Gary Blaker

Gary is widely regarded as a leading junior in the field of property litigation. His practice encompasses all aspects of property law together with commercial chancery litigation.

He has particular expertise in landlord and tenant (commercial, residential and enfranchisement) and real property (boundaries, easements and mortgages) matters.

His commercial/chancery work covers professional negligence, fraud, partnership and contractual disputes.

Gary regularly provides seminars in chambers and at solicitors' offices which in the past year have included Macfarlanes, Ashurst, Olswang and SJ Berwin. He is also the Chairman (2012) of the Middle Temple Hall Committee, a Middle Temple advocacy trainer and a member of Bar Pro Bono Unit.

recommendations 

Gary has been listed in legal directories since 2002 and is recognised by Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners as a leading junior in property litigation. Legal Experts also lists Gary as a leading property and commercial junior.

Gary is now listed amongst the leading 15 juniors practising in property litigation having been promoted to the second tier in the Legal 500 2011.

Recent published comments about Gary include the following:

"Very diligent and really knows the property sector" (Chambers and Partners 2012)

"He is good on his feet and a no-fuss advocate" (Chambers and Partners 2012)

"Gary Blaker ‘stays calm and unflustered under pressure'" (Legal 500 2011)

"The 'capable and fair' opponent Gary Blaker acted in Warind v Ashfaq, a complex property development claim involving allegations of fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation." (Legal 500 2010)

"Gary Blaker is admired for his ‘persuasive skeleton arguments' and the fact that ‘he deals very well indeed with substantially complex points.' Examples of his work include Ezekiel v Kohali, a dispute between two families concerning a real estate transaction." (Chambers and Partners 2010)

"The elevated Gary Blaker ‘doesn't take the bad points' and ‘when he turns up the heat, it is effective." (Legal 500 2008).

featured cases 

Below is a selection of Gary’s recent reported cases in the fields of real property, landlord and tenant and commercial/chancery.  A full list of all Gary’s reported cases can be obtained on request.

Real Property

Charalambous v Welding CA LTL 15.12.09
Court of Appeal examined whether a trial judge had erred in finding that a boundary agreement did not exist between two neighbouring residential property owners.

Ezekiel v Kohali [2009] EWCA Civ 35; [2009] NPC 19; [2009] 1 P & CR DG18
Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that that the prospective purchasers of land had actual knowledge that the vendors did not have good title to all the land to be sold.

Ezekiel v Kohali [2008] EWHC 734 (Ch); LTL 11/4/2008
Whether purchasers of land had actual knowledge of the extent of the sellers' ownership. Whether representations made by the sellers had been relied upon by the purchasers of the land.

Haycocks & anr v Neville & anr CA [2007] 04 EG 186 (CS); [2007] 12 EG 156; [2007] 1 EGLR 78
Court of Appeal examined whether the trial judge had been entitled to reject boundary locations, as contended for by the parties, in favour of her own method in interpreting the location. Whether it was permissible to have regard to matters occurring since the legal boundary was fixed.

Landlord and Tenant

Trans-World Investments Ltd v Dadarwalla [2007] EWCA Civ 480; [2008] 1 P & CR 18
Court of Appeal examined to what extent a judge could take into account the passing rent when determining a new rent under section 34(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

Estate Acquisition and Development Ltd v Wiltshire & Anor CA The Times 12.6.06; [2006] 1 CP Rep 32
Whether failure to attend a possession hearing due to lack of knowledge about the hearing amounted to a "good reason" for not attending within CPR 39.3(3).

Wilderbrook Ltd v Oluwu CA [2006] 1 P & CR DG 18; [2006] 2 P &CR 4; (2005) NPC 133
Whether the presumption that time is not of the essence in a rent review clause had been rebutted through clear and explicit contra indications.

Jeffrey Green Russell v Ruddock  (Evans-Lombe J.) LTL 12/10/2005 
Successfully appealed the setting aside of a statutory demand where the judge failed to undertake the process to determine whether the Respondent had a cross claim equaling or exceeding the claim.

Commercial/Chancery

Kirby v Hoff QBD [2010] EWHC 3559 ; LTL 14/2/2011
Successfully resisted the appeal regarding third party costs orders pursuant to section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

Mutanderis Recoveries Ltd (formerly Atlantic Air Ltd) (In Liquidation) v Alexander Hoff & Adrian Kirby LTL 2/7/2010
Third party costs orders pursuant to Section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981

Signet Partners Ltd v Signet Research and Advisory SA & others [2007] EWHC QB 1263; LTL 4/6/2007
Represented an introducer of funds to a hedge fund in respect of unpaid fees and commissions payable by the hedge fund.

Gharavi-Nakhjavani v Pelagias CA LTL 20/6/2005
Successful challenge to account taken between former partners. Master erred in relying on similar figures produced by Respondent and his accountant without explaining the significance of the similarity.

Stephens v Cannon The Times 2.5.05; [2005] CP Rep 31 and [2006] RVR 126
Appeal concerning when a judge is entitled to rely on the burden of proof and the extent reasons have to be given when doing so.

Qutb v Hussain and The Bank of Scotland  Ch.D (2005) EWHC 157
Setting aside a sale of a house - whether transferor had capacity - undue influence and unconscionable bargain.

Gil v Baygreen Properties (in liquidation) Ch.D (2004) EWHC 1732; [2005] BPIR 95
Sale of property at an undervalue - setting aside under section 423 Insolvency Act 1986.

Gil v Baygreen Properties (in liquidation) Ch.D (2004) EWHC 2029; [2005] 1 Costs LT 75
Discount in costs payable due to party fabricating evidence and failing to respond to constructive settlement proposals.