10 Essex Street
London WC2R 3AA
Email Philip Kremen
020 7420 9500
Both in the United Kingdom and internationally Philip’s reputation is unrivalled as a specialist chancery and commercial litigator and adviser. He is acknowledged to bring a sensible business approach to all cases and matters on which he is asked to advise. His clients praise him for his clear and pragmatic approach and the manner in which he is attentive to their concerns and a delight to deal with.
In the Legal Directories Philip is described as bringing to his cases an attention to detail and a cross-examination skill that are second to none.
In the property field Philip advises on all freehold and leasehold matters and has a long-established practice as a litigator in all aspects of landlord and tenant law, rent reviews in respect of some of the most well known offices and retail premises including flagship units in central London. Regular guests of his solicitors and clients at MIPIM.
In both the Chancery and Commercial Courts Philip practices as a specialist in trust and professional negligence work, civil fraud and asset recovery and shareholder agreements. He has considerable experience in securing and opposing freezing and search injunctions as well as tracing orders of both a domestic and international nature.
Philip’s practice has also had a significant international element having acted on cases in jurisdictions such as the United States, Switzerland, Norway, Holland, Greece, Malta, Lichtenstein and Monte Carlo.
Please see Philip’s Privacy Notice here.
Edwards v Ashik (Timothy Fancourt QC sitting as a Deputy High Court judge)  EWHC 2454 (Ch)
Contractual and property dispute.
Group Seven Ltd v Allied Investment Corp Ltd (Mr Peter Smith J.)  EWHC 2046(Ch);  EWHC 1509(Ch);  1W.L.R.735; [2014 1 WLR 735;  EWHC 1423 (Ch)
International Civil Fraud.
Waterside Finance Ltd v Karim (Mr Justice Norris J.)  EWHC 2999 (Ch); 1 P. & C.R.21.
Property and financial services dispute.
Keegan v Fitzgerald (Deputy Master Matthews J.) Unreported.
Ambrosiadou v Dilitas Ltd & Cully
A case forming part of the long running and highly publicised dispute between Mrs Ambrosiadou and her former husband.
CP Plus Ltd v Moto Hospitality Ltd
A multi million pound competition law case involving motorway service stations that resolved at mediation.
BNB Developments Ltd v Foxpace Ltd
Stanbridge v Stanbridge, Advanced Industrial Technology, Denney. Unreported
International contract dispute involving fraud documents.
Good Harvest Partnership LLP v Centaur Services Ltd Ch.d (Newey J.)  EWCH 330 (Ch);  Ch. 426;  2 W.L.R 1312;  2 P. & C.R. 18; [2010 L. & T.R. 15;  1 E.G.L.R. 29;  14 E.G. 114;  N.P.C. 22;  2 P. & C.R. DG12
The Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 precluded a person who had guaranteed a tenant’s obligations under a lease from being required to give a further guarantee in respect of an assignee of the lease.
Roseoak Investments Ltd v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd Ch.D (Purle Q.C. J.)  EWHC 3769 (Ch);  B.P.I.R. 646
Upon service of statutory demand, the onus was on the recipient to challenge it by setting it aside. Where such a challenge failed, it was not in general open to recipient to reopen the issues in the absence of genuine change of circumstances on the hearing of the petition itself.
Welford v EDF Energy Networks (LPN) Plc LT  R.V.R.10
The tribunal determined the amount of compensation payable to a business in respect of loss of profits caused by disturbance as a result of the presence of underground electricity cables on it land.
Kalatara Holding Ltd v Andersen Ch.D (Evans-Lombe J.)  EWHC 86 (Ch);  N.P.C.7
Where the vendors of property had breached the contract of sale by failing to supply to the purchaser a document specified in the contract and, as a result, the buyer refused to pay the purchase price at the time fixed for completion, the vendors were not entitled to rescind and the buyer was entitled to specific performance of the contract.
Chinnock v Hocaoglu Ch.d (Blackburne J.)  EWHC 2933 (Ch);  2 E.G.L.R. 77;  29 E.G.92
Where a purchaser had failed to pay the full amount due to the vendor of property on the completion date, the vendor had been entitled to rescind the sale contract.
Welford v EDF Energy Networks (LPN) Plc CA  EWCA Civ 293;  2 P. & C.R. 15;  2 E.G.L.R. 1;  24 E.G. 170;  R.V.R. 172;  15 E.G. 147 (C.S.);  N.P.C. 40;  Bus. L.R D63; Times, 08/05/2007
A claim for loss of profits was not too remote in law to form part of a compensation claim for the grant of wayleave for underground cables where the owner of the land had a business in existence, had made an investment in the land on which that business was to be carried out and had commenced work in connection with the business on it, even though the land was not yet being used for the business.
Welford v EDF Energy Networks (LPN) Plc LT  3 E.G.L.R. 165;  R.V.R. 245
Disturbance payments; compensation; underground electricity cables; diminution in value of land; disturbance claim for loss of profits.
Fenton Properties Inc. v 41 Arundel Gardens Ltd (Peter Smith J.) LTL 19.12.05
Local authority’s letter outlining items that an inspector had found required attention was not a notice under the Housing Act 1985 s.352 and the specifications in that letter were not sufficient to found an order for specific performance.
Mount Cook Land Ltd v Joint London Holdings Ltd (Blackburne J.) (2005) CA EWHC 507
“Victualler” in user clause in lease was not restricted to licensed victuallers and so use of premises as a sandwich shop was prohibited.
Luiz Vicente Barros Mattos Junior v MacDaniels Ltd (Lawrence Collins J.) LTL 24.6.05
Amendments allowed to particulars of claim where the amended particulars of claim did not add new causes of action but were based on the same legal and factual basis as the existing claim and the amendments raised matters which were arguable at trial.
Norman Hill & Terence Welford v Transport for London Ch.D (Rimer J.)  Ch 378;  EWHC 856 (Ch); [2005 Ch. 379;  3 W.L.R 471;  3 All E.R. 677;  1 P. & C.R. 16;  2 E.G.L.R. 1;  30 E.G. 90;  21 E.G. 138 (C.S.); Times 30/05/2005
Sense of the word “first” in the phrase “first accrued to the Crown” in the Limitation Act 1980 Sch.1 para.12 was “earlier” or “previously” and not “originally”. Paragraph 12 provided a complete code for possession claims brought by persons claiming through the Crown, whether the right of action accrued originally to the Crown or only so accrued earlier.
Unique Pub Properties v Beer Barrels Ltd CA (2004) EWCA Civ 586; 1 All E.R. (Comm) 181;  N.P.C. 77
Wholesaler of alcoholic beverages did not have the requisite knowledge and intent to make out an actionable interference when in making a supply to a tied tenant.
Mattos Junior v Macdaniels Ltd (Application to set Aside) Ch.d (Sir Andrew Morritt V.C.)  EWHC 1173 (Ch)
Claimants were former shareholder in Brazillian bank- Claimants alleged that 42nd defendant was party to laundering operation- Defendant applied to have world wide freesing order against him set aside on grounds that claimant had breached duty – There had not been material non- disclosure or misrepresentation by claimants.
Aero Properties Ltd v Citycrest Properties Ltd Ch.D (Blackburne J.)  2 P. & C.R. 21; (2002) 99(8) L.S.G. 37
The face that C, a property company, did not have charge certificates relating to the head leasehold interests in its possession at the time that it served a notice to complete did not mean that the notice was invalid.
Nextcall Telecom Plc v Telecommunications Plc (2000) QBD (Lloyd J.)
N was not entitled to an interim injunction restraining BT from terminating or suspending a Calls and Access service prior to the trial of BT’S money claim against N because N had failed to establish to the requisite standard that BT had been in breach of contract and N had not shown that it was entitled to counterclaim damages from BT by way of an equitable set-off against the unpaid sums.
Railtrack Plc v Gojra CA (Wilson J.)  1 E.G.L.R. 63;  08 E.G. 158;  E.G. 168 (C.S.);  N.P.C. 166
Business tenancies; application for new tenancy; whether notice addressed to landlord’s agent valid.