Christopher Maynard

  • Practice Groups
  • Business & Commercial
  • Property
  • Public and Administrative
  • Career
  • 1988 Called to the Bar

For further information please contact:


Chris Maynard practises principally in the field of property litigation. He brings over 20 years of experience providing advice and advocacy in civil disputes arising in common law, chancery or administrative law in England and in other common law jurisdictions. His clients include foreign governments, business entities, charities, local authorities, trustees and individuals. He can advise upon practice and procedure, including emergency remedies, as well as on the substantive law.

His areas of specialisation are:
• Landlord & Tenant, commercial & residential, including social housing
• Land disputes, including issues of title; mortgages and other security; boundaries;  easements; and issues of land registration
• Trusts, wills and inheritance
• Commercial and consumer contracts
• Company and partnership disputes

His ancillary areas of law include insolvency; fraud; negligence and nuisance; and mental capacity. He has a particular interest in the application of human rights law within his areas of specialisation.

Chris Maynard has experience of advocacy in courts and tribunals at all levels up to the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council. He is regularly instructed in alternative dispute resolution and he also has experience of domestic disciplinary hearings.

Significant Cases

Lilyford Ltd v La Porta [2013] EWHC 434 (Ch); [2013] 2 P&CR DG2
Application to strike out part of a defence to a tenant's claim for damages for wrongful forfeiture.Held: the tenant was not estopped by reason of an earlier (and unappealed) dismissal of an application for relief against forfeiture; nor was the later claim an abuse of process. Strike out application successful.

Mason v Walton-on-Thames Charity [2011] EWCA Civ 1098
Written submissions opposing renewed application for permission to appeal referred to in judgement of Mummery LJ. (Persmission subsequently refused by Arden LJ on 15/11/11 and costs of the Jolly v Jay letter awarded.

Mason v Walton-on-Thames Charity [2010] EWHC 1688 (Ch); White Book [2013] para 14-18.3
Acting for first defendant charity in boundary dispute and also for third defendant transferee of disputed land (a residents' association), the transfer having taken place shortly before trial. A late application by third defendant to strike out/for summary judgement was resolved as preliminary issue in trial of claim. Held: the claimant was not entitled (i) to a declaration of title; or (ii)to any alteration of the register to comprise the disputed land within her registered title or for it to be excluded from the title which vested in the charity at law and in the residents'association in equity; or (iii) to any injunctive relief as claimed in the re-Amended Particulars of Claim. The case gave rise to issues of construction, pre-contractual negotiations and privilege of communications made in an unresolved mediation. "The matter was opened by Mr Maynard, to whom I pay tribute as he was conspicuously even-handed in the way he set out the issues both of fact and law which the court is required to consider"

Jayasinghe v Liyanage [2010] EWHC 265 (Ch); [2010] 1 WLR 2016 ; [2010] 16 E.G. 108; [2010] 8 E.G. 105 (C.S.); [2010] N.P.C. 20; [2010] 2 P. & C.R. DG7; Times, April 09, 2010
Whether the Adjudicator to HM Land Registry was correct to have embarked upon a trial of the issue whether J had any beneficial interest in registered land, or whether he ought only to have ascertained whether she had an arguable claim to that effect and directed that her claim should be tested by a competent court.

Mack v Lockwood [2009] EWHC 1524 (Ch)
At a criminal trial for murder of his wife the claimant, a retired captain of industry, had changed his plea to manslaughter by reason of provocation, which was accepted by the Crown. In this action the claimant claimed under the Forfeiture Act for modification of the common law rule of forfeiture so he could inherit his wife's estate under her will. Acted for 3rd Respondent on CFA; other respondents did not take part in trial. Held: If it was not murder, an ordinary member of the public would no doubt regard what claimant did as being so close to it as to make no difference in terms of his culpability. Claim rejected.

Re Patel-Nasri; Patel v Nasri 22 June 2009 High Court, Chancery Divn (Sir Andrew Park)
Husband of London WPC Nisha Patel-Nasri obtained probate of her will in his favour before he was arrested and convicted for procuring her murder. Action for declarations that (1) defendant's interest in the estate was forfeited and (2) estate held on statutory trusts for deceased's brothers under Administration of Estates Act 1925; and order that claimant be substituted in place of defendant as personal representative pursuant to s50 Administration of Justice Act 1985. Judgment as asked.

Barrett v Barrett [2008] EWHC 1061 (Ch); [2008] B.P.I.R. 817; [2008] 2 P. & C.R. 17; [2008] 2 E.G.L.R. 81; [2008] 31 E.G. 90; [2009] W.T.L.R. 201; [2008] 21 E.G. 138 (C.S.); [2008] 2 P. & C.R. DG8
Whether appellant needed to rely on the unlawful purpose of an agreement in order to establish his beneficial interest in property, or whether the tainted motive of the agreement was too remote to bar enforcement of his interest in the property or its proceeds.

Bank of Credit & Commerce International (In Compulsory Liquidation) v Mamon [2005] EWCA Civ 970
The fact a judgment debt for the loan was statute barred did not prevent the mortgagee from enforcing its legal charge by claiming possession.

R v L B Newham ex p Bibi (Manik) [2002] 1 WLR 237; (2001) Times 10 May 2001; (2001) 33 H.L.R. 84; (2001) 98(23) L.S.G. 38; [2001] N.P
Housing; homelessness; judicial review; a leading authority on the doctrine of legitimate expectations.

Williams v L B Southwark [2000] EGCS 44; (2001) 33 HLR 22 (ChD)
Landlord & tenant; service charge, insurance. noted in leading text books.

Slough BC v Robbins [1996] 12 CL 353
Requirement for particulars in Notice Seeking Possession.

O'Sullivan v Barnett [1994] 1 WLR 1667 (CA)
Rent Acts; resident landlord; landlord and tenant moving to new accommodation together.

Other cases of substance include:

Metropolitan Resources Ltd v (1) British Railways Board (2) Batchelor (1999) CA; rights of way; practice on amendment.

Halifax PLC v Cornish Aquaculture Ltd (2000) ChD; mortgagee’s possession claim to fish farm, whether mortgagor could be compelled to remove living fish; legal status of fish; held to be chattels.

Walton-On-Thames Charity v Abrahams & Mason; St George’s Hill Residents’ Association Limited (2002) charity; mediation; rights of way.

Paul v Taylor [2004] EWHC 3383 (Ch); forged will set aside.

L B Ealing v Thames Water (2005) devolution of service accommodation at pumping station; tenancy at will; repairs; dilapidations; use and occupation rent.

Williams v Butler (2006) Ch D, hill farm; proprietary estoppel / inheritance.

Fairzone Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment (2006) T&CC landlord & tenant; breach of covenant to reinstate.

Re: Oriental City Shopping Centre (2007) redevelopment of large shopping complex; advising various occupiers with variety of leases/licences on collective strategy for compensation.

Re: Windowline Design Ltd (2009) advising on minority shareholder's remedies.


South Eastern Circuit

Chancery Bar Association

Administrative Law Bar Association


BA (Hons) University of York

DipLaw (Polytechnic of Central London)

Accredited Mediator, Regent's College