Paul J. Dean

Viewing: Commercial Litigation for Paul J. Dean

Paul has been in practice as a commercial barrister for over 15 years.
Prior to his call Paul qualified as a solicitor (Eversheds - 1996) and a Solicitor-Advocate (2001).
His first degree gives him helpful technical and practical knowledge of disputes involving engineering and technology. He has a keen interest in cases involving IT and IPR.
Paul specializes in the following areas:-
Insolvency, Company and Partnership, Banking and Finance.
His practise also includes:
Property, Trusts, Injunctions (including in personam, proprietary and mandatory), High value motor vehicles (so far a Maybach and a vintage Aston Martin DB5), Restraint of Trade, Arbitration: London and International (Copenhagen), and ADR (mediation and other formats).
Pre 2006: playing rugby, travelling, scuba diving, certain wines and DIY, Post 2006: parenting, thinking about the above and IPA.
“He is hugely focused and is able to drill down into a raft of evidence with surgical precision. He has a near prophetic view of the next important moves.”
Chambers UK 2021
“Focused on the details but avoids being drawn into the irrelevant aspects of cases.”
Legal 500 2021 (Company and Insolvency)
“Personable, thorough and knowledgeable, he ticks all the boxes”
Legal 500 2021 (Commercial Litigation)
“He is very user-friendly.”
Chambers and Partners UK 2019 (partnership)
“He’s an excellent draftsman, a dogged advocate and a very client-friendly barrister.” “His advice is always well thought through and very considered.”
Chambers and Partners UK 2019 (commercial dispute resolution)
“Very experienced in commercial disputes.”
Legal 500 UK 2019 (commercial, banking, insolvency and chancery law)
“A partnership specialist who knows the technical aspects, laws and procedures very well and is familiar with all the leading cases.”
Chambers and Partners UK 2018 (partnership)
“He has one of the best junior partnership practices in Birmingham and is more experienced in it than anyone else I know: a go-to man for partnership.” “Always a port of call for me: I trust him when it comes to partnership law and he’s involved in the big cases.”
Chambers and Partners UK 2017 (partnership)
“a well-known insolvency expert” and “Technically very astute and accurate, and very personable.”
Legal 500 UK 2016 (commercial, banking, insolvency and chancery law)
Notable Cases
Douglas Wemyss v Sameer Karim and Douglas Wemyss LLP [2014] EWHC 292 (QB)
Acted for the claimant in respect of the sale and purchase of a solicitor’s practice. The case concerned a claim for the non payment of deferred consideration which was met with a substantial counterclaim. The trial took 9 days.
Hamed v Stevens [2013] EWCA Civ 911: (judgment 26 July)
Conflict of laws (foreign land - Egypt). The case concerned the transfer of US$300,000 by Mr Stevens to Mr Hamed’s bank account in Egypt for the purpose of purchasing a holiday apartment. There was a dispute over whether Mr Stevens (and/or his partner) ever received title. Mr Stevens issued proceedings for restitution (in personam) in the Birmingham District Registry. Mr Hamed challenged jurisdiction on the basis that the true character of the proceedings would be to resolve title to foreign land (in rem), in which case the jurisdiction of the English courts should be excluded under the Mozambique rule (British South Africa Co v Companhia de Mozambique [1893] AC 602). HHJ Purle QC dismissed Mr Hamed’s application. The unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal (Arden, Lloyd-Jones and Fulford LJJ) was that the case did not fall within what was left of the Mozambique rule. Furthermore, it would have fallen within the recognised exception to the Mozambique rule anyway, being a claim in personam: per Lord Mance in Pattni v Ali [2007] 2 AC 85 [26]. Mr Hamed’s appeal was therefore dismissed. Lloyd Jones LJ added that a “most interesting point” raised in respect of the operation of Articles 2 and 22 of the Brussels I (Judgments) Regulation “must await decision on another occasion”.
Ackroyd and Others v Hollely and Others, County Court (Leeds), Lawtel
16 January 2013
An appeal concerning the costs order made on an application for pre-action disclosure.
Stevens v Hamed [2012] EWHC 1871 (Ch)
Monies paid to purchase Egyptian property. Transaction did not happen. Claim (in personam) for restitution in England, not claim (in rem) in Egypt. Conflict of laws. Jurisdiction. Forum non conveniens. Subject to appeal in 2013.
Nautch Ltd and Others v Mortgage Express and Walker Singleton (Property Management) Ltd [2012] EWHC 4136 (Ch)
Acted for 20 claimants (forming a buy to let property portfolio) in a trial concerning the lawfulness of the appointment of LPA receivers. Established a breach of equitable duty to the borrower (cf. lender). Costs order approached globally, despite there being 20 individual claimants (but with common ownership).
Till v Morris, (Westlaw), CLMD [2012] C.L. 219
22nd December 2011
The absolute right of a partner to inspect partnership books and records contrasted with obligations of a party to disclose documents. Providing safeguards where inspection of office holder files was required.
Mortgage Express v Loi and Loi [2011] EWHC 4048 (Ch)
A declaratory relief for subrogated rights arising from negligent conveyancing on a remortgage of a freehold title which overlooked the existing of a lease.
Bruce v Gartlan, Hartill and Others [2011] EWHC 4047 (Ch)
A trial to determine the beneficial ownership of shares. The claim was based upon s.125 Companies Act 2006 (rectification of the register).
Earles v Barclays Bank plc [2010] Bus LR 566
Want of authority case. Mr Earles lost. However, the bank’s costs order was reduced by 50% for failing to provide e-disclosure properly. No adverse inference made as there was no evidence of deliberate spoliation.
Hussain v Al-Awlaqi, Clout and Baya’a: (Dubai CFI 023/2009,)
20th May 2010
Insolvent limited liability partnership. Trust and confidence had broken down. Deadlock. Just and equitable winding up. Resisted on the basis of having made a reasonable offer to buy out the others. Raft of factual disputes which affected the valuation of the business dramatically. Justice Sir John Chadwick decided that it was “misconceived” to have a trial in order to evaluate whether the offer was reasonable and so the petition would be struck out. Instead he favoured an investigation by a liquidator and ordered a winding up. Paul acted as a UK based Associate of the Advocate in Court.
Khan v Mohammed [2009] EWHC 125 (Ch)
Whether a partnership existed and what share of the beneficial interest of a commercial property did it own.
Nazir v Afsha, BCC (Chancery), Lawtel
6th March 2008
Right to buy freehold of house. Resulting trust. Breach of that trust. Inquiry as to damages. Equitable interest established but proprietary estoppel doctrine incomplete: possession ordered.
Singh v Anand, Anand International Ltd and others, Ch D (Birmingham), [2007] EWHC 3346 (Ch)
Whether a 10 minute conversation in 1981 established a trust over two issued shares for the benefit of two and one contingent beneficiary. Constructive trusts. Proprietary estoppel. Sections 53(2) and 53(1)(c) LPA 1925. Engine of fraud: Rochefoucauld.
Singh v Anand, Anand International Ltd and others, Ch D (Birmingham), Lawtel
The balance of justice came down in favour of granting an interim injunction on a without notice basis to restrain the directors and shareholders from using the company’s funds to fund their litigation where the claimant claimed to have a one third beneficial interest in the two registered shares.
RTA (Business Consultants) Ltd v Admiral Self Storage Ltd [2006] CLY 745
A contractual term which provided for full payment of a sales commission of 130,000 in the event of non-payment of a registration fee of 3,500 was a penalty. Limiting the sales commission claimed did not affect the analysis of whether it was a penalty or not.
Chahal v Mahal [2005] EWCA Civ 898, [2005] 2 BCLC 655
The transfer of assets into a company did not trigger a dissolution where one partner was not consulted and was not issued with shares.
Chahal v Mahal [2005] EWHC 2859 (Ch)
Proved formation of a partnership in 1981, rather than a loan being made.
Midland Chancery and Commercial Bar Association (MCCBA)
Birmingham Law Society – Dispute Resolution Committee (former member)
Whitgift School, Croydon
1991: BSc (Hons) Manufacturing and Material Science - 1st class
1993: PGDL (Nottingham Law School)
1994: LPC (Nottingham Law School) - commendation
1996: Solicitor
2001: Solicitor Advocate (Civil)
2001: Called to the Bar (Inner Temple)
Recovery magazine (R3)
Case summaries (2015)
Corporate Rescue and Insolvency
In Practice - “Proving solvency: consolidated accounts and the wisdom of hindsight?” Vol 7(6) [245] (Dec 2014)
Insolvency Intelligence
Case note - “Re: Safehosts (London) Ltd [2013] BCC 721 (provisional liquidation instead of administration)” (March 2011)
Birmingham Law Society Bulletin
“E-disclosure update” (March 2011)
Chambers’ newsletters
“The hazards of insurance law” (Winter 2007 - Issue 3), “E-disclosure - adverse costs” (Spring 2010- Issue 7), “E-Disclosure - update (the new practice direction)” (Spring 2011 - Issue 8), Partnership law: “Accounts and inquiries - how to achieve an equal footing” (2013).