Our working arrangements and important information during the Covid-19 pandemic

Following Government guidance, members of chambers, clerks and staff are now working remotely. During this period clerks and staff will be available by email, on their direct dial and mobile numbers. Our switchboard will also be in operation during chambers working hours (Monday-Friday, 08.30-18.30).

Paul Bunting
(Senior Clerk)


020 7420 9502

07971 843023

Darren Madle
(Senior Clerk)


020 7420 9504

07769 714399

Oliver Ventura
(First Junior Clerk)


020 7420 9505

07845 079675

Aron Hanks
(Second Junior Clerk)


020 7420 9506

07508 032811

Brandy Forrester
(Fees Manager)


020 7420 9507

07702 496628

Charlotte Crane
(Marketing Manager)


020 7420 9501

07585 445470

Please note that as we are working remotely we will not be able to accept deliveries to chambers, therefore please speak to one of the clerks who will be able to provide an alternative address or solution to this.

For more information please see our response to Covid-19.

Raising new points on appeal in Part 55 possession proceedings


The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in Notting Hill Finance Ltd v Sheikh [2019] EWCA Civ 1337, giving guidance on the circumstances in which a defendant to a possession claim can raise on appeal new points which they did not raise at the hearing of the claim. Robert Brown acted for the claimant lender.

The claimant lent the defendant a sum of money and was granted a charge over the defendant’s residential property. The defendant did not repay the loan at the end of the term and the claimant issued possession proceedings. At the CPR Pt 55 hearing of that claim before a District Judge, the defendant did not dispute the making of a possession order, although he sought more time in the property, and he did not challenge the making of a money judgment for the arrears.

The defendant then sought to appeal against the District Judge’s decision, arguing that part of the loan agreement was unenforceable and unfair under Consumer Credit Act 1974.

A Circuit Judge allowed the appeal, holding that the circumstances were required by Jones v MBNA International Bank Ltd to be exceptional. Having regard to various circumstances, including the defendant’s status as a litigant in person, the Circuit Judge held that the situation was exceptional and the defendant should be allowed to rely on these new arguments. The Circuit Judge went on to hold that the failure to identify the potential defences meant that there had been a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings before the District Judge such that the appeal should be allowed under CPR 52.21(3)(b).

The Claimant was given permission to bring a second appeal to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the Circuit Judge had been wrong to consider that the circumstances were exceptional and to consider that there had been a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings.

Giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal Snowden J said, at [26], that “there is no general rule that a case needs to be ‘exceptional’ before a new point will be allowed to be taken on appeal.  Whilst an appellate court will always be cautious before allowing a new point to be taken, the decision whether it is just to permit the new point will depend upon an analysis of all the relevant factors. These will include, in particular, the nature of the proceedings which have taken place in the lower court, the nature of the new point, and any prejudice that would be caused to the opposing party if the new point is allowed to be taken.” The Court of Appeal went on to say that the Circuit Judge therefore did not need to consider whether circumstances were exceptional. While the defendant’s position was not materially enhanced by the fact that he was effectively unrepresented before the District Judge, the Circuit Judge had otherwise identified the main factors relevant to the exercise of his discretion to allow the new points to be taken. The Court of Appeal also said that there had been no defect in the proceedings before the District Judge so as to say that there had been a serious procedural or other irregularity under CPR 52.21(3)(b), although it was possible to say that the District Judge’s decision to grant judgment rather than to give case management directions was “wrong” under CPR 52.21(3)(a).