Year of call 1988
Chris Maynard practises principally in the field of property litigation. He brings over 30 years of experience to providing advice and advocacy in civil disputes arising in common law, chancery, or administrative law. His clients include foreign governments, charities, universities and colleges, local authorities, business entities, trustees, and individuals.
He can advise upon practice and procedure, including emergency remedies, as well as on the substantive law. He has experience of advocacy in courts and tribunals at all levels. He is regularly instructed in matters arising in the Caribbean, and he is familiar with foreign rules of procedure. He also has experience of professional disciplinary hearings and of alternative dispute resolution. His ancillary areas of law include insolvency; fraud; negligence and nuisance; and mental capacity.
Beyond the bar, Chris Maynard is chair of trustees at one of the busiest and most dynamic local Citizens Advice Bureaux in the country serving areas of high social deprivation.
Land disputes, including issues with registration of title and unregistered titles; mortgages and encumbrances; boundaries, easements and restrictive covenants; slander of title.
Including leases of industrial, retail, and other commercial spaces and residential property.
Trusts, wills and inheritance.
Commercial and consumer contracts.
Company and partnership disputes.
Successful sequel to the interim injunction in the same matter (below). The Court found the mortgage intermediary who gave evidence for the lender either lied in the witness box or he was recklessly indifferent to the facts and the lender’s Business Development Manager also gave dishonest evidence. The lender had waived the non-residence condition in respect of a secured bridging loan and therefore the fact the directors of the borrower company remained living at one of the security properties was not a breach of covenant. Accordingly, the lender was not entitled to default interest and its appointment of LPA receivers was unlawful. In any event, the default interest did not protect a legitimate interest of the lender and it was an unenforceable penalty.