+44(0)20 7404 5055 | clerks@9stonebuildings.com

Edward Denehan

Call 1981

image award 1 image award 2
image award 1 image award 2

Overview

Edward’s practice is exclusively property based. It therefore includes real property, both contentious and non-contentious, landlord and tenant, both commercial and residential, land and conveyancing, restrictive covenants, rights of way and other easements, profits à prendre, property valuation, mortgages, housing, boundaries, and professional negligence arising from these areas.

Edward is an experienced advocate, and has successfully argued property and landlord and tenant cases in the House of Lords, the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, as well as appearing in a great many witness actions over the years in all courts and tribunals with property jurisdiction. Details of some of Edward’s cases are shown in the Practise Areas sections below.

Year after year, Edward is a recommended property barrister by the leading directories, the details of which are contained in Directory Recommendations section of his webpage.

Edward lectures extensively on subjects within his practice, and from time to time has acted as an arbitrator in property disputes.

Edward was a part time tutor in property law at the University of Warwick, and a part time tutor in landlord and tenant law, and planning and local government law, at what was the Inns of Court School of Law.

Edward has been the head of chambers at 9 Stone Buildings, Barristers’ Chambers since 2013 whilst at the same time maintaining his busy practice.


Practice Areas

Land & Property +

Edward has an extensive practice in the area of land and property, both contentious and non-contentious.

He is frequently instructed in property development cases, both on behalf of developers large and small. This work involves (inter alia) the interpretation and operation of complex development agreements (Harbour Castle Ltd v. David Wilson Homes Limited [2012] All E.R. (D) 50 (Jun)), such as options (Classic Property Developments (South East) Limited v. Islam and others [2015] All ER (D) 258 (Oct)), and overage agreements, transfers and conveyances (Megaro v. Di Popolo Hotels Limited [2007] 2 P. & C.R. 28).

He has experience and knowledge of land registration, unregistered conveyancing, charges, and competing interests in land: Ramanathan v. Rudra [2016] EWHC 1062 (Ch), [2016] All E.R. (D) 122 (May), A2 Dominion Homes Limited v. Prince Evans (A Firm) [2015] PLSCS 225, Haydon-Baillie v. Newbold [2007] All E.R. (D) 77. July, Bhullar v McArdle (2001) 82 P. & C.R. 481, Gracegrove Limited v. Boateng [1997] NPC 98 [1997] E.G.C.S. 103, and Lloyd v. Nationwide Building Society [1996] E.G.C.S. 80.

See also Edward’s entries in the following practice areas: Covenants & Profits, Easements, and Nuisance & Trespass.

Peires v. Bickerton’s Aerodromes Limited [2017] 1 W.L.R. 2865 (Court of Appeal) Application of the statutory defences provided by sections 76 and 77 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to a common law nuisance caused by helicopter pilot training).

Ramanathan v. Rudra [2016] EWHC 1062 (Ch), [2016] All E.R. (D) 122 (May). (Chancery Division. Claim that the beneficial interests in four properties held on trust by the Defendant for the Claimant on the basis of a Pallant v. Morgan equity).

Classic Property Developments (South East) Limited v. Islam and others [2015] All ER (D) 258 (Oct) (Chancery Division. Validity and exercise of an option to acquire freehold land. Rectification of option agreement refused and order for specific performance of the option granted).

A2 Dominion Homes Limited v. Prince Evans (A Firm) [2015] PLSCS 225 (Chancery Division. Land Registration. Leases granted pursuant to an agreement for lease protected by a unilateral notice have priority over a charge granted before the leases).

Trustees of the Coventry School Foundation v. Whitehouse and others [2012] 3 E.G.L.R. 151 (HC) [2014] 1 P. &. C.R. 51 (Court of Appeal. Freehold covenant against causing a nuisance or annoyance. Traffic and parking issues arising from the use of land as the site of a public school. Section 84(2) of the LPA 1925).

Harbour Castle Ltd v. David Wilson Homes Limited [2012] All E.R. (D) 50 (Jun) (Court of Appeal. Practice and procedure. Whether amended particulars of claim in an action for damages for breach of an option/development agreement were “particulars of claim” within the meaning of an “unless order”).

Lawrence v. Fen Tigers Limited and others [2012] 3 All E.R. 168. [2012] 10 E.G. 88 (CS). (Court of Appeal. Private nuisance, planning, change in the character of the neighbourhood).

Haydon-Baillie v. Newbold [2007] All E.R. (D) 77. July. (Chancery Division. Striking out claim to title of freehold land).

Small v. Oliver & Saunders (Developments) Limited [2006] 3 E.G.L.R 141 [2006] EWHC 1293 (Ch). (Chancery Division. Restrictive covenant. Existence of building scheme. Injunction. Assessment of damages in lieu of an injunction).

Das and others v. Linden Mews Limited [2002] 28 E.G. 130. [2003] 2 P & C.R. 58. (Court of Appeal. Right of way. Enlargement of dominant tenement).

Gurhy v. Oliver & Saunders (Developments) Limited [2007] All ER (D) 201 May ((Chancery Division). Interim injunction to restrain breach of restrictive covenant. Preliminary points of construction of the covenant).

Megaro v. Di Popolo Hotels Limited [2007] 2 P. & C.R. 28 (Court of Appeal. Qualified right of way in case of emergency. Determinable in the event of the part of the route ceasing to exist).

Changeinvest Limited v. Rosendale-Steinhusen [2004] P.L.S.C.S. 40. (Chancery Division. Easement subject to a condition precedent. Satisfaction of the condition before easement can be exercised).

Martin v. Childs [2002] EWCA Civ 283. 19.02.02 E.G.C.S. (Court of Appeal: Easement. Water rights: construction of grant in conveyance).

Bhullar v McArdle (2001) 82 P. & C.R. 481. (Court of Appeal. Real Property. Oral agreement to exchange land. Rectification of the register).

Skyparks plc v. Marks [2001] EWCA Civ 319. [2001] All E.R. (D) 102 Mar. [2001] BPIR 683. (Court of Appeal. Charging order. Issue estoppel).

Arcadia Ventures Limited v. Longhurst [2000] All E.R. (D) 2149. (Chancery Division. Restrictive covenant. Costs. Application for a declaration becoming academic. Whether court should exercise its jurisdiction to award costs).

Gracegrove Limited v. Boateng [1997] NPC 98 [1997] E.G.C.S. 103. (Court of Appeal. Conveyancing. Overriding interests).

Lloyd v. Nationwide Building Society [1996] E.G.C.S. 80. (Chancery Division. Priority of legal charges registered on the same day).

Compulsory purchase

Sceneout Limited v. Greater Manchester Development Corporation [1995] 1 E.G.L.R. 175 (Lands Tribunal. Compulsory purchase).

Slot v. Guildford Borough Council [1993] 1 E.G.L.R. 213 (Lands Tribunal. Compulsory purchase).

Housing

Harrow London Borough Council v. Tonge [1993] 1 E.G.L.R. 49 (Court of Appeal. Local Authority housing/Right to Buy).

Planning and Public Health

Epping Forest District Council v. Essex Rendering Limited [1983] 1 W.L.R. 158 (House of Lords. Planning).

Agency

Anscombe & Ringland Ltd. v. Watson and others [1991] 2 E.G.L.R. 21 (Estate Agents’ commission).

Knight Frank LLP v. Du Haney [2011] 16 E.G. 78. (Court of Appeal. Agent, Warranty. Misrepresentation).

Commercial Landlord & Tenant +

Edward has appeared in numerous commercial landlord and tenant cases over the years. He has vast experience of the operation of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, and has appeared in a number of leading cases including Sight & Sound Education Ltd v Books etc Ltd [1999] 3 E.G.L.R. 45 and Bacchiocchi v. Academic Agency Limited [1998] 2 All E.R. 241. [1998] 1 W.L.R. 1313. [1998] 3 E.G.L.R. 157. In the Bacchiocchi case, the Court of Appeal held that a tenant, Edward’s client, was in occupation of premises for the purposes of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, notwithstanding that the tenant had vacated the premises and handed the keys back to the landlord.

In 2014, Edward, leading Giselle McGowan, successfully argued before the Supreme Court that his landlord clients should not be liable for the noise nuisance caused by their commercial tenants: Lawrence and another v. Fen Tigers Limited and others (No 2) [2015] A.C. 106. [2014] 4 All E.R. 527. [2014] UKSC 46.

Edward has appeared in, and advised upon, heavyweight dilapidation cases (Simmons v. Dresden (2004) 97 Con. L.R. 81), and frequently advised upon the operation of rent review clauses: Maurice Investments Limited v. Lincoln Insurance Services Limited [2007] 1 P. & C.R. 14.

From time to time Edward has been appointed to arbitrate disputes between commercial landlords and tenants.

The full extent of Edward’s commercial landlord & tenant practice is revealed by his list of notable reported cases in this area.

Lawrence and another v. Fen Tigers Limited and others (No 2) [2015] A.C. 106. [2014] 4 All E.R. 527. [2014] UKSC 46. (Supreme Court. Circumstances in which landlords may be liable for nuisance caused by their tenants).

Zestcrest Limited v. County Hall Green Ventures Limited [2011] 3 E.G.L.R. 9. (Lambeth County Court. Relief from forfeiture. Payment of landlord’s costs).

Bordcrest Properties Limited v. Development Planning Partnership LLP [2010] All E.R. (D) 182 (April). (Chancery Division. Break clause. Compliance with conditions. Landlord estopped from denying tenant had complied).

Heronsea (Mill Hill) Limited v. Kwik-Fit Properties Limited [2009] All E.R. (D) 75 (Mar). (2009) Env. LR. [2009] PLSCS 65 (Queen’s Bench Division. Construction of landlord’s right to enter demised premises for the purposes of carrying out a survey. Whether landlord entitled to enter to carry out an environmental survey).

Maurice Investments Limited v. Lincoln Insurance Services Limited [2007] 1 P. & C.R. 14. (Chancery Division. Landlord and tenant rent review. Effect of trigger notice marked “subject to contract” and “without prejudice”).

Simmons v. Dresden (2004) 97 Con. L.R. 81. (Technology and Construction Court. Tenant’s breach of repairing obligations. Nature and extent of breaches. Diminution in the value of the landlord’s reversion. No diminution caused by breaches).

Mount Eden Land Limited v. Folia Limited [2003] PLSCS 188. [2003] NPC 167. (Chancery Divisions. Landlord and Tenant Act 1988. Breach of statutory duty on proposed sub-letting).

Hart Investments plc v. Burton Hotel Limited [2002] L. & T.R. 93 (Chancery Division. Option to renew business lease. Construction).

Menwald Properties Limited v. Hargraves House limited 24.01.02 E.G.C.S. (Chancery Division: Construction of surety covenant in lease of business premises).

Century 2000 Enterprises Limited v. SFI Group plc 11.11.01 E.G.C.S. (Court of Appeal. Agreement for business lease subject to planning permission. Construction thereof).

Basch v. Stekel [2001] L. & T.R. 1. (Court of Appeal. Personal Representatives of guarantors under a lease/Insolvency).

The Prudential Assurance Company Limited v. Eden Restaurants (Holborn) Limited [2000] L. & T.R. 480 (Court of Appeal. Land Registration. Effectiveness of notice under section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954).

Mean Machine Limited v Blackheath Leisure (Carousel) Limited (1999) 78 P. & C.R. D36 (Court of Appeal: Specific performance of agreement for assignment of lease).

Sight & Sound Education Limited v Books Etc. Limited [1999] 3 E.G.L.R. 45 (Chancery Division. Date of termination of tenancy to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies).

Bacchiocchi v. Academic Agency Limited [1998] 2 All E.R. 241. [1998] 1 W.L.R. 1313. [1998] 3 E.G.L.R. 157 (Court of Appeal. Occupation for the purposes of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954).

Twogates Properties Limited v. Birmingham Midshires Building Society (1998) 78 P. & C.R. 386. [1997] 2 B.C.L.C. 558. (Court of Appeal. Repairing obligations. Loss and damage. Building Societies).

Kened Limited v. Connie Investments Limited [1997] 1 E.G.L.R. 21 (Court of Appeal. Withholding consent to alienation. Reasonableness).

London Regional Transport v. Brandt (1996) 73 P & CR 386, 29 HLR 193 [1997] 2 BCLC 558 (Court of Appeal. The right of a sub-tenant of part of premises demised on a lease to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to remain in occupation after termination of the head business tenancy).

Estates Gazette Limited v. Benjamin Restaurants Limited [1993] 4 All E.R. 367 (QBD) [1995] 1 All E.R. 129 (Court of Appeal. Liability of sureties after assignment. Construction of surety covenant).

Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Singh [1991] 2 E.G.L.R. 75 (Court of Appeal. Occupation for the purposes of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954).

Capital & Counties plc v. Hawa [1991] 2 E.G.L.R. 133 (Chancery Division. Rent Review/Arbitration).

Residential Landlord & Tenant +

Edward undertakes all aspect of residential landlord and tenant law including enfranchisement and lease extensions, service charges, security of tenure, management disputes (including the appointment and removal of managers, enforcement of covenants, statutory variation of leases, and the tenants’ right of first refusal).

In 2008 Edward appeared for a residential tenant in the first case under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 to reach the House of Lords, namely Majorstake Limited v. Curtis [2008] 1 A.C. 787. [2008] 2 W.L.R. 338 [2008] 2 All E.R. 303 [2008] 14 E.G. 102 [2008] 2 P & CR 2. Edward successfully argued that the landlord could not oppose his client’s claim to an extended lease under Chapter II of the 1993 on the ground that the landlord wished to redevelop.

In 1996 Edward appeared in one of the first cases concerning the operation of Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to reach the Court of Appeal: Kay-Green and others v. Twinsectra Limited [1996] 4 All ER 546.

In Artesian Residential Investments Limited v. Beck [1999] 3 All E.R. 113 [1999] 2 E.G.L.R. 30. [2000] Q.B. 541 the Court of Appeal had to consider issues arises out of the purported determination of assured tenancies under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 by forfeiture. Edward represented the successful landlord in this case. In another residential forfeiture case in the Court of Appeal, Edward’s residential landlord client persuaded the Court of Appeal that relief from forfeiture should only be granted on terms that the tenants sell the lease of their flat: Khar v. Delbounty Limited (1998) 75 P. & C.R. 232.

The full extent of Edward’s residential landlord & tenant practice is revealed by his list of notable reported cases in this area.

87 St George’s Square Management Limited v. Whiteside [2017] E.G.L.R. 2. [2016] UKUT 438 (LC). (Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) Landlord’s contractual right to recover litigation costs against a tenant under an indemnity clause in a long lease notwithstanding that the First Tier Tribunal has awarded the landlord part of its costs under rule 13(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013).

Garside and Anson v. RFYC Limited and Maunder-Taylor [2011] UKUT 367 (LC). (Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Failure on the part of a landlord to phase major works meant the costs were not reasonably incurred within the meaning of section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985).

Majorstake Limited v. Curtis [2008] 1 A.C. 787. [2008] 2 W.L.R. 338 [2008] 2 All E.R. 303 [2008] 14 E.G. 102 [2008] 2 P & CR 2 (House of Lords. Leasehold Enfranchisement. Landlord opposing claim to an extended lease on grounds of redevelopment. Meaning of “any premises” within section 47(2) of the 1993 Act).

Cawsand Fort Management Co. Limited v. Stafford and others [2008] 3 All E.R. 353. (Court of Appeal. Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 Management order. Whether it is possible for order under section 24 to extend to land not within the curtilage of the buildings containing the leasehold flats).

Tiffany Investments Limited v. Bircham & Co. No.2 Nominees Limited [2003] 2 P. & C.R. 381. [2003] 12 E.G. 127. (Chancery Division. Right of first refusal contained in residential lease. Operation of section 17 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954).

Kay-Green and others v. Twinsectra Limited [1996] 4 All ER 546 (Court of Appeal. Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987).

Artesian Residential Investments Limited v. Beck [1999] 3 All E.R. 113 [1999] 2 E.G.L.R. 30. [2000] Q.B. 541 (Court of Appeal. Determination of assured tenancies. Forfeiture).

Khar v. Delbounty Limited. (1998) 75 P. & C.R. 232 (Court of Appeal. Relief from forfeiture. Failure to pay money other than rent. Terms of relief).

Kay-Green and others v. Twinsectra Limited [1997] 1 E.G.L.R. 219 (Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987).

London Regional Transport v. Brandt (1997) 73. P & C.R. 386. 29 H.L.R. 193 (Court of Appeal. Security of tenure for sub-tenants under the Rent Act 1977. Inter-relationship with Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954).

Deverall v. Wyndham [1989] 1 E.G.L.R. 57 (Chancery Division. Residential landlord and tenant. Licence to sub-let. Acquisition of statutory rights).

Covenants & Profits +

Edward has an extensive practice advising land owners on the impact, if any, of restrictive covenants. Edward’s clients range from major house builders, to individual property owners who wish to prevent unwanted development. Edward very frequently advises upon the operation and application of section 84(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 to restrictions burdening his clients’ land with a view to having the restrictions discharged or modified. Edward has had particular success in having restrictions modified to permit infill development: Laav v. Thorpe Estate Limited [2015] UKUT 0448 (LC), Re Land on the south west side of St Catherine’s Street, Ruislip, Middlesex

In the case of Trustees of the Coventry School Foundation v. Whitehouse and others [2012] 3 E.G.L.R. 151 (HC) [2014] 1 P. &. C.R. 51, Edward successfully argued in the Court of Appeal that his client’s use of burdened land as a school would not constitute a breach of a restrictive covenant prohibiting use that caused nuisance or annoyance. This was an appeal from the decision of the judge on an application for declaratory relief under section 84(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925.

In Small v. Oliver & Saunders (Developments) Limited [2006] 3 E.G.L.R 141 [2006] EWHC 1293 (Ch), Edward persuaded the judge that an injunction should not be granted to restrain his client from using land as an access way to a newly built house, worth £5.2m, notwithstanding such use constituted a breach of covenant burdening the land. The judge awarded the claimant damages in lieu in very modest sum as Edward took the point that the damages had to be notionally divided amongst all those with the benefit of the covenant, only one of whom made a claim.

In 2017 Edward was instructed on behalf of the owner of an extensive profit a prendre in Wales who alleges its profit has been substantially interfered with by construction works associated with the erection of a wind farm. The case continues.

Easements +

Edward has an extensive practice advising land owners on the existence, nature and impact, if any, of easements, such as rights of way, rights of light and water rights. Edward’s clients range from major house builders, searching of means of access to development sites, to individual property owners in dispute with near neighbours.

In Das and others v. Linden Mews Limited [2002] 28 E.G. 130. [2003] 2 P & C.R. 58 Edward successfully argued in the Court of Appeal that a right of way could not be lawfully used for the benefit of land adjoining the dominant tenant. Despite the Court of Appeal’s indication that an injunction should not be granted to prevent the offending use of the servient land, Edward persuaded the trial judge, to whom the dispute had been remitted, that an injunction should be granted.

In Siggery and another v Bell and others [2007] All ER (D) 40 (Jul) Edward successfully argued that gates erected substantially interfered with his clients’ rights of way.

In Martin v. Childs [2002] EWCA Civ 283. 19.02.02 E.G.C.S [2002] All ER (D) 250 (Feb) Edward successfully argued in the Court of Appeal that an easement granted by a conveyance did not permit the defendant to lay a new water pipe under the claimant’s land.

Nuisance & Trespass +

In 2014, Edward, leading Giselle McGowan, successfully argued before the Supreme Court that his landlord clients should not be liable for the noise nuisance caused by their commercial tenants: Lawrence and another v. Fen Tigers Limited and others (No 2) [2015] A.C. 106. [2014] 4 All E.R. 527. [2014] UKSC 46. The case involved (inter alia) consideration of whether one could acquire an easement to create a nuisance and the circumstances in which an injunction to restrain a nuisance might be properly refused.

Peires v. Bickerton’s Aerodromes Limited [2017] 1 W.L.R. 2865 is the first decision of the Court of Appeal of the statutory defences provided by sections 76 and 77 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to a common law nuisance caused by helicopter pilot training. Despite succeeding before the High Court judge that the helicopter pilot training did cause a nuisance, the Court of Appeal held that the statutory defences were available to the defendant, and therefore Edward’s clients were not entitled to an injunction to restrain the nuisance, or any other remedy. Success at first instance resulted in Edward being instructed in a number of matters concerning noise nuisance caused by helicopters.

Over the years, Edward has been instructed on a great many trespass/boundary cases, and not only those arising from bad tempered neighbour disputes!

Professional negligence +

Edward frequently advises on issues of professional negligence arising out of property matters, such as conveyancing and valuation. In Cohen v. Smith & Williamson [2002] BPIR 243 Edward successfully argued that his clients, selling agents, were not negligent or in breach of duty on the sale of a portfolio of properties on the instructions of mortgagees. Kennedy v. Van Emden (1997) 74 P. & C.R. 19 [1997] 2 E.G.L.R. 137 had to consider the level of damages recoverable from firms of solicitors who had negligently their clients on the operation of rent review clauses, the Rent Act 1977 and the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. In Citib@se plc v. Memery Crystal [2003] All E.R. (D) 01 (Nov). (2003) 147 Sol Jo LB 1394. [2003] N.P.C. 131 Edward persuaded a High Court judge that the defendant firm of solicitors had been negligent in advising his clients on the operation of a break clause in a commercial lease of serviced office accommodation. Citib@se plc v. Memery Crystal [2003] All E.R. (D) 01 (Nov). (2003) 147 Sol Jo LB 1394. [2003] N.P.C. 131. (Chancery Division. Solicitors failing to advise on operation of break clause in commercial lease). Cohen v. Smith & Williamson [2002] BPIR 243. (Chancery Division. Mortgagee exercising power of sale. Alleged sale at under value. Alleged negligence of selling agents). Kennedy v. Van Emden (1997) 74 P. & C.R. 19 [1997] 2 E.G.L.R. 137 (Court of Appeal. Conveyancing/residential landlord and tenant/solicitors’ negligence).


Additional Information

Year after year, Edward has been recommended by Chambers and Partners for Real Estate Litigation, and the Legal 500 for Property Litigation.

In Chambers and Partners 2019, Edward is ranked in Band 1 for Real Estate Litigation, and it is said that he is “[a] brilliant property lawyer who gives clear and unambiguous advice”. It is also said Edward “[is] brilliant at convincing judges and opposing barristers alike”.

In the Legal 500 2019, Edward is ranked in Band 3 for Property Litigation, and it is said of him that “He always leaves clients knowing exactly where they stand”.

In 2018, Chambers and Partners recorded that “Edward is an outstanding property specialist with a pragmatic approach to getting the right outcome“, and that he is “Great with clients, easy to deal with and a great advocate, he has very strong cross-examination skills.”

In 2017 in the Legal 500 Edward was described as being “… always approachable and happy to help out between formal instructions.” In the 2016 Edition it was said Edward is “a forceful and hard-hitting advocate.” The 2015 Edition said he is “well-liked by clients and produces excellent written work, as well as being an effective and determined advocate”. The 2014 Edition described him as having “An impressive understanding of restrictive covenants affecting land”.

Edward was identified as a “star of the Chancery Bar”, and as a “solicitors’ favourite junior” at the landlord and tenant bar by Lawyer Magazine, and was noted as a “recommended junior” at the Property Bar by Square Foot Magazine.

  • Landlord and Tenant Chapter in the Chancery Litigation Handbook, Jordans. 2nd Ed. 2005.

LLB University of Warwick

Edward is a member of the South East Circuit, the Chancery Bar Association and the Property Bar Association.

Head of Chambers

Edward Denehan is an independent self-employed barrister registered with the Bar Standards Board of England (ref. no 12005); whose practice is governed by the Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales which code can be found at www.barstandardsboard.org.uk; has full professional liability insurance provided by the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund Limited (ref BM 2930/038) (details of the world-wide cover are provided at www.barmutual.co.uk); is registered for VAT (reg. no. 365 5829 17); and can be contacted during chambers opening hours by telephone at 02074045055 or by e-mail at clerks@9stonebuildings.com.

  • * Required fields