Marc Beaumont acts on the instruction of solicitors and also has the right to conduct litigation on a direct access basis though his firm BLS. In High Court, including Chancery Division and Commercial Court litigation, Marc is able to conduct high value litigation using the much simplified e-filing procedures in the Rolls Building in London.
A broad-based service with an emphasis on:
the Banking sector, including acting for and against Banks and other financial institutions, especially involving allegations of fraud, forgery, misrepresentation, undue influence and breaches of the consumer credit legislation;
Financial Services, including FCA/FSA investigations, compliance and professional negligence;
Civil Fraud; breach of fiduciary duty; conspiracy; knowing assistance and knowing receipt; constructive trusts; tracing.
Insurance, including coverage claims arising from environmental disasters such as hurricane damage;
Procurement, healthcare; international airlines;
Sports law, acting for sports agents and agencies and professional sportsmen and women in commercial disputes and disciplinary investigations;
Professional Negligence, acting for and against architects, design studios, accountants, IFAs, solicitors and barristers, surveyors, medical professionals.
Boardroom dispute resolution, minority shareholder disputes, partnership breakdown;
Asset freezing/Mareva injunctions, seeking and resisting urgent High Court remedies;
Civil procedural disputes, including applications for relief from sanctions; strike out; summary judgment.
How to contact windsor chambers –
- Please Call: 01753 839321 or 07880 830890
- or Email Me with a (max) 500 word summary
- or fill in and email the form below.
Expert witness
Marc acts as an expert on English law in foreign proceedings. In 2017, he advised on the law of frustration of contracts in a dispute in Moscow over a disputed loan of €156 million in the context of the annexation of Crimea by Russia.
Areas of work:-
|
|
Selected, notable cases conducted in the commercial, business and general litigation fields
(s.994 unfair prejudice petition; petition poorly pleaded by litigants in person; Marc Beaumont attempted to salvage the claim by revamping the entire pleading; after extensive argument, Marc Beaumont was eventually successful; argument on guideline solicitors rates; unnecessary use of two counsel; ) (Successful appeal to the Supreme Court; female partner entered re-mortgage both to redeem previous borrowing itself obtained by undue influence and to pay off £39,500 of male partner’s personal debts out of an advance of £384,000. At trial, held that the presumption of undue influence arose, but the discharge of the debts of the male party did not place the Bank ‘on inquiry’ in the Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge sense; application of principles as to constructive notice of undue influence to hybrid loans, which are partly for joint purposes and partly for a husband’s sole purposes; meaning of “surety”; meaning of “on inquiry”; need for a ‘bright line rule’ of universal application; earlier decisions of the CA, High Court and County Court overturned) watch Marc’s advocacy here For Marc Beaumont’s article, The Supreme Court Tweaks Etridge in International Banking and Financial Law (Aug-Sept 2025), click here
(C, represented by Marc Beaumont; obtained an ex parte asset freezing injunction to prevent D selling his home in order to defeat future judgment debt; D alleged over 20 heads of material non-disclosure; allegations against C of fraud and other alleged impropriety all dismissed after extensive argument and costs awarded against D). (Unfair prejudice petition under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006; Marc Beaumont acted for the two remaining directors; Allegation of a secret agreement for the return of shares converted from ordinary to deferred status worth just £1.00, by a bad leaver-type clause in the Articles of Association; Petitioner, an outgoing director, shareholder and employee, convicted of computer hacking in a business heavily reliant on its reputation in the IT field; No unfair prejudice for the conversion under the Articles; a much smaller tranche of remaining shares converted to deferred status; held that was unfairly prejudicial; extensive submissions on remedy and costs) (Unfair prejudice Petition under s.994 Companies Act 2006; Points of Defence contained wide-ranging, historic, irrelevant allegations against P; refusal by respondents to answer CPR Part 18 Request; Marc Beaumont for Petitioner procured the strike out of all historic allegations against P) Appeal live-streamed on You Tube (Female partner entered re-mortgage both to redeem previous borrowing itself obtained by undue influence and to pay off £39,500 of male partner’s personal debts out of an advance of £384,000. At trial, held that the presumption of undue influence arose, but the discharge of the debts of the male party did not place the Bank ‘on inquiry’ in the Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge sense. Held on appeal, the Bank was not placed on inquiry of the risk of undue influence when £39,500 of the advance of £384,000 was for the husband’s sole purposes).
(Female partner entered re-mortgage both to redeem previous borrowing itself obtained by undue influence and to pay off £39,500 of male partner’s personal debts out of an advance of £ 384,000. At trial, held that the presumption of undue influence arose, but the discharge of the debts of the male party did not place the Bank ‘on inquiry’ in the Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge sense. Held on appeal, the Bank was not placed on inquiry of the risk of undue influence when £39,500 of the advance of £ 384,000 was for the husband’s sole purposes).
(Unfair Prejudice Petition under s.994 of the Companies Act 2006; Petitioner represented by Marc Beaumont did not accept open offer based on evidence of single joint experts, as he wished to pursue damages claims within the Petition; Respondents sought to strike out the Petition for abuse of process on an O’Neill v Phillips [1999] UKHL 24 basis; application dismissed)
(Claim against barrister for failing to advise client not to run forgery defence; client defence of forgery found to be untrue; Barrister raised defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio and sought to strike out claim as an abuse of process; Marc Beaumont successful in resisting strike out application)
(Female partner entered re-mortgage both to redeem previous borrowing itself obtained by undue influence and to pay off £39,500 of male partner’s personal debts out of an advance of £ 384,000. Held at trial, the presumption of undue influence arose, but the discharge of the debts of the male party did not place the Bank ‘on inquiry’ in the Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge sense).
(Defence of claim against Dentist for alleged clinical negligence over many years; limitation issues under ss. 14 and 33 of the Limitation Act 1980; negotiated settlement on excellent terms)
(Restitution; unjust enrichment; decision of Supreme Court in Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2018] AC 275 on three party commercial relationships; meaning of, “at the expense of”; successful reverse summary judgment application)
(advice, drafting and representation in claim for an account of missing €10 billion)
($14 million alleged investment fraud; asset freezing injunctions)
(Advice and representation at Mediation in claim for £4.4 alleged to have been fraudulently misappropriated)
(trial of clinical negligence claim; eye surgery)
(Application for asset freezing order in clinical negligence action against an eye surgeon; Marc Beaumont successfully resisted the AFO application)
(Union discipline of union officer; high profile union member and TUC delegate; allegation of indecent assault; first set of proceedings ended in acquittal on appeal to Certification Officer; whether such acquittal raised a cause of action estoppel so as to bar a second set of disciplinary proceedings on the same facts, but based on other provisions of the Union’s rules that could and should have been relied on in first proceedings; held:, acceding to Marc Beaumont’s submissions in the EAT that the Union was estopped from proceeding and the second proceedings were unlawful; decision reversed in CA).
(Claim for $9 Million for alleged conspiracy to defraud through a tender for a contract to supply in flight entertainment; alleged breach of fiduciary duty; knowing assistance in breach of fiduciary duty and knowing receipt of trust funds).
(Successfully negotiating on the basis of Art 17 GDPR (‘the right to be forgotten’) the removal of a damaging and stale article about a surgeon concerning past disciplinary proceedings)
(Claim for shares in a Company by C1, C2 and C3. C1 and C2 have no claim to the shares. Only C3, which was not joined as an original Claimant, had such a claim. Marc Beaumont submitted for D that C1 and C2 could not elect for C3 to have those shares and yet carry on with their claim, as that was to “approbate and reprobate”. Chief Registrar reduced costs payable by D by 20 %.)
(Online protest by surveyor wrongly convicted and struck off; surveyor won his appeal and was reinstated; online postings and correspondence claimed to be actionable harassment of RICS under Protection from Harassment Act 1997; whether ECHR Article 10 right to freedom of expression; whether need to prove “alarm and distress” from alleged harassment; whether RICS seeking an injunction had “clean hands”).
(Online protest by surveyor wrongly convicted and struck off; surveyor won his appeal and was reinstated; online postings and correspondence claimed to be actionable harassment of RICS under Protection from Harassment Act 1997; whether ECHR Article 10 right to freedom of expression; whether need to prove “alarm and distress” from alleged harassment; whether RICS seeking an injunction had “clean hands”).
(Advising on the English law of frustration of contracts; dispute over 156 million Euros; solar energy project funded by bank loans, but after annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, repayment of loan impossible.; whether loan contract frustrated). (successful complaint by a barrister to FOS concerning his right to choose his own solicitors to act for him in the face of insurer insisting on a panel firm)
(application for costs in Employment Tribunal; successfully resisted after detailed written submissions)
(Claim for return of investment funds; Marc Beaumont pleaded a defence of illegality; settled at Mediation)
(Successful application to recall judgment and remove previous finding of identity fraud)
(Successful application for relief from sanctions applying Denton v White)
(Successful defence of male Defendant in claim for damages for paternity fraud; claim withdrawn; costs paid to Defendant)
(Defence of undue influence with third party claim for negligence against a firm of solicitors; successful London Mediation at which wife of debtor received enough in damages to secure re-housing).
(14 day trial; Construction contract; project management; claims alleging fraudulent misappropriation, deceit, breach of fiduciary duty, dishonest assistance and professional negligence against designers/project managers; claim for an account; all serious allegations against Marc Beaumont’s client dismissed)
(Application to strike out averment of constructive notice in Etridge defence; application successfully opposed by Marc Beaumont)
(Insolvency, transaction at undervalue, transfer of commercial property to pension scheme with in specie contribution, sections 238, 239 and 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986, whether Directors’ misfeasance).
(Chauffeur of a celebrity fashion model; restraint of trade, whether covenant enforceable, whether damages for “reflected loss” being claimed, whether s. 2 of the Competition Act 1998 applicable, whether an account of profits available in a claim for breach of contract).
(Insolvency. Successful defence to Petition on the basis of : (a) an arguable breach of section 86C of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, (b) triable issues of fraud and (c) a mis-statement in the Petition about security; whether “security” in rule 6.25 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 includes an arguably valueless Legal Charge; whether “running-account credit” can arise by implication where overdraft facilities are extended retrospectively ).
(Re-litigation, consumer credit, improper execution, issue estoppel, abuse of process, Johnson v Gore-Wood, limitation period for allegations of improper execution, successful strike-out application).
(Policeman; disciplinary proceedings which were wrongly brought; Policeman mentally ill; wrong diagnosis by Doctors; MPC’s duty of care to policeman; definition of duty of care; whether non-delegable; successfully resisted MPC’s strike-out application).
(Bankruptcy Petition based on agreement to pay tax; allegation by client debtor that agreement procured by threat by HMRC to extend investigation over another 8 years of trading; need for trial; Petition dismissed with costs against HMRC).
(NHS Trust; £1 million contract for supply of pressure mattress systems; threatened withdrawal by Trust; I negotiated with the Trust to rescind their withdrawal; settled case within 48 hours of dispute erupting).
(Conflict of laws; supply of biofuel from the USA; service out of the jurisdiction; CPR Part 6 r. 20(5); whether e-mail contract made in England or Tennessee; convenience of forum; material non-disclosure in ex parte application; Proper Law of the contract; Rome Convention; )
(Insolvency; construction dispute; appeal against bankruptcy order; interaction of bankrputcy jurisdiction and CPR Part 23.11; abuse of process; circumvention of rule in Heath v Tang)
(Insolvency; assignment of choses in action; disposition of property; number plates; preferences; purported transfer of vehicle registration mark; ownership of mark; s.340 Insolvency Act 1986; Retention of Registration Marks Regulations (1993))
(Consumer Law; Sale of Goods; Hire Purchase Act 1964; title to goods; protection of private purchasers; meaning of “carrying on a business;” single commercial venture; bona fide purchaser without notice)
(Foreign proceedings, international fraud, mutual assistance, SFO, search warrants far wider than overseas request, judicial review, specificity of warrant, s.2 Criminal Justice Act 1987, ECHR, formal Guidance from Divisional Court)
(Insolvency, costs, IA 1986, s. 366, lien for unpaid fees)
(application of CPR to modification of undertaking; relevant test)
(Strike out for breach of undertaking, abuse of process, extension of time)
(CPR Part 51.19, automatic stay, strike out)
(Appeal against Bankruptcy Order, equitable set-off, sale at undervalue by mortgagee, s. 267 Insolvency Act 1985)
(personal insolvency; mortgage fraud; agency; setting aside statutory demand, nature of appeal to single Judge of the Chancery Division.)
(following FNB v Ann, strike out/limitation period for extortionate credit bargain claim/issue estoppel/abuse of process)
(division of post-dissolution partnership profits)
(limitation period for extortionate credit bargain claim)
(Restoration to Companies Register/s.653 Companies Act 1985)
(a leading case on s. 11 of the Limitation Act 1980; action for damages for childhood sexual abuse/limitation)
(writ extension) |
|