Duncan Kynoch

Duncan specialises in Chancery commercial and property litigation.
His expertise encompasses all aspects of real property with particular emphasis on commercial and residential landlord and tenant (including insolvency); property trusts, easements and boundaries; professional negligence claims against solicitors and surveyors.

His general Chancery practice involves commercial contracts, company disputes, insolvency, civil fraud, asset tracing/recovery, wills and probate.

In 2009 Duncan succeeded in the Court of Appeal in the leading English case concerning implied rights to park in a residential context (Waterman –v- Boyle); and won a bitterly contested High Court battle over the ownership of a company (Jordan -&- Fazani –v- Roberts, Binns -&- Home Assistance Services Ltd).

Duncan is known as a combative and unflappable advocate. Solicitors have described him as “bullet-proof under fire”; and “an uncompromising cross-examiner”. In advisory work, Duncan is commended for his clear, pragmatic advice. He is sensitive to the business objectives of his clients.

Duncan regularly writes articles and gives seminars, most recently: “An Englishman’s home is not his castle” (Solicitors Journal, November 2009).

Reported cases:

Lidl GMBH v Just Fitness Ltd [2010] EWHC 39 (Chancery Division) (reasonableness of a landlord’s consent to assignment; whether arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine the issue).

Jordan -&- Fazani –v- Roberts, Binns -&- Home Assistance Services Ltd [2009] EWHC 2313 (Chancery Division) (a dispute between 50/50 shareholders of a company over a fraudulent shareholders’ agreement and bogus share allocations by directors).

Rubin –v- Coote (Re: Branchempire Ltd) [2009] EWHC 2266 (Chancery Division) (the proper approach for a liquidator seeking the sanction of the court in relation to a proposed compromise of claims of a company in liquidation).

Waterman –v- Boyle [2009] EWCA Civ 115; [2009] 21 EG 104; Times 27/2/09 (Court of Appeal) (when additional rights to park could be implied in a residential context; whether a right of way can be extended by the physical features surrounding the way changing; the determination of boundaries).

Hellenic Republic v Yannis Valambous, Lawtel (QB) 29/9/2008 (dispute over the “Icon of Greece”).

Carmel Southend Ltd v Strachan & Henshaw Ltd (QB Division; TCC): [2007] EWHC 1289 (TCC); [2007] 3 E.G.L.R. 15 (construction of a repairing covenant in a dilapidations case; whether roof replacement within the repairing covenant).

Howcutt v GS Property Developments Ltd [2006] EWHC 3271 (Chancery Division) (grounds to set aside a statutory demand).

Capita Trust Co. Limited v Chatham Maritime J3 Developments (Chancery Division) Lawtel 29/8/2006 (injunctive relief compelling a company to grant an underlease of a retail unit where the landlord’s failure to grant the underlease amounted to a breach of good estate management)

Proforce Recruit Limited v Rugby Group Limited [2006] EWCA Civ 69, CA
(where admission of extrinsic evidence permissible in interpretation of contracts where the parties themselves had given a meaning to ambiguous contractual words)

Friarwood v Champagne Cattier [2006] EWCA Civ 1105 CA (retrial ordered where the trial judge had applied the wrong test of satisfactory quality to a consignment of champagne)

The Representative Body of the Church in Wales v Newton & others QB [2005] EWHC 631 (agreement for the sale of a business including the assignment of a lease was void under s.2 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 in the absence of writing and where no constructive trust arose)

Shahar v Tsitsekkos and Others (Chancery Division), The Times 30.11.04
(where a defendant wished to claim against a non-party outside the jurisdiction he should apply to the court for an order adding that person, and that claim had to be treated as if it were a counterclaim under CPR Part 20.3 and 20.5)

Jacey Property Co Limited v Miguel De Sousa & others (Court of Appeal) [2003] EWCA Civ 510 CA (construction of leasehold user and repairing covenants)

Branchempire Limited v Coote (Chancery Division) Lawtel 16.6.2003 (landlord companies appealing against judgments for residential disrepair for £858,000 had to show good credible reason why they could not fund their appeals in seeking to set aside financial conditions attached to permission to appeal)

Batooneh v Asombang; Queens Bench, Lawtel, 31.7.2003 (whether loan interest of 25% p.a. was appropriate under the Consumer Credit Act 1974)

Bradbury v Hoolin (Chancery Division), Lawtel, 12.5.98
(whether a resulting trust in favour of claimant arose in relation to money used to purchase a property)

Email: duncan.kynoch@selbornechambers.co.uk