Marc Beaumont has a special interest in real property law.  Since the 1990s, Marc has been standing or retained counsel to several UK banks and building societies.  Marc has particular experience of the law of mortgages, undue influence, consumer credit, the law relating to jointly owned property, claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, boundary disputes and  the law of adverse possession.

He was junior counsel in the famous property law decision in Abbey National v Cann, arguing the case himself all the way to the House of Lords when he was still a very junior barrister.

Marc has advised or acted as counsel in several hundred cases raising issues of mortgage fraud, undue influence or mortgage enforceability.

Marc Beaumont acts on the instruction of solicitors and also has the right to conduct litigation on a direct access basis in his own right. In High Court Chancery litigation, Marc is now able to conduct cases using the much simplified e-filing procedures in the Rolls Building in London.  

Areas of work:-

  • Adverse possession
  • Boundary disputes
  • Building Societies
  • Claims against estates
  • Commercial landlord & tenant
  • Consumer credit
  • Contested wills
  • Conveyancing disputes
  • Dilapidations and repairs
  • Disputes between unmarried couples
  • Drafting Leases
  • Easements
  • Environmental
  • Forfeiture
  • Fraud & forgery
  • Harassment
  • Housing
  • Injunctions
  • Licences
  • Matrimonial Property
  • Mediation
  • Mortgage re-possession
  • Nuisance
  • Planning
  • Priorities
  • Proprietary estoppel
  • Registration
  • Renewal of Business Leases
  • Rent claims
  • Rent reviews
  • Repossession
  • Residential landlord & tenant
  • Rights of way
  • Service charges
  • Striking out and procedural hearings
  • Trespass
  • Trusts
  • Undue Influence
  • Unmarried couples
  • Wrongful eviction

Selected notable cases conducted in the Property field

  • Paull v Paull [2019] 3 May Morgan J

(Contested application for permission to appeal; Marc Beaumont procured refusal of permission)

(Elderly father transferred his home to his son; subsequent claim of presumed undue influence; claim successful; Marc Beaumont exercised his conduct of litigation rights and conducted the case from start to finish, exercising all the functions of barrister and solicitor)

  • X Bank v M [2012] December – Mediation

(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).

  • Trade Storage Ltd v Papanicola [2011] EWHC 598

(Security for costs; whether Claimant Company in substance a Defendant and so immune from SFC order).

  • Santander Bank v M [2011] March, Croydon County Court

(Application to strike out averment of constructive notice in Etridge defence; application successfully opposed by Marc Beaumont)

  • GMC Collections v Singh [2009] CLCC, 28th July (HH Judge Collins CBE)

(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).

  • Patel v GMS Norwich Ltd [2008] 14th January, Court of Appeal

(conveyancing; purchaser paid too little to vendor as vendor’s solicitor mistakenly asked for too little to effect completion, mistakenly accepted the lower sum and mistakenly paid the correct, larger sum to the vendor out of other client funds; vendor sued in damages for balance of purchase price, but had already received it, by mistake, from his negligent solicitor; defence of “no loss;” vendor then repaid the overpayment to his negligent solicitor having retained it for 5 months in order to contrive a loss; whether vendor could recover that loss ?)

  • Goodchild v Bradbury & Hillier [2007] WTLR 463, Court of Appeal

(Gift of land; presumption of undue influence; whether rebutted by donor’s confession that not placed under any pressure; whether third party transferee of land had constructive notice.)

  • Di Placito v Slater [2004] 1 WLR 1605, Court of Appeal.

(Probate action, application of CPR to modification of undertaking; relevant test)

  • Di Placito v Slater [2003] Lawtel 24th March

(Probate action; strike out for breach of undertaking, abuse of process, extension of time)

  • Hill Samuel Personal Finance v Grundy [2002] CL Aug

(CPR Part 51.19, automatic stay, strike out)

  • London Borough of Islington v Michaelides [2001] Crim LR 843, [2001] LTL 15/6/01, Divisional Court

(Planning, breach of Enforcement Notice, autrefois acquit inapplicable where previous acquittal secured by improperly obtained certificate of lawful development)

  • Thornberry v Coleman [2001] All ER (D) 357, Court of Appeal

(Planning; slander by officer of Local Government, exemplary and aggravated damages, whether slander of Company Director is slander of the Company )

  • Birmingham Midshires v Sabherwal [2000] 80 P & CR 256, Court of Appeal

(Overreaching, ECHR Article 8, undue influence, subrogation)

  • Ocwen UK v Travis [2000] Current Law, Aug

(strike out/limitation period for extortionate credit bargain claim)

  • Hurstanger Ltd v Wood & Wood [1999] CL June

(following FNB v Ann and Hustanger Ltd v Ricketts, strike out/limitation period for extortionate credit bargain claim)

  • Abbey National plc v Tufts [1999] 2 FLR 399, Court of Appeal;

(mortgage fraud, LPA Section 199, reasonable inquiries, application of Quennell v Maltby test)

  • Hill Samuel Personal Finance v Grundy [1997] All ER (D) 81, Court of Appeal

(Unless Orders / Hytec Information criteria)

  • Hurstanger Ltd v Ricketts [1998] CCLR 5

(following FNB v Ann, strike out/limitation period for extortionate credit bargain claim/issue estoppel/abuse of process)

  • First National Bank v Ann [1998] CCLR 1

(limitation period for extortionate credit bargain claim)

  • Abbey National B.S. v Cann [1991] 1 AC 56, House of Lords,

(a leading case on overriding interests, LRA 1925 s. 70(1)(g); equitable subordination)

  • Abbey National B.S. v Cann  [1989] 2 FLR 265 Court of Appeal

(a leading case on overriding interests, LRA 1925 s. 70(1)(g); equitable subordination)