News and Articles

As I hand over to Martin Edwards and the new Executive Committee at this evening’s AGM, I am delighted to say that the PLA continues to go from strength to strength.  It has been an honour to be Chair of this fantastic Association, full of bright, charming and entertaining individuals, and to work closely with many related organisations.

Robert Bowker was called to the Bar in 1995 and completed pupillage in Chambers in 1997. From 1997 to 2007, he practised in Chambers exclusively in property litigation. Between 2007 and 2012, he practised as a solicitor and barrister in Australia primarily in construction litigation (being dual-qualified; England/Wales and Australia). In 2012 he returned to Chambers and resumed his practice exclusively in property litigation. Robert’s practice combines commercial and residential property cases including boundaries, building and development. He has worked with expert witnesses in a wide range of disciplines.

This is an interesting and entertaining Judgment in which the Defendant, the renowned architectural practice established by Norman Foster, the internationally acclaimed leading architect, was found liable in damages for breach of contract in the sum of £3,604,694.36 plus interest and legal costs.

Slide presentation given at the JPLA event in Manchester.

We are looking forward to welcoming delegates to the PLA’s Autumn Training Day on 3 November 2016 at The Royal Society of Medicine, 1 Wimpole Street, London.  Once again, the Autumn Training Day has nearly sold out.

Slide presentation of the talk by James Fieldsend at the JPLA event in Manchester.

Slide presentation given by Cecily Crampin at JPLA Manchester event.

On 15 August 2017, Foskett J. handed down judgment in Partridge v Gupta [2017] EWHC 2110 (QB) – a case that centred on the interpretation of CPR r.83.13(8), which prescribes the applicable procedural requirements when a claimant wishes to enforce a possession in the High Court by execution of a writ of possession. The key issue for consideration was what constituted sufficient notice for the purposes of r.83.13(8)(a). Whilst Foskett J. regarded the facts of Mr Partridge’s appeal as being little more than academic“[1] he recognised that the case raised a point of practical and procedural importance, and that a fully reasoned decision would be of assistance in other cases (para [7]).

With PLA support, The Protocol for Disputes between Neighbours about the Location of their Boundary (The Boundary Disputes Protocol) has now been published.

The Business and Property Courts of England and Wales