Jonathon Rushton is a specialist Chancery barrister and member of Business & Property Group at No5 Barristers’ Chambers.
Called to the Bar in 1997 and for over twenty years his practice has been firmly within the specialist spheres of property law, commercial and residential landlord and tenant law.
When dealing with both contentious and non-contentious matters Jonathon brings with him his reputation for very practical and accessible advice and a no-nonsense approach to problem solving.
Jonathon’s areas of expertise include:
Jonathon lectures and writes on property matters within chambers and externally in partnership with solicitors firms and other professionals.
Jonathon is also a CEDR qualified mediator.
Uncategorised
We had a fabulous night at Worcester Law Society Legal Awards, where Naomi Dean was announced as the Worcester Law Society Barrister of the Year…
Uncategorised
No5 is delighted to announce that Jonathon Rushton, Grace Wright and Naomi Dean have been nominated and now shortlisted as a finalist for Barrister of…
Clarke v Get Training Limited
2010
Contract: The Court of Appeal held that the Respondent Company was not entitled to recover funds under a loan agreement on account of their misrepresentation, failure of consideration and lawful termination of the loan agreement.
SWI Limited v P & I Data Services Limited
2007
Construction/Contract: The Court of Appeal rejected the Appellant’s arguments seeking to introduce into a fixed price contract a unit rate of payment where the contract did not make provision for such payment in circumstances where the Respondent had been requested to perform less than they had quoted for.
West v The London Borough of Newham
2007
Social Housing/Right to Buy: The Court of Appeal held that there was nothing in the Housing Act 1985 to the effect that the valuation of a district valuer was conclusive as to the extent of the tenancy as the function of the district valuer was solely to determine the value of the property.
Feld v. The London Borough of Barnet
2004
Social Housing/Homelessness: The Court of Appeal held that there was no apparent bias where a s.202 review of an earlier original homelessness decision had been carried out by the same reviewing officer who had carried out a previous, but unconnected, review; nor was there any apparent bias – or breach of the Review Procedure Regulations – where the reviewing officer had sought the views of her superior officer on the related issue of allocations.
Uncategorised
We had a fabulous night at Worcester Law Society Legal Awards, where Naomi Dean was announced as the Worcester Law Society Barrister of the Year…
Uncategorised
No5 is delighted to announce that Jonathon Rushton, Grace Wright and Naomi Dean have been nominated and now shortlisted as a finalist for Barrister of…