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)

Paul.Bunting@selbornechambers.co.uk

020 7420 9502

07971 843023

Darren Madle
(Senior Clerk)

Darren.Madle@selbornechambers.co.uk

020 7420 9504

07769 714399

Oliver Ventura
(First Junior Clerk)

Oliver.Ventura@selbornechambers.co.uk

020 7420 9505

07845 079675

Aron Hanks
(Second Junior Clerk)

Aron.Hanks@selbornechambers.co.uk

020 7420 9506

07508 032811

Brandy Forrester
(Fees Manager)

Brandy.Forrester@selbornechambers.co.uk

020 7420 9507

07702 496628

Charlotte Crane
(Marketing Manager)

Charlotte.Crane@selbornechambers.co.uk

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.

The effect of delay on interim injunctive relief: Traylen v Amiga Homes Limited (QBD)

15.06.2020

The Queen’s Bench Division has handed down an ex tempore judgment in Traylen & Traylen v Amiga Homes Limited LTL 12/6/2020 EXTEMPORE : [2020] 6 WLUK 155 Document No.: Case Law – AC5011799. The Applicants had sold land to a developer, who had built 6 houses, one of which was for the Applicants (‘the New House’). The Applicants sought an interim injunction to prevent the sale of various of the other plots whilst their claim for breach of contract in relation to the New House was litigated.

Mrs Justice Tipples dismissed the application, which applied the usual ‘American Cyanamid’ principles. The learned Judge held that damages would be an adequate remedy for the Applicants, but went on to consider the test under the ‘balance of convenience’ in any event.

The Court held that the balance of convenience would have strongly favoured refusing to grant the injunction. However, the case is significant as it is one of those rare cases in which the Court opined that the delay that had occurred in bringing the application would itself have been sufficient to prove fatal to the application.

Jonathan McNae appeared on behalf of the successful Respondent by remote video link.

Menu