refused consent to assign the term of years under the lease contrary to section 1(1)(b) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 and had failed to comply with the statutory duty in section 1(3)(b) of the Act. The case turned on the construction of the relevant provisions of the lease and the question whether the information requested by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances. The Defendant won at trial.
Simon v Simon (2016)
Paul acted for the Defendant mother in an acrimonious dispute in which her son sued for possession of a property registered in his name, but in which she lived. The question for the court was whether she merely enjoyed a licence to reside or whether she had acquired a proprietary estoppel to be satisfied in the form of the grant of a lease for life. The matter went to a three-day trial in the Chancery list in Central London in February 2016. The Defendant won.
Adriatic Land 1 Ltd v Midgley & Hunt (acting as Law of Property Act 1925 Receivers on behalf of Longden Mill Limited) & Ors (2015)
Paul acted for the Respondent receivers who were appointed in respect of various long leasehold tenants of a block of flats containing 25 properties. The Applicant landlord applied to the First-Tier Tribunal (Residential Property) Chamber for a determination under section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 that it was reasonable to spend the service charge sum of approximately £200,000 on replacing the roof of the building. The Respondents favoured repair. The claim involved analysis of the distinction between improvements and repair, the correct construction of various repairing provisions in several leases, and any obligations incumbent upon a landlord to assist tenants in the making of claims against NHBC building insurance. The matter went to a four-day hearing in November/December 2015. The Respondents won.
Bickerton & Bickerton v Primavera Associates Ltd (2015)
Paul acted for the Respondent in an application for a determination as to the exact location of the boundary between their property and that of the Applicants under section 60 of the Land Registration Act 2002. The Applicants also sought rectification of the register at HM Land Registry under Schedule 4 of the Act in order to record the re-location of the boundary. The matter was heard by the First-Tier Tribunal (Land Registration) over two days in February 2015. The Respondent won.
Neonbrook Ltd & Castellain Mansions (West) Limited v Wilkinson & Wilkinson (2014)
Paul was instructed on behalf of the Claimant in a claim for service charge arrears, declaratory relief and damages in respect of breaches by the Defendant of residential leasehold covenants against making alterations, sub-letting and parting with possession, user clauses and permitting and suffering nuisance. The Claimant also sought damages on a restitutionary basis applying the principles derived from Wrotham Park  1 WLR 798. The matter was listed for a five-day trial in the Chancery list at Central London. The Defendants settled with the Claimant on the first morning of trial on extremely favourable terms to the Claimant.
Carlton Advisory Services v Dorchester Holdings Limited & Ors  EWHC (Comm.) 3341 (HHJ Mackie QC)
Paul acted for the Defendants in an application under CPR 23.11 to set-aside an order of the Court made in the Defendants’ absence. The Defendants won.
Lawrence v Janes (2014)
Paul acted for the Claimant in a claim for a declaration as to the ownership of one half of a private roadway or the existence of an implied easement in the alternative, and rectification of the title at Land Registry under Schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002. The claim turned on the proper construction of apparently inconsistent devolutions of title. The matter went to a three-day trial in the Chancery List at Central London in November 2014. The Claimant won.
Clutterbuck & Anr v Al Amoudi  EWHC 383 (Asplin J)
Paul was led for the Claimants in a four-week fraud trial in the Chancery Division with a claimed value of approximately £18m. The claim was brought in fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract and the tort of deceit. Paul helped advise, settled interim applications, and cross-examined several witnesses at trial. The case was widely reported in the domestic and international written press and online.
Beauty Star Limited v Janmohamed  EWCA Civ 451 (LJ Laws, LJ Davis, LJ Ryder)
Paul acted for the Defendant in joined actions brought by the Claimant. The first was a claim for sums owed under contract. The second claim arose out of a compromise of the first action. The Claimant sought to argue that the compromise agreement required rectification and/or that the Court had jurisdiction under CPR Part 40/CPR Part 35 to interfere with the findings of an accountant employed by the parties for an expert determination to resolve the first claim. The matter went to a three-day trial in the Chancery List at Central London. The Defendant won and was awarded his costs on the indemnity basis. Paul was subsequently further briefed to oppose the appeal brought by the Claimant in the Court of Appeal. The appeal was also dismissed.
Akhtar & Others v Brewster & Anr  EWHC 3521 (Ch.) (Clive Freedman KC)
Paul acted for the Claimant in a boundary dispute in which the Defendants counterclaimed the acquisition of title by adverse possession. The premises were an island in the Thames, the shoreline of which was let by the parties as part of their respective commercial mooring businesses. The original conveyance of the land was neither clear nor unequivocal, and other factors, including topographical features and the parties’ subsequent conduct had to be considered. The case was reported in the Metro and the Telegraph on 13 December 2012.
MPR Trust Company Limited v Nancy Dell Olio (2012)
Paul acted for the Defendant in her dispute with the Claimant and Sven-Goran Eriksson over possession of a flat in Eaton Place, London. The case settled and was reported in the international press.
Francotyp-Postalia Limited v Kevin Whitehead & Ors  Ch.D (Peter Smith J.) EWHC 367
Paul appeared for the Claimant multi-national franking machine company in a claim worth £2.5 million. The claim was for sums due under franchise agreements and centred on the lawfulness of the Claimant’s termination of those agreements for non-payment. The claim involved construction of the agreements, variation, estoppel, reflective loss, an application for an injunction to enforce covenants restraining trade and a reported decision (above) as to the lawfulness of those covenants and whether they could be severed.
- MA (Hons) St Andrews University 2003
- GDL, College of Law 2005
- BVC, College of Law 2006
– Winner of the College of Law Mooting Competition, 2005 and 2006
BSB & VAT Information
Registered Name: Paul Edward Jean Michel Le Chevalier De La Piquerie
VAT Number: 938688162