Christopher is a highly experienced and versatile senior junior, who specialises primarily in education law, administrative / public law, commercial and property work. Christopher’s work is often technical, high value and complex. His breadth of experience allows him to understand and navigate the interplay of multiple areas of law within a case. He often appears unled against silks in the higher courts, including the Court of Appeal, and he has appeared in the UK Supreme Court.
Christopher has been practicing at the Bar of NI since 2007 and the Bar of E&W from 2016. He is also called to the Bar of the Republic of Ireland (2010), primarily to facilitate acting in cross border commercial actions or cases concerning education law issues. Commercial / chancery work forms a regular feature of his practice.
The nature of such contentious and high-profile work has led Christopher to develop a deep and broad understanding across a full range of property, commercial and injunctive law matters, earning him an established reputation for his expertise in these fields. This, in tandem with his knowledge of contract law and tort issues, has allowed him to offer clients the opportunity of a counsel who can speak to a wide range of legal issues that may arise in their case. This is aided by Christopher’s robust strong research skills developed during his time in academia, which allows him to get up to speed quickly in cases that are complicated in both fact / evidence and law.
Equally, being Called to the Bars of England & Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland, has placed Christopher in a distinctive position of being able to deal with cross-border challenges across the British and Irish Isles from the perspective of both jurisdictions involved (e.g. Girgis v JCIE Ltd). This offers commercial clients the possibility of maintaining continuity of counsel and keen strategic advice across jurisdictions.
Further examples of commercial areas in which Christopher has been briefed are as follows:
Gallaricken Farms Ltd v MixTEC Ltd – This action involved a claim for damages concerning the provision of several items of agricultural plant and machinery not in accordance with the specifications at the time of commissioning, later than provided for under the contracts, and of substandard quality; loss of revenue and losses in procuring replacement equipment and repairs; and a counterclaim alleging unlawful cancellation of payment. This case also raised complex issues around the correct venue for the claims in light of the cross-border nature of the transaction, and various issues of disclosure and expert evidence, in light of the technical nature of the equipment and the impact of its deficiencies on the claimant’s business. This matter was resolved to the satisfaction of the client.
ABIS Resources Ltd v Department of Education, & Education & Skills Funding Agency – Christopher achieved a notable settlement following the issuance of proceedings in a case concerning the Department’s purported termination of contracts with a training organisation and failure to pay funding further to said agreements. The central issue in the case was one subsequently endorsed by the Courts, namely whether a party to a contract, which contained multiple clauses permitting termination in discrete circumstances, must cite the correct basis for termination under the terms of the contract for it to be effective and not a breach of contract in itself.
Christopher is presently instructed as sole counsel in the case of Atkinson & Bremer v The Committee & Trustees of the Hockering Residents’ Association, which is a complicated dispute encompassing: unincorporated associations, trusts and contract; adverse possession and de-registration for mistake; covenants on land; and privilege issues. This showcases Christopher’s ability to draw from across a wide array of legal arrays to formulate the best strategy for realising a client’s aims, whether by way of subsequent compromise or success at trial. This case is but one of many that highlights his strong leadership, advocacy, outside of the box thinking, and his ability to deal with a myriad of issues in an overarching way whilst remaining cognisant of the detail.
Christopher is presently instructed as sole counsel in the High Court case of Atkinson & Bremer v The Committee & Trustees of the Hockering Residents’ Association, which is a complicated dispute encompassing a number of interconnected areas of law. In particular, Trial 1 concerned in part the question of whether the unincorporated association held the roads of the Estate on trust for members, whether a constructive trust had arisen, the issue of the transfer of the beneficial interests of members, issues of perpetuity, and the basis on which an unincorporated association could potentially ‘hold’ property on behalf of members in light of its lack of legal personality. This showcases Christopher’s ability to draw from across a wide array of legal arrays to formulate the best strategy for realising a client’s aims, whether by way of subsequent compromise or success at trial. This case is but one of many that highlights his strong leadership, advocacy, outside of the box thinking, and his ability to deal with a myriad of issues in an overarching way whilst remaining cognisant of the detail.
UCNI Ltd v CSN Ltd – In an action between two competing online sales platforms, Christopher was briefed to defend a High Court challenge to use of images taken by third parties (being the customers) to which the claimant applied its watermark, and which were later used by the defendant with the permission of said third-parties, but not with the permission of the claimant. This case involved consideration of: copyright in the online context; formation of a contract in a situation involving automated program tools and browser-wrap vs click-wrap websites; and the interplay between interlocutory and substantive injunctive relief, and ‘impecuniosity’. This matter ultimately resolved to the satisfaction of the client.
Bank XY v N, M & B – Christopher acted in a leading case where a bank sought to enforce a significant commercial loan facility against a chain of licensed premises via insolvency proceedings. A variety of arguments were raised, but with regards to the central point in defence, the Court adopted a broad and purposive approach concerning the requirements for proper execution of a deed securing the loans. On that basis, the Court concurred that the deed / indenture had not been properly executed, preventing the bank from relying on the special limitation period in that regard, and thereby rendering the debt one unsuitable to enforcement via insolvency proceedings. The matter subsequently resolved to the satisfaction of the borrowers.
McCarthy v Barberis & ors – Christopher acted on behalf of the Claimants in a difficult document-heavy boundary dispute between properties constructed 50+ years before, where all of the boundary features had been removed by trial, there had been notable change of use since the land was first used by a common vendor, and there was lengthy heated history between the parties. The Court concurred with the Claimants as to the position of the boundary using extrinsic evidence, and agreed that even if that were not the case it would have found there to be an inferred boundary agreement. This resulted in the Court also agreeing that the Defendants were guilty of trespass, and taking the unusual step in such cases of awarding costs to the Claimants.
Christopher is currently briefed in Loughview Estate Ltd v NIW Ltd, which concerns a private water company that has, without consent, been discharging storm and foul water from the systems of various estates it has adopted via the Loughview Estate’s private residential estate, a network it refuses to adopt on the grounds that it is non-compliant with modern standards. This has caused regular flooding from both systems onto the estate, affecting 235 residential properties. One of the complicating features of the case is that all of the neighbouring land was previously owned by the Ministry of Defence (‘MoD’), with issues of private nuisance and the creation of easements given the history of the land, and the lack of knowledge of the water systems being utilised by the Defendant, despite which the Defendant claims to have used the network as of right.
In the case of Hardy & Bates v C & K Heppenstall, in which Christopher had 4 weeks to become familiar with a long- running dispute between two neighboring properties that operated commercial livery and equestrian training businesses respectively, and only 3 working days prior to a 2- week trial to prepare with the trial bundle, Christopher’s involvement in this case completely changed its fortunes from the unsuccessful outcome of a prior early neutral evaluation. This case also demonstrates Christopher’s strong knowledge of advocacy, particularly as one of the claimants against Christopher’s clients was an ex-chief of police and a practicing criminal law barrister.
Christopher is presently instructed as sole counsel in the High Court case of Atkinson & Bremer v The Committee & Trustees of the Hockering Residents’ Association, which is a complicated dispute encompassing a number of interconnected areas of law, such as: unincorporated associations, trusts and contract; adverse possession and de-registration for mistake; covenants on land; and privilege issues. In Trial 1, Christopher obtained judgment in favour of the Claimants, with the Court confirming that the unincorporated association could not rely upon, enforce, vary or deal with restrictive covenants on the properties of residents on the Estate. This showcases Christopher’s ability to draw from across a wide array of legal arrays to formulate the best strategy for realising a client’s aims, whether by way of subsequent compromise or success at trial. This case is but one of many that highlights his strong leadership, advocacy, outside of the box thinking, and his ability to deal with a myriad of issues in an overarching way whilst remaining cognisant of the detail.
Christopher is a highly regarded senior junior who often brings his extensive experience from general public law and Higher Education matters to bear in cases concerning Special Educational Needs and Disability (‘SEND’) matters, both on behalf of local authorities, schools / academies, and parents. Christopher often advises and acts in appeals before the First-tier Tribunbal (SEND) relating to Educational, Health and Care Plans (‘EHCPs’), judicial reviews concerning SEND issues, and funding disputes between schools / academies and their local authorities.
Jurisdictional challenge concerning the determination of a professional examination body as its formal seat was in Scotland, but its ambit ranging throughout the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, with the claimant being based in England. The Court agreed with the claimant’s position, bringing clarity to the question of where judicial review proceedings can be heard.
Christopher achieved a record damages settlement as well as a degree uplift on the cusp of proceedings being issued in this case involving long-term failings under both contract and the Equality Act 2010, where the student had a complicated disability profile and undertook two degrees simultaneously, with said failings resulting in a two-year delay in their entry into their chosen career.
Challenge to the termination of studies by an international doctorate student based upon procedural failings. Christopher acted in respect of the internal proceedings before being instructed as a consultant for the administrative proceedings. The Scottish High Court agreed with the claimant, endorsing the approach taken by the Court of Appeal in England and Wales in R(Rafique) v St George’s University of London regarding judicial review time limits in HEP cases.
Christopher successfully appealed and defended allegations that a doctor had attempted to obtain advance knowledge of a specialty examination via Facebook and chat-groups. This exam is a prerequisite to obtain membership of the Royal College of Physicians to begin subspecialty training, and the finding of misconduct at first instance had also resulted in a report to the GMC. This challenge drew upon public law principles in framing the grounds of appeal, based on numerous failings in the investigation and consideration of the allegations as well as evidential difficulties presented against the doctor.
Christopher achieved a notable settlement following the issuance of proceedings in a case concerning the Department’s purported termination of contracts with a training organisation and failure to pay funding further to said agreements.
The central issue in the case was one subsequently endorsed by the Courts, namely whether a party to a contract, which contained multiple clauses permitting termination in discrete circumstances, must cite the correct basis for termination for it to be effective and not a breach of contract in itself.
Challenge to the disclosure of criminal record information relating to a youth caution as well as to the termination of dental nursing studies by college following its receipt of that criminal record information.
Christopher is a highly experienced senior junior who has a wealth of experience in administrative / public law. Christopher’s work is often technical, high value and complex. His breadth of experience allows him to understand and navigate the interplay of multiple areas of law within a case. He often appears unled against silks in the higher courts, including the Court of Appeal, and he has been led in the Supreme Court. He has earned a growing reputation for acting in complex novel cases with the potential to set or shape precedent, whether for individuals or governmental bodies.
Christopher’s practice involves providing advice, drafting of pleadings and legal argument in litigation, advocacy, and drafting submissions and legal representation as part of internal and regulatory proceedings. He is a fierce advocate in administrative proceedings, having a formidable ability to draw from a wide array of legal areas to formulate the best strategy for realising a client’s aims, whether by way of success at trial or achieving a settlement. Christopher’s strength in advocacy is aided by his acute research skills developed during his time in academia, allowing him to get up to speed quickly in cases that are complicated in both fact / evidence and law. This allows Christopher to offer clients a counsel who can speak to a wide range of legal issues that may arise in their case.
Christopher’s practice has involved a myriad of issues over his long career, such as: the disclosure and use of criminal record information; compliance by higher education providers (‘HEPs’) and the ombudsman with relevant regulatory regimes and statute; interpretation of the correct jurisdiction in the UK for issuing judicial review claims; compliance of local councils with statute as part of their internal processes; deportation of prisoners; grant to prisoners of compassionate temporary release; planning disputes, particularly where issues of noise and shadow flicker arise; repatriation of various ancient manuscripts; and rights to burial plots.
Christopher is currently instructed in a number of public law challenges relating to HEPs and the ombudsman, and regulatory bodies, relating to various internal procedures, such as academic appeals, complaints, and disciplinary / non-academic misconduct proceedings. In this setting Christopher has acted for students, staff against the institution concerned, and various bodies.
Christopher also currently acts on behalf of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau in respect of a number of challenges to its schemes for compensation, many of which involve complicated considerations of ‘retained’ and ‘assimilated’ EU law.
Christopher successfully acted on behalf of the MIB in a complicated judicial review challenge to its UK-wide Untraced Drivers Agreements where the applicant for compensation is a minor. The key issues concerned the question of whether minor applicants for compensation under the Untraced Driver Agreements should be able to seek court approval of any compensation offered and/or the payment into the court fund of compensation awarded. This case involves complex considerations of the correct interpretation of the MIB Agreements by reference to EU Directives and their interplay with what is now ‘assimilated EU law’, which remains a new and developing field.
Lead case in a challenge to the legislative regime governing the disclosure of criminal record information in education and employment settings, namely nursing. Christopher was initially instructed as sole counsel, succeeding before the High Court, with the Department appealing the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the claimant’s position and that of the other cases which joined this challenge, which resulted in two changes to the legislative regime and the adoption of statutory guidance for disclosure, as well as being utilised for numerous other subsequent cases.
Jurisdictional challenge concerning the determination of a professional examination body as its formal seat was in Scotland, but its ambit ranging throughout the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, with the claimant being based in England. The Court agreed with the claimant’s position, bringing clarity to the question of where judicial review proceedings can be heard.
Challenge to the unlawful disclosure of information from the police force of an EU Member State to a police force in the UK, and to reliance on that unlawful information within the UK, which resulted in a termination of employment. This case raised novel questions for the Court of Appeal concerning the harmonisation of data protection law across the EU and Article 8 ECHR considerations, and what use can be made of information unlawfully disclosed.
Lead case challenging to the transposition of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to Northern Ireland, and its interplay with the Good Friday / Belfast Agreement, which resolved following the grant of permission, resulting in legislative change in the claimant’s favour.
Challenge to the termination of studies by an international doctorate student based upon procedural failings. Christopher acted in respect of the internal proceedings before being instructed as a consultant for the administrative proceedings. The Scottish High Court agreed with the claimant, endorsing the approach taken by the Court of Appeal in England and Wales in R(Rafique) v St George’s University of London regarding judicial review time limits in HEP cases.
Challenge to the disclosure of criminal record information relating to a youth caution as well as to the termination of dental nursing studies by college following its receipt of that criminal record information.
Challenge to a procurement exercise concerning issues arising for tenders as part of an electronic auction, which resolved following pre-action correspondence and ADR.
Challenge to the refusal to deport to the Republic of Ireland a dual national prisoner who had renounced his British citizenship and was about to commence the licence element of his sentence Irish national to the Republic of Ireland, which resolved immediately prior to the substantive hearing in the Court of Appeal.
Challenge by a land owner to the service of a notice requiring him to remedy water contamination and waste at a cost of £2.3m, following illegal dumping by a third party and an investigation by the Environmental Agency, which resolved following the grant of permission.
Christopher is a highly experienced senior junior who has a breadth of experience in procurement matters on behalf of both tenderers and public authorities, often being briefed in matters that are technical, high value and complex. Christopher’s experience spans a myriad of issues, such as allegations of manifest errors, technical faults in electronic auctions, errors in evaluation methodology, and alteration of criteria to better suit a particular tenderer / product.
Christopher is a fierce advocate with a keen strategic mind, having the formidable ability to draw from a wide array of legal areas to formulate the best approach for realising a client’s aims, whether by way of success at trial or achieving a settlement. Christopher’s strength in advocacy is aided by his acute research skills developed during his time in academia, allowing him to get up to speed quickly in cases that are complicated in both fact / evidence and law. This allows Christopher to offer clients a counsel who can speak to a wide range of legal issues that may arise in their case.
Christopher is a keen litigator, possessing a wealth of experience, and frequently dealing with chancery / BPC matters in the High Court. He has a formidable ability to draw from a wide array of legal areas to formulate the best strategy for realising a client’s aims, whether by way of success at trial or achieving a settlement. Property work forms a regular feature of Christopher’s practice, which is assisted by his broad understanding of property, commercial and injunctive law, in tandem with his knowledge of contract law. This allows Christopher to offer clients a counsel who can speak to a wide range of legal issues that may arise in their case.
Christopher is a strong advocate in a variety of settings. His instruction in the case of Hardy & Anor v Heppenstall & Anor completely changed the fortunes of his clients from the unsuccessful outcome of a prior early neutral evaluation in this claim concerning a long-running dispute between two neighbouring properties that operated commercial livery and equestrian training businesses respectively. This was across a wide array of causes of action including: trespass by soil, people and animals; placement of a property boundary; nuisance caused by flooding attributed to construction words; nuisance and covenants relating to services; nuisance relating to commercial premises noise; interpretation of covenants, and the extent of rights; compensation under the Animals Act; and harassment.
Christopher’s strength in advocacy is aided by his acute research skills developed during his time in academia, allowing him to get up to speed quickly in cases that are complicated in both fact / evidence and law.
Christopher is currently instructed as sole counsel in a complicated High Court dispute encompassing: unincorporated associations, trusts and contract; adverse possession and de-registration for mistake; covenants; and data rights.
Christopher also currently acts in a High Court dispute on behalf of all the residents of a residential estate, which has a private storm and foul network, against a water company which has been discharging into, and regularly overloading, the estate’s network; raising issues of nuisance, the creation of easements, and breach of statutory duty.
Christopher is a leading practitioner in any matter relating to higher education providers (‘HEPs’). He has a deep and broad knowledge of law relating to HEPs and has become a ‘go-to’ junior in this area, having special expertise in claims against HEPs, the Secretary of State / Department for Education, regulatory and assessment bodies, and ombudsmen. He frequently acts on behalf of students and professionals seeking to progress in their qualifications across a wide array of issues. This includes:
Christopher is frequently instructed in litigation relating to these issues, encompassing both administrative / judicial review proceedings, as well as claims seeking damages and/or a Declaration and/or an Injunction (both in the course of proceedings and as a final remedy).
Christopher also has notable experience of assisting students within internal HEP proceedings for institutions based outside of England & Wales and Northern Ireland, as:
Christopher also regularly advises and acts in litigation matters concerning funding disputes by training organisations, which often involve complicated issues of contractual construction. Having previously worked as a Director for a HEP professional qualification course, Christopher has particular insight into the operation of HEPs, as well as the concerns and motivations of training bodies generally. This places him in a unique position to engage with client needs and ascertain the best strategies to achieve them, whether it is a student / professional seeking to challenge an academic or other determination, or a body dealing with such issues or contractual disputes.
Jurisdictional challenge concerning the determination of a professional examination body as its formal seat was in Scotland, but its ambit ranging throughout the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, with the claimant being based in England. The Court agreed with the claimant’s position, bringing clarity to the question of where judicial review proceedings can be heard.
Christopher achieved a record damages settlement as well as a degree uplift on the cusp of proceedings being issued in this case involving long-term failings under both contract and the Equality Act 2010, where the student had a complicated disability profile and undertook two degrees simultaneously, with said failings resulting in a two-year delay in their entry into their chosen career.
Challenge to the termination of studies by an international doctorate student based upon procedural failings. Christopher acted in respect of the internal proceedings before being instructed as a consultant for the administrative proceedings. The Scottish High Court agreed with the claimant, endorsing the approach taken by the Court of Appeal in England and Wales in R(Rafique) v St George’s University of London regarding judicial review time limits in HEP cases
Christopher successfully appealed and defended allegations that a doctor had attempted to obtain advance knowledge of a specialty examination via Facebook and chat-groups. This exam is a prerequisite to obtain membership of the Royal College of Physicians to begin subspecialty training, and the finding of misconduct at first instance had also resulted in a report to the GMC. This challenge drew upon public law principles in framing the grounds of appeal, based on numerous failings in the investigation and consideration of the allegations as well as evidential difficulties presented against the doctor.
Christopher achieved a notable settlement following the issuance of proceedings in a case concerning the Department’s purported termination of contracts with a training organisation and failure to pay funding further to said agreements.
The central issue in the case was one subsequently endorsed by the Courts, namely whether a party to a contract, which contained multiple clauses permitting termination in discrete circumstances, must cite the correct basis for termination for it to be effective and not a breach of contract in itself.
Challenge to the disclosure of criminal record information relating to a youth caution as well as to the termination of dental nursing studies by college following its receipt of that criminal record information.
No5 Business and Property group invites you to attend the Real Estate Seminar. Programme 9:30am – 9:50am Registration and Refreshments 9:50am – 10:00am Welcome –…
The Double-Edged Sword of A.I. and its Implications for Higher Education As covered in Part 1 of this blog series, The recent case of R(Ayinde)…
No5 Business and Property group invites you to attend the Real Estate Seminar. Programme 9:30am – 9:50am Registration and Refreshments 9:50am – 10:00am Welcome –…
The Double-Edged Sword of A.I. and its Implications for Higher Education As covered in Part 1 of this blog series, The recent case of R(Ayinde)…
