Chris Maynard

Year of call 1988

Instructing Chris
For further information or to instruct Chris please contact one of our following clerks:

Alex Southern
Practice Managers

+44 (0) 20 7421 5300
Click to email

Kieron Hatwell
Practice Managers

+44 (0) 20 7421 5300
Click to email

Zoe Bluck
Practice Managers

+44 (0) 20 7421 5300
Click to email

  • Accredited Mediator, Regent’s College
  • DipLaw (Polytechnic of Central London)
  • BA (Hons), University of York
  • Administrative Law Bar Association
  • Chancery Bar Association
  • Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
  • South Eastern Circuit

Chris Maynard practises principally in the field of property litigation and related disputes.

Chris’s clients include foreign governments, business entities, charities, local authorities, trustees and individuals. He provides advice and advocacy in civil disputes arising in common law, chancery or administrative law, bringing to bear his experience at all levels of the legal system in England and in other common law jurisdictions. He regularly advises upon matters of practice and procedure, including emergency remedies, as well as on the substantive law.

Notable Cases

  • Goldup v Cobb [2017] EWHC 526 (Ch) The right to a pension which derived from contributions to the Local Government Pension Scheme in respect of a partner's office as coroner existed at the date of the dissolution of the partnership and was capable of being an asset of the partnership, but whether it was such an asset depended on the agreement between the partners. The contributions had been deducted at source and the court accepted that the defendant had been clear that it was only the net payment from the local authority that was to go into the partnership and that she did not intend the pension to be a partnership asset (noted in Lindley & Banks on Partnership 20th edn, ch 18).
     
  • Maurice J Bushell v Born (2017) Successful appeal on point law against an arbitration award in partnership dispute. It was nontheless appropriate to remit the award to the arbitrator as there was no basis for doubting his ability to act impartially.
     
  • Sivagnanam v Barclays Bank Plc [2015] EWHC 3985 (Comm) The sole shareholder, director and guarantor of a company was not within the class of persons intended to be protected by the statutory provisions under s.138D Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, therefore he could not bring a claim for loss said to have been suffered as a private person as a result of breaches of the conduct of business rules im miss-selling interest rate hedge products to the company (noted in Chitty on Contract 32nd edn, ch 34).
     
  • Metaxides & Anor v Swart & Ors [2015] UKPC 32 Successful application for leave to appeal and successful appeal against ruling of Bahamas Court of Appeal on a preliminary issue as to validity of earlier proceedings; misnomer or misidentifiaction (noted in Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws 15th edn. 4th Supplement, Ch 24).
     
  • Butterworth v Lang [2015] EWHC 529 (Ch) Appeal against refusal of County Court to strike out claim against co-surety on the basis that the claim exceeded the County Court's equity jurisdiction (noted in O'Hare & Browne: Civil Litigation 18th edn, ch 9).
     
  • Lilyford Ltd v La Porta [2013] EWHC 434 (Ch); [2013] 2 P&CR DG2; White Book [2018] para 3.4.3.2 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. (Permission 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 [2017] 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 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 (2009) 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) 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 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 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.
     

Related News & Events

Home