Mark Warwick QC

1974 QC: 2013

Selborne Chambers
10 Essex Street
London WC2R 3AA
Email Mark Warwick QC
020 7420 9500

| Download vCard

Chambers and Partners 2020Legal 500 2020

Mark’s practice embraces all aspects of contentious property work, including professional negligence.

The latest edition of Chambers & Partners (November 2019), states ‘Head of Chambers and a highly respected silk whose work regularly consists of high-profile and complex real property litigation. He also handles property-related professional discipline matters. He is a leading expert of break clauses.’ They have commented that “He is superb – he knows everything!” “He has an infectious love for the job which makes him a great resource and very knowledgeable” “An amazingly efficient barrister”.

Mark is the joint editor of Warwick & Trompeter on Break Clauses (2nd Edition-March 2016)

Mark has also been instructed in other contentious chancery work and in many disputes involving a wide range of sports. Having acted for many football clubs, managers & players, golf clubs and professional golfers, tennis clubs (including Queens Club) and issues concerned with motor cars, including racing cars (and an appeal from the Veteran Car Club to the RAC).

Earlier comments relating to Mark are he Works in all areas of real estate litigation, and also tackles many professional negligence disputes. He is viewed in the market as a practitioner with the skill and dedication to handle a dispute on any scale“. They added “He is astonishing in terms of his speed of response, attention to detail and range of knowledge and experience. and “He is pleasant, sharp, and works like a Trojan”. He is “fantastically hard working and turns papers around with breathtaking speed” and he has “an eviable breadth of experience acting on contentious real estate matters” and is “acclaimed by clients as an excellent all-rounder in the field” who “appears in a wide range of high-value, headline-grabbing cases.” He is: “Superbly accessible, particularly given his workload. He provides great clarity of advice on complex areas” and “Mark is an excellent, hard-working advocate. He turns papers around very quickly. He is client-friendly and extremely proactive. Definitely someone you want to work with.”


Please see Mark’s Privacy Notice here.

Notable cases

Mark has featured in over 100 reported cases. Listed below is a selection of the more prominent and recent of those.

Thurloe Lodge Ltd v (1) Amberwood Drive Ltd (2) Prime London Holdings 11 Ltd (2019) -Mark obtains injunction over private road in Kensington to enable building work to continue

Snarecroft v Quantum Securities [2018] Lawtel – Judge rules, in favour of Mark’s client, that, user as a hotel, would be user “other than for residential purposes”, and therefore in breach of the tenants covenant in a lease.

VS v RE [2018] 1 WLR 3757 – Mostyn J
Jurisdiction re orders for sale in the Family Division

Malik v Sheikh [2018] 4 WLR 86 – Fancourt J
Jurisdiction of FTT, and scope of undue influence in a family context.

Raja v Van Hoogstraten – Lawtel (Morgan J) – 27 March 2018 – Mark is successful in resisting a claim that a trust of properties is a sham

Ong v Ping [2017] WTLR 1365– Despite the trust deed having a blank for the trust property, the CA determines there was a valid trust

Hyde v Simple Skips – Lawtel (QBD) – 5 December 2017 – The Court awards Mark’s client nearly £1m for unlawful dumping of waste on the client’s land

Western Avenue Properties Ltd & Anor v Soni & Anor [2017] EWHC 2650 (QB) (26 October 2017); [2018] PNLR 10
Mark was successful in obtaining an injunction, in preventing a solicitor, who had previously acted for his clients, accepting instructions to take proceedings against them (because there was a risk they would misuse confidential information).

ND v SD and Y Trustees – [2018] 1 FLR 1489
Mark acted for the trustees of a trust, established by the husband. He successfully resisted the wife’s contention that the trust was a sham.

Barnett Waddington Trustees (1980) Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland (2017) – Lawtel – 20 April 2017 – The Defendant bank’s attempt to raise a claim, in a second action, ruled an abuse of the process of the Court.

Newman v Clarke – [2017] 4 WLR 26

Whether T’s purchase, from trustees who included himself, of the freehold interest in a house, pursuant to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967,  would be a breach of trust.

Mondial Assurance (UK) Ltd v Bridgewater Properties Ltd – Lawtel 11 November 2016

The opinion of a properly qualified expert is prima facie admissible, subject to questions as to the weight of his evidence, and his evidence was not subject to the requirements of CPR Part 35 unless the expert had been instructed to give or prepare expert evidence for the purpose of proceedings.

Greenridge v Kempton – Lawtel – 22 January 2016

Misrepresentation inducing a contract for the sale of offices.

Greyfords v O’Sullivan – Lawtel – 17 December 2015

When it is possible for a landlord to recover its legal costs, of litigation against tenants, from those tenants via service charges.

Dickinson v UK Acorn Finance – Lawtel (CA) – 25 November [2016] HLR 17

Whether a mortgagors claim that a mortgage was invalid per statute, was an abuse of the process, because of earlier proceedings.

Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus – Lawtel – 4 November 2015 [2016] AC 176

The Supreme Court examines the law of subrogation and unjust enrichment.

Skelwith (Leisure) v Armstrong [2016] ch 345

Newey J rules that equitable assignee of mortgagees rights gives power to sell the mortgagors interest.

Barnett Waddington Trustees v Royal Bank of Scotland [2016] 1 BCLC 508

Warren J rules that the bank was not entitled to recover “interest rate swap” monies.

Freifeld v West Kensington Court Ltd [2016] L. & T.R. 5

Is successful in obtaining relief from the forfeiture of a valuable commercial lease, despite Judge’s findings of wilful breaches.

Ong v Ping – (LTL 26 June 2015) – Morgan J

Discretionary trust created by settlor sending signed draft to her solicitor.

Day v Tiuta International Ltd [2015] 1 P&CR DG10  (LTL 2 October 2014)

The CA gives detailed consideration to defences available to a chargee’s claim to subrogation (including the effect of a cross claim as to damages that exceeds the subrogated sum)

Sugarman v CJS Inverstments Ltd [2015] 1 BCLC 1  (LTL 22 September 2014)

The CA construes the articles of association of a management company, and the voting rights of the owner of multiple flats in a development.

Edwards v Ashik   (LTL – 7 August 2014)

The proper approach to causation & rescission, where fraudulent answers were given to preliminary enquiries.

Cohen v Teseo Properties  (LTL – 28 July 2014)

The proper approach to a property sale agreement with a long stop date, plus consideration of a claim for the return of a deposit per s 49(2) LPA 1925.

Bank of Scotland v Joseph [2014] EWCA Civ 28 [2014] 1P & CR 18

This is the first time that the Court of Appeal has had to consider the use of unilateral notices registered pursuant to the Land Registration Act 2002. In particular: in what circumstances does a notice registered in respect of one property interest give priority to a different interest?

Hart v Hart (LTL 19 July 2013)
Hearing of an unfair prejudice petition under Section 994 Companies Act 2006

Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus Plc [2014] 1 WLR 854

Eco 3 Capital Ltd v Ludsin Overseas Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 413
Court of Appeal identifies the criteria for establishing a case of fraudulent misrepresentation

Ansa Logistics Ltd v Towerbeg Ltd [2012] EWHC 3651 (Ch) (Floyd J.)
Consideration of what is meant by a ‘parting with possession’ of land.

Hughmans v Central Stream services Ltd [2013] 1 EGLR 27

Question whether a contract compromising legal proceedings created a proprietary interest in a property owned by the defendant to those proceedings and, if so, whether it took priority over a later charging order

Arrowgame Ltd v Wildsmith [2013] 1 WLR 1051

First ever contested case on the interpretation of Section 27 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (concerning acquisition orders)

Greenglade Estates Ltd v Chadha [2012] EWHC 1913 (Ch), [2012] 42 EG 138
Claim brought by buyers against auctionieers for breach of warranty of authority.

Wimpole Theatre v J.J.Goodman Ltd [2012] EWHC 1600 (QB)
Claim for payment due for procuring the introduction of a production company to an incoming tenant.

Q-Park Ltd v HX Investments Ltd [2012] 2 P&CR 7
Construction of option/pre emption agreement.

In Re Lavin Decd (No 2) [2012] Ch 573, [2012] 3 WLR 330
Deceased’s sister, and sole beneficiary, signs his name on his will, written out by sister’s daughter, when he is on his deathbed. Factors to determine whether the will is valid.

Quest Advisors v McFeely (2011) LTL 9.12.2011
Consideration of an interim payment pursuant to a specific performance order and repudiation of a specific performance order.

CPS v Piper (2011) (Holman J.) 7.12.2011
Application of Jones v Kernott (2011) when considering the existence and size of a wife’s interest in a property the subject of a confiscation order.

Milebush Properties v Tarneside Council CA LTL 17.03.2011 [2012] 1 P & CR 3
Whether appropriate to seek declaratory relief where there is a dispute between the non-party beneficiary of an easement granted by a planning agreement and the developer’s successor.

BOH v Eastern Power Networks CA [2011] L&TR 223 and LTL 26.01.2011
No merger of leasehold and freehold interests, when business tenant acquired part of its reversion, thereby creating a never-ending lease.

Secret Hotels v EA Traveller Peter Smith J. LTL 11.05.2010
Parallel proceedings & seeking a stay of an English claim where an earlier case was begun in Cyprus.

Paddington Basin v West End Quay (2010) 1 WLR 2735
Whether an agreement dealing with the provision of services to a large number of lessees is a qualifying long term agreement for the purposes of s.20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985

Standard Life v W&J Linney (Lewison J.)  LTL 25.2.2010 and [2011] L&TR 9
Break notice served upon original landlord , and copied to present landlords agent “for information”, ineffective to determine the lease

Baker Tilly v Computer Associates ChD LTL 14.12.09
Break notice valid despite being served in former name of the tenant

IRT Oil v Fiber Optic LTL 3.12.09
Difficulty of assessing damages does not deprive Claimant of recovering a substantial award

Transview Properties v City Site Properties CA LTL 25.11.09
CA spells out criteria for adducing fresh evidence on appeal. Purchaser of property fails to obtain rectification of a sale agreement, so as to include an overage abatement provision.

Quest Advisors v McFeely LTL 22.10.09
Assignment that was in breach of contract term not to assign, adjudged not to be a repudiatory breach of that contract

In Re Lavin Decd  LTL 9.10.09
Proper approach to dispute over validity of a disputed will

Olins v Walters CA [2009] Ch. 212
Requirements needed to establish an enforceable mutual wills agreement

Bindra v Chopra CA LTL 20.3.09
Construction of trust deed, dealing with interests on death

Langham Estate Management Ltd v Hardy (2008) 3 EGLR 125
How to assess damages for breach of a landlord’s repairing covenants

Leonora Investment Co v Mott Macdonald CA LTL 23.7.08
A landlord’s failure to follow the prescribed machinery for the collection of service charges means that its claim fails

Hollis v Rolfe LTL 22.7.08
Catholic Church failed to establish that sale of former Convent School was in breach of trust or as a result of undue influence

Kurtha v Marks LTL 28.2.08
Application of the law of limitation to lost/stolen art

Greenwood Reversions Ltd v World Environment Foundation CA (2009) L&TR 2
The proper approach to the grant of relief against forfeiture of a long lease

The County Homesearch Company (Thames & Chilterns ) Ltd v Cowham [2008] 1 WLR 909
First case before CA dealing with a claim by a buyer’s agent for commission on sale of a property

Statek Corp v Alford [2008] BCC 266
Breach of trust and fiduciary duties, and limitation

El Nasharty v Sainsburys [2008] 1 Lloyds Rep 360
Whether an injunction seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement is compatible with Art 6 of ECHR

Business Environment Bow Lane Ltd v Deanwater Estates Ltd CA (2007) 32 EG 90
Representations to tenant prior to entering into lease overridden by the executed lease

Lay v Drexler CA (2007)Bus LR 1357
The proper approach to costs pursuant to the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 when landlord issued application for a new lease which the tenant later decided it did not want

Yewbelle Ltd v London Green Developments Ltd CA (2008) 1 P&CR 279
Conditional contracts – obligation to use all reasonable endeavours to complete a s.106 agreement

Weston v Gribben LTL 2.11.06 Court of Appeal
Consideration of the limits upon the Court’s jurisdiction to add a party outside the limitation period

Weston v Dayman [2008] 1 BCLC 250 Court of Appeal
Effect of consent order discharging receivership and powers of a court to vary a consent order

Harris v Wallis (Times 12.5.06)
Court can order security for costs against a Claimant who took steps in relation to his assets long before litigation was begun, if those steps made it more difficult to enforce an order for costs

Fitzroy House Epworth Street v The Financial Times Ltd [2006] 1 WLR 2207
Court of Appeal overruled decision in Commercial Union v Label Ink (2001) L&TR 29 and decided that in a break clause, the test for ‘material compliance’ with the covenants in a lease was entirely objective

London Diocesan Fund v Phithwa (Avonridge Property Co Ltd, Pt 20 Defendant) [2005] 1 WLR 3956
House of Lords rules that the anti-avoidance provisions of Landlord & Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 do not prevent the original landlord limiting its liability

Burkle Holdings Ltd v David Eric Laing [2005] EWHC 638 (QB)
Issues of general importance to the solicitors’ profession concerning joint and several retainer and legal professional privilege

Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd v Olympia Homes Ltd [2005] 25 EG 193 (CS) Mann J.
Option agreement – whether Claimant’s option constituting equitable interest binding on purchaser – effect of failure to register title by grantor of option

Englewood Properties Ltd v Patel and Cornberry Ltd [2005] 1 WLR 1961
Vendors duty as trustee between contract and completion

MCI Worldcom International Inc. v. Primus Telecommunications Inc. [2004] 1 BCLC 42
Misrepresentation by agent of contracting party

Lewis v. Eliades [2004] 1 WLR 692
Jurisdiction to enforce foreign judgment

P&S Platt Ltd v. Crouch [2004] 1 P. & C.R. 18
Court of Appeal decided that mooring rights were granted to a purchaser of land because of s62 LPA 1925

Gill v. Tsang LTL 10.7.2003
Jurisdiction to vary an order for specific performance existed despite the varied order differing from the terms of the parties’ agreement

London & Argyll Developments v. Mount Cook Land LTL 10.6.2003
Lloyd J rectifies lease by construction, by inserting words into an alternations covenant

Co-operative Group v. Vivienne Properties EG 1.5.2003
Time limit for application to vary lease per s84(12) LPA 1925 runs from date of lease not from any earlier date

London & Regional v. TBI LTL 22.3.2002
Court of Appeal to decide no arguable trust claim where any agreement was without prejudice

Fivecourts Ltd v. J R Leisure Development Ltd [2001] L+TR 47
No further relief to tenant when existing consent order re relief against forfeiture.  Also no relief to sub-tenant

City Alliance v. Oxford Forecasting [2001] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 233, CA
Appellate guidance on circumstances when a contract’s literal meaning can be ignored in favour of some other meaning

Sheikh Ahmed Jaber Al-Sabah v. Fehmi Mohammed Ali, Lange Estates Ltd, Brain & Brain (a firm) & Georgiou Nicholas (a firm) LTL 29.6.2000
Sheikh defrauded of flats (whilst in Kuwait), solicitor unwittingly helped fraudster

Hertfordshire Investments Ltd v. Bubb [2000] 1 WLR 2318
Adducing fresh evidence on appeals and on applications to set aside judgment

Broadmoor Special Hospital v. Robinson [2000] 1 WLR 1590
Public bodies’ jurisdiction to obtain injunction

Petra Investments Ltd v. Jeffrey Rogers [2000] L & TR 451
When landlord’s changes to a shopping centre derogate from a tenant’s grant

Gatwick Parking Services Ltd v. Sargent [2000] 2 EGLR 45
Landlord opposing new lease per s30(1)(g) and adducing fresh evidence.

Banner Homes Group Ltd v. Luff Developments Ltd [2000] Ch 372
Oral joint venture enforceable through constructive trust

In Re Blenheim Leisure (Restaurants) Ltd (No. 2) [2001] BCC821
Proper approach to application for restoration to register

In Re Blenheim Leisure (Restaurants) Ltd (No. 1) [2000] BCC554
Landlord joined to object to restoration of tenant to the companies register

Rainbow Estates Ltd v. Tokenhold Ltd [1999] CH 64
Landlord obtaining specific performance of tenant’s repairing covenant

Romulus Trading v. Comet Properties [1996] 2 EGLR 70
Letting adjacent premises for competing use not a derogation from grant

Kelsey H.A v. King [1996] 28 HLR 270
Circumstances in which Court can dispense with Notice per S8 HA 1988

Howard de Walden Estates Ltd v. Pasta Place Ltd [1995] 1 EGLR 79
Ddischarge of sureties’ liabilities by variation

Milverton Group Ltd v. Warner World Ltd [1995] 2 EGLR 28
Landlord having to give credit for guarantor’s payments

Mercantile Group v. Ayiela [1994] QB 366
Discovery/injunction against third parties

Connaught Restaurants Ltd v. Indoor Leisure Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 501
Exclusion of equitable set-off

Handel v. St Stephens Close Ltd [1994] 1 EGLR 70
Rights to park

Ashley Guarantee plc v. Zacaria [1993] 1 WLR 62
Mortgagee’s right to possession


Prior to taking silk in March 2013, Mark was in the top rank of property juniors in both the Legal 500 and Chambers Guide and has been short-listed for the 2012 Chambers Bar Awards junior real estate barrister of the year.

In the current edition of Legal 500 the editors have commented that the “thoroughly deserving” Mark Warwick QC was appointed silk in 2013, and in previous editions they have said that he is the “complete strategist” and exhibits an “encyclopaedic knowledge of property law” (2012); and that “Mark Warwick reaps praise from clients; if you need someone to turn something around in record time he will do it, and he will do it very well” (2011).

In the Chambers Guide (issued October 2011) the authors wrote that Mark is “Someone who really makes you think – he raises very interesting points that other barristers might not think of; he is thorough and inventive” 

The 2010 comments are that he is “incredibly hard working-he always works until there is an answer and will always go the extra mile to find the right strategy” (Chambers) and “Mark Warwick was praised by a number of commentators for his “incredibly hard work”” (Legal 500).

Earlier comments include “bright and responsive,” “an industrious advocate, he is great on his feet” and “one opponent said I ‘wouldn’t hesitate to use him myself if I wanted advice’.”

Mark is the co-author of Warwick and Trompeter on Break Clauses.


  • Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
  • Chancery Bar Association
  • Property Bar Association
  • Professional Negligence Bar Association

Related news