Tim is recognised as a leading property silk, and acts in both contentious and non-contentious matters. A significant proportion of Tim’s cases are commercial chancery cases with a “property flavour”. Examples from his reported cases include KPMG v. Network Rail (CA) (claim for “rectification by construction” and for rectification in equity – the case was an important pre-curser to the Supreme Court’s decision in Chartbrook v. Persimmon Homes); Meretz v. ACP (ChD/CA) (multi-faceted claim, including claims in conspiracy, and procuring breach of contract); FoodCo v. Henry Boot Developments (alleged mis-selling of shopping centre and effect of non-reliance clauses); Williams v. Redcard (execution requirements of sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act 2006), and Re Blenheim Leisure Ltd (CA)(whether a landlord has locus standi to oppose an application to restore a company to the register). But Tim also specialises in what may be regarded as pure property litigation. Again, a sample of his reported cases gives an indication of the breadth of his practice: Housden v. Conservators of Wimbledon and Putney Commons (ChD/CA) (whether it is possible to acquire prescriptive rights over Wimbledon and Putney Commons); Cravecrest v. Duke of Westminster (UT/CA) – whether the price payable on a collective enfranchisement can include development value (appeal to the Supreme Court later in 2014)); Legal & General v. Expeditors International (ChD/CA) (meaning of “vacant possession” in a break option, and whether break conditions had been waived); Renewal Leeds v. Lowry Properties (ChD) (interpretation of overage clause); Centreland Management v. HSBC (ChD)(renewal of business tenancies – test to be applied when deciding whether a “Calderbank” offer has been beaten), and First Penthouse v. Channel Hotels and Properties (ChD/CA)(whether licence to assign withheld for collateral purpose). To see more about Timothy please visit: http://www.maitlandchambers.com/barristers/profile/timothy-c-dutton