Stephen Boyd

Stephen specialises in Commercial disputes, real property (particularly boundaries, easements, resulting/constructive trusts), residential and commercial landlord and tenant, partnership, professional negligence, sports law, construction, insolvency, wills and probate.

He is a CEDR accredited mediator and an associate member of the Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists. Stephen is on the panel of mediators of the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration.

mediation experience

His proficiency in several European languages (French, Russian, Swedish and Spanish) has proved particularly useful in breaking the ice with foreign parties. He brings people skills, commercial experience and legal knowledge to the resolution of disputes.

Stephen has extensive experience as a mediatiator, in the civil/commercial sector, covering:

• Property/Landlord and tenant
• Beneficial ownership/constructive trust
• Professional negligence
• Company/shareholders - fiduciary duties
• Partnership
• Construction
• Franchising
• Leasing agreements

A graduate in Linguistic and International Studies (comprising Russian, Swedish and Law), Stephen pursued a career in international commerce, working for trading companies in Hong Kong and South Africa, before commencing practice at the Bar.

Approachable, down to earth and good at building rapport with clients and putting them at ease, Stephen brings his business experience to legal problems, giving advice that is commercial, accessible and practical.

Stephen completed the King's College London postgraduate certificate course in sports law in 2001 and is a director of the British Association for Sport and Law.

He is qualified to take public access cases.

featured cases

Howard v Howard-Lawson Court of Appeal [2012] EWCA Civ 6
Appeared as junior counsel for the successful respondent. Upon its true construction, the respondent had complied with a ‘name and arms clause' in a will and had not forfeited his life interest.

Rajvel Construction Ltd v Bestville Properties Limited (Coulson J) 7/9/11, LTL AC9700876
In appropriate circumstances the court could make a freezing injunction to support or assist with the operation of the rules relating to security for costs.

Mustafa v Zafrani (2011) (Ramsay J.)  
Appeared for the claimants who obtained an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant, the owner of an adjacent property, from carrying out any works affecting the party wall until it had been adequately propped and party wall surveyors had approved the works to be carried out to it.

Maloney v Gosal LVT 4/11/10 Ref No. LON/OOAU/OFR/2010/002
Appeared for the successful Applicants: an increase in the market value of a property was not a change of circumstances within the meaning of subsection 12(7) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

Left Hook Ltd v Trustees of the Islington Boys' Club (2010) (Mann J.)
Appeared for the Claimant company which obtained an interim injunction preventing the Defendant from interfering with its rights of occupation of the relevant premises, pending a hearing to determine whether it has a lease or a license thereof, and whether in purporting to terminate such rights, the Defendant had acted in accordance with its constitution.

Hembry v Squirrel Films Distribution Limited Chancery List, CLCC, HHJ Marshall QC, 20/5/10
9 day trial considering whether the occupants of a property were simply tenants or had an irrevocable license protected by proprietary estoppel and/or a constructive trust.

Maloney v Gosal, Chancery List, CLCC, HHJ Cowell, 24/3/10
Appeared for the successful claimants in a three day trial to determine whether the court should exercise its discretion under s.19(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to order the defendant to sell it to the Claimants, qualifying tenants, pursuant to s.12B of the Act freeholder of a house converted into three flats.

Smuts v Pearson [2010] EWHC 814 (QB), Sharp J, 11/3/10
Appeared for the successful claimants in the four day trial of a preliminary issue to determine whether they made the contract to sell their business to the defendant or the defendant's company, which had gone into liquidation.

Squirrel Films Distribution Limited v SPP Opportunities Fund LLP [2010] EWHC 706 (Ch), Lewison J, 5/3/10
The strength of the underlying challenge to an arbitral award in respect of a rent review under s.68 of the 1996 Act for serious irregularity was of critical importance.

Littlewood v Radford CA (2010) 1 P& CR 18
Appeared for the successful appellant.  Negligent surveyor failed to remind a client of the need to apply to the LVT within 6 months of receipt of counter notice in order to keep her enfranchisement claim alive.  Although a professional is obliged in certain circumstances to remind a client of his previous advice as to hazards, there is no general principle that he is under a duty to keep repeating that advice.

William Old International Limited v Arya Ch.D (2009) 2 P & CR 20
Appeared for the successful defendants.  An express easement in a transfer of a freehold, granting the transferee the right to free passage of services through service media and the right to lay further service media, did not oblige the transferor, or its successor in title, to take the positive step of entering into a separate deed of easement with the electricity provider, despite the fact that the latter would only provide electricity on execution of such a deed.  Further, the refusal of the transferor to enter such a deed was not a derogation from grant.

Levi v Levi Ch.D (Geoffrey Vos QC) (2008) 2 P&CR DG1,
The detriment required for the establishment of a constructive trust did not need to be great where there was an express agreement, and the making of a loan at an agreed rate could be regarded as sufficient detriment.

Dudarec v Andrews CA [2006] 1 WLR 3002
Appeared for the successful appellant.  Where evidence became available for the first time after the date of the notional trial (the original proceedings having been struck out as the result of the respondent solicitors' negligence in failing to prosecute the claim) in an action seeking to assess damages for the lost chance, unless the evidence related to some entirely new matter which could not have been known about at the date of the notional trial, the facts as they turned out to be should be taken into account by the judge dealing with the professional negligence action.