Stephen Boyd


Selborne Chambers
10 Essex Street
London WC2R 3AA
Email Stephen Boyd
020 7420 9500

| Download vCard



Stephen specialises in commercial and property litigation and is a member of the Chancery, Property and Commercial Bar Associations.

He is an ACTAPS registered contentious trust and probate specialist.

He accepts instructions under the Bar’s Public Access Scheme.


Stephen is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and has conducted 66 documents only arbitrations.


Stephen has been a CEDR accredited mediator for over 17 years, is a CEDR Mediator Panel Member and a Civil Mediation Council Registered Mediator.


Stephen is on CEDR’s panel dealing with complaints against surveyors under the RICS scheme.

See Stephen’s CEDR Mediator profile.

CMC Logo



He is also on the panels of Talk Mediation, Clerksroom (Senior Mediator), the London Court of International Arbitration and the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration.

Stephen has extensive experience in the civil/commercial sector, covering:

  • Property
  • Landlord and tenant
  • Trusts
  • Professional negligence
  • Shareholder disputes
  • Construction
  • Partnership
  • Franchising
  • Leasing

Business background and profile

A graduate in Linguistic and International Studies (comprising Russian, Swedish and law), Stephen pursued a career in commerce, working for international trading companies in Hong Kong and South Africa, before commencing practice at the Bar.

Stephen completed the King’s College London postgraduate certificate course in Sports Law in 2001.

Approachable, down to earth and good at building rapport with clients and putting them at ease, Stephen brings his business experience to legal problems, giving advice that is commercial, accessible and practical.

His proficiency in several European languages (French, Russian, Swedish and Spanish) has proved useful in breaking the ice with foreign clients.

Please see Stephen’s Privacy Notice here.

Notable cases

Goldhill Finance Limited v Cynthia Berry
26/10/18 HHJ Simon Monty QC, County Court at Central London
Once proceedings had been issued, but the mortgagor had obtained an order suspending a warrant for possession, the mortgagee was not permitted to take possession relying on its Common Law rights.  Its having done so in such circumstances rendered the relationship unfair under the Consumer Credit Act.
Stephen Boyd acted for the mortgagor.

Roshan v Bharj [2017] EWHC 176 (CH) [2017] 4 W.L.R. 46
13/2/17  Mr Simon Monty QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
The claimant issued proceedings in August 2016 seeking an order that judgment delivered by Recorder Monty QC in February 2015 in the County Court sitting at Central London determining the beneficial interests in a property used a Sikh Temple be set aside on the grounds that the evidence given at trial by both parties had been fraudulent. The claimant had not been a party to the earlier proceedings, but claimed to represent the members of the Temple who, it was alleged, were the true owners under a charitable purposes trust.
Stephen Boyd appeared for the defendants who successfully applied for reverse summary judgment and/or an order that the claim be struck out as an abuse of process

Gill v Gill 30/10/15 CLCC (HHJ Gerald)
Appeared for the Claimant who successfully sued her siblings for conspiracy to forge her signature on a TR1 transferring title to her brother

Edray Ltd v Canning [2015] 5 Costs L.R. 877 3/6/15 High Court, Stephen Jourdan QC sitting as a deputy High Court Judge
Estoppel by convention prevented a debtor from complaining about defective service of a bill of costs and notice of commencement where both parties had mistakenly assumed that service had been effective and proceeded on that basis.

Dawoodi v Zafrani 22/01/15 TCC List at Central London, HHJ Bailey
Appeared for the claimant who successfully sued the defendant developer for damages in trespass and nuisance. The claimant’s garden subsided as a result of the negligence of the defendant’s contractors, who had demolished the adjacent house and excavated a basement for a new house without supporting the claimant’s land and had erected scaffolding on the claimant’s land without his consent.

Grace Zhang v Howard Kennedy FSI LLP 11/09/2014
Appeared for the Claimant who succeeded in her contentions that the Defendant’s bills were not interim statute bills and that special circumstances existed under s.70 of the Solicitors Act 1974.

Watts v Watts [2014] WTLR 1781 21/8/14 (Ch) (Nicholas Strauss QC sitting as a deputy High Court Judge)
Appeared for the claimant who successfully sued his brother for breach of trust, undue influence and deceit, being awarded £1.5m.

Howard v Howard-Lawson [2012] EWHC 3258 (Ch) 20/11/12 (Norris J)
Appeared for the defendant who sucessfully resisted his son’s claim that he committed multiple breaches of trust and exercised undue influence over him in connection with a variation of trust.

Haghighat v Haghighat 14/11/12 Chancery List, CLCC (HHJ Marshall QC)
Appeared for the claimant who sucessfully claimed that a property in the name of her son, the defendant, was held for her on a resulting trust or that it was a gift procured by his undue influence.

Howard v Howard-Lawson Court of Appeal [2012] EWCA Civ 6 [2012] 3 ALLER 60 [2012] WTLR 617
Appeared as junior counsel for the successful respondent. Upon its true construction, the respondent had complied with a ‘name and arms clause’ in a will and had not forfeited his life interest.

Rajvel Construction Ltd v Bestville Properties Ltd [2012] ECWA Civ 587
A judge has not erred in making an order for costs personally against a director in connection with a renewed application for security for costs made in proceedings commenced by his insolvent company.  The costs of the renewed application were entirely due to the director’s failure to make full and frank disclosure of personal assets in his witness statement produced at the original security for costs hearing, as a result of which the court had been misled.

Rajvel Construction Ltd v Bestville Properties Limited (Coulson J) 7/9/11, LTL AC9700876
In appropriate circumstances the court could make a freezing injunction to support or assist with the operation of the rules relating to security for costs.

Mustafa v Zafrani
 (2011) (Ramsay J)
Appeared for the claimants who obtained an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant, the owner of an adjacent property, from carrying out any works affecting the party wall until it had been adequately propped and party wall surveyors had approved the works to be carried out to it.

Maloney v Gosal LVT 4/11/10 Ref No. LON/OOAU/OFR/2010/002
Appeared for the successful applicants: an increase in the market value of a property was not a change of circumstances within the meaning of subsection 12(7) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

Left Hook Ltd v Trustees of the Islington Boys’ Club (2010) (Mann J)
Appeared for the claimant company which obtained an interim injunction preventing the Defendant from interfering with its rights of occupation of the relevant premises, pending a hearing to determine whether it has a lease or a license thereof, and whether in purporting to terminate such rights, the Defendant had acted in accordance with its constitution.

Hembry v Squirrel Films Distribution Limited Chancery List, CLCC (HHJ Marshall QC) 20/5/10
Trial considering whether the occupants of a property were simply tenants or had an irrevocable license protected by proprietary estoppel and/or a constructive trust.

Maloney v Gosal, Chancery List, CLCC (HHJ Cowell) 24/3/10
Appeared for the successful claimants in a trial to determine whether the court should exercise its discretion under s.19(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to order the defendant freeholder to sell a house converted into three flats to the Claimants, qualifying tenants, pursuant to s.12B of the Act.

Smuts v Pearson [2010] EWHC 814 (QB), (Sharp J) 11/3/10
Appeared for the successful claimants in the trial of a preliminary issue to determine whether they made the contract to sell their business to the defendant or the defendant’s company, which had gone into liquidation.

Squirrel Films Distribution Limited v SPP Opportunities Fund LLP [2010] EWHC 706 (Ch) (Lewison J) 5/3/10
The strength of the underlying challenge to an arbitral award in respect of a rent review under s.68 of the 1996 Act for serious irregularity was of critical importance.

Littlewood v Radford CA (2010) 1 P& CR 18
Appeared for the successful appellant.  Negligent surveyor failed to remind a client of the need to apply to the LVT within 6 months of the receipt of a counter notice in order to keep her enfranchisement claim alive.  Although a professional is obliged in certain circumstances to remind a client of his previous advice as to hazards, there is no general principle that he is under a duty to keep repeating that advice.

William Old International Limited v Arya Ch.D (2009) 2 P & CR 20
Appeared for the successful defendants.  An express easement in a transfer of a freehold, granting the transferee the right to free passage of services through service media and the right to lay further service media, did not oblige the transferor, or its successor in title, to take the positive step of entering into a separate deed of easement with the electricity provider, despite the fact that the latter would only provide electricity on execution of such a deed.  Further, the refusal of the transferor to enter such a deed was not a derogation from grant.

Levi v Levi Ch.D (Geoffrey Vos QC) (2008) 2 P&CR DG1
The detriment required for the establishment of a constructive trust did not need to be great where there was an express agreement, and the making of a loan at an agreed rate could be regarded as sufficient detriment.

Dudarec v Andrews CA [2006] 1 WLR 3002
Appeared for the successful appellant.  Where evidence became available for the first time after the date of the notional trial (the original proceedings having been struck out as the result of the respondent solicitors’ negligence in failing to prosecute the claim) in an action seeking to assess damages for the lost chance, unless the evidence related to some entirely new matter which could not have been known about at the date of the notional trial, the facts as they turned out to be should be taken into account by the judge dealing with the professional negligence action.

Walker v Walker [2005] EWHC 1095] HHJ Rich QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court
Claim by the administratrix of the estate of her late father for possession of the family home against her sister.

Money v Westholme Investments Ltd [2003] ECWA Civ 1659 (2003) 147 SJLB 357
Vendor was entitled to recover from the purchaser a deposit it had been paid in compliance with a freeholder’s demand under paragraph 2 schedule 2  Leasehold Reform (Collective Enfranchisement and Lease Renewal) Regulations 1993 SI 1993/2407, where the purchaser had received the benefit of the deposit by reduction in the purchase price of an extended lease.

Fuller v Happy Shopper Markets Ltd [2001] 1 WLR 1681; [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 49; [2001] 2EGLR 32 (Lightman J)
A right of restitution arose immediately following overpayment. There was no requirement for the service of a demand for repayment other than in cases involving rescission. A landlord intending to levy distress should ensure that a tenant had no claims which could be offset against the outstanding rent by way of equitable set off.

Aylwen v Takla CA 6/4/00 Lawtel AC8600715
Claim to possessory title of a box room in a block of flats.

Lansdowne Tutors Ltd v Younger (No 1) (2000) CA 79 P&CR D36
Issues concerning surrender of commercial premises.

Re Oriental Gas Co Ltd  [1999] B.C.C 237; [2000] 1 B.C.L.C. 209 (Ferris J)
In the absence of express authority on the point, a respondent’s right to apply to strike out, on the grounds of lack of authority, a petition brought pursuant to the Companies Act 1985 s.459 alleging unfairly prejudicial conduct would not be lost simply because the respondent had delayed in making the application. While applications to strike out should be made as promptly as possible, it was not sensible to disregard the possibility of saving the time and cost involved in a trial merely to punish the respondent for his tardiness

Sparkle Properties Ltd v Residential Developments Ltd [1998] EG 68 (CS) Ian Hunter QC
An appeal concerning the powers and functions of a manager appointed by the court under s.24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.  It was contended the the manager did not have to power to re-let a flat within the demised property which did not have planning permission or receive remuneration in connection with the flat.

Cooper v Fearnley [1997] B.P.I.R. 20 (Aldous J)
It was not appropriate to make an interim order under the Insolvency Act 1986 s.252 to enable a debtor facing a bankruptcy petition to put a proposal for a voluntary arrangement to the creditors where the terms of the voluntary arrangement were purely speculative and without substance such that they could not be seriously considered by the creditors

Northways Flats Management Co (Camden) v Wimpey Pension Trustees  [1992] 2 EGLR 42   Court of Appeal
Where a lease contains a clause stating that before carrying out major repairs the landlord will submit estimates to the tenant for consideration, and the landlord fails to do so, the tenant is not obliged to pay for the repairs.