Phil has extensive experience across a broad spectrum of matters relating to property and property litigation:
- Acting for the purchaser of substantial development land pursuant to a pre-emption right in an arbitration action to determine the price payable, to include successfully resisting a subsequent High Court challenge of the award by the seller pursuant to section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the grounds that the market value had been determined without taking sufficient account of a number of offers (Cabot Carbon Limited v Manchester Ship Canal Company [2015])
- Acting in relation to a claim pursuant to the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 for an order for the sale of numerous jointly owned properties to include resolving connected title issues and negotiating a complex settlement.
- Acting for a national retailer in a High Court action to determine to whether the landlord was able to extend a neighbouring store and undertake other works on a true construction of the lease or on the basis of terms to be implied in to the lease.
- Acting for an international logistics operator in relation to a multi million pound terminal dilapidations claim following the termination of a lease of extensive warehouse premises.
- Acting for a land owner in relation to a claim for compensation pursuant to the Water Industry Act 1991 following pipe laying works on an extensive development site by a statutory undertaker to include an action before the Upper Tribunal to determine whether a planning permission had been protected by implementation and was a full or outline permission (Eaden Homes Limited v Welsh Water [2012])
- Acting for the landlord of office premises in relation to a claim for monies due pursuant to the lease defended on the basis that the tenant claimed a breach of terms contained in and/or to be implied into the lease relating to COVID 19 and estoppel in relation to an alleged agreement to surrender.
- Acting for the local authority in relation to the determination of the price payable in respect of an enfranchisement claim pursuant to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 following the conversion of a building from two flats, to include successfully defending an appeal to the Upper Tribunal which clarified how the “appropriate day” is to be properly determined (Clifton v Liverpool City Council [2017]).