Robert Whittock, PhD

Areas of expertise

• Professional liability

  Professional liability

  Robert has a strong professional liability practice, with particular expertise in claims against solicitors arising from complex conveyancing, investment and property-related disputes.

  He has been instructed in numerous high-value, multi-claimant actions concerning solicitors who acted for purchasers of “off plan” property, including claims involving alleged negligence, breach of trust and failed investment schemes.

  Robert also acts in clinical negligence claims and regulatory proceedings brought by the General Medical Council (GMC) concerning fitness to practise, giving him experience across both civil claims and professional disciplinary contexts.

  He is well placed to act in professional liability matters involving solicitors, medical practitioners, patent attorneys, trade mark attorneys and other professionals. His broad civil litigation experience and technical background enable him to analyse difficult factual and legal material quickly and develop practical, commercially focused strategies.

  Recent work

  Including (anonymised where appropriate):

  • GMC v Dr. Davide (2026) – fitness to practise hearing in the Medical Practitioners Tribunal (MPTS) concerning informed consent. Ongoing related civil claim concerning alleged clinical negligence arising out of private cosmetic surgery.
  • GMC v a cosmetic surgeon (2026) – fitness to practise investigation concerning a plastic surgeon who performed a tummy tuck on a patient just a few months after the patient had given birth. Allegation withdrawn following written submissions.
  • GMC v a cosmetic surgeon (2026) – fitness to practise investigation concerning informed consent in relation to private facial cosmetic surgery. Allegation withdrawn following written submissions.
  • Claimant v a firm of solicitors (2026) – the defendant was instructed in respect of a statutory demand that the claimant had received. The defendant failed to make an application to set aside the statutory demand resulting in the presentation of a bankruptcy petition and unnecessary legal costs being incurred. The defendant also requested a non-refundable fixed fee to carry out a ‘crime package’ in circumstances where the claimant ought to have been advised to await the outcome of the imminent bankruptcy petition before considering incurring fees for a ‘crime package’ that might not actually be undertaken following the outcome of the bankruptcy petition. Claim for professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in taking unfair advantage of the claimant. Case settled.
  • Various claimants v a firm of licensed conveyancers (2026) – claim for multiple claimants against a firm of licensed conveyancers concerning ‘off-plan’ property investments in student accommodation. Issues included when time started to run for primary limitation and whether the claimants might be able to extend the limitation period relying on date of knowledge under s.14A or deliberate breach of duty under s.32 Limitation Act 1980.
  • Various claimants v a firm of solicitors (2026) – claim for 40+ claimants against their conveyancing solicitor concerning a failure to heed the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) Warning Notices for dubious/fraudulent off plan investment schemes and advising that the investment was likely an illegal collective investment scheme (CIS).
  • Various Claimants v a firm of solicitors (2025) – claim for 40+ claimants against solicitors concerning breach of Quistclose trust arising out of an investment scheme where the claimants paid their monies directly to a solicitor acting for the investment company. Additional issues concerned limitation and validity of execution of standstill agreements. Successfully resolved at mediation – near seven figure settlement.
  • R v Sandra Campbell T/A Campbell & Co Solicitors (2022) – the defendant (solicitor) settled the lay clients disputed clinical negligence claim for £50,000 including costs without instructions and then dissipated the settlement sum. The solicitor’s professional indemnity insurer refused to indemnify the solicitor due to dishonesty. The lay client sought compensation from the SRA Compensation Fund for the lost chance of pursuing a claim to trial or settlement or in the alternative the settlement sum that was dissipated. The lay client was awarded £30,000 from the Solicitors Compensation Fund, which was upheld on review.
  • Liu v Sandra Campbell (2021) – freezing injunction granted against defendant’s (solicitor) and her client account, bankers trust order against Barclays bank in respect of the defendant’s client and office accounts. Followed by a successful compensation claim to the SRA Compensation Fund that resulted in payment of £164,264. The solicitor was subsequently struck off the roll of solicitors.
  • Conticini & Ors v (1) Graham & Rosen (a firm) (2) Graham & Rosen [2018] High Court before Deputy Master Bard – summary judgment obtained for £1.3m equitable compensation for the 18 Claimants who lost their deposits when their conveyancing solicitor acted in breach of trust by releasing their deposits to the seller’s solicitor without the developer having obtained and provided an insurance bond.
  • Momson v Haider Kennedy (2019) – sole practitioner had excessively charged Ms. Momson for legal costs in complex TOLATA proceedings and as a result had taken monies from the client account that were obtained from the sale of various properties. A professional negligence/breach of trust claim was brought against Haider Kennedy resulting in a judgment which was not satisfied by the solicitors indemnity insurer because it had become insolvent. Compensation for both damages and legal costs was successfully obtained from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).
  • Haider Kennedy Solicitors v Momson [2017] 10 WLUK 691 – successfully resisted the solicitor’s firm’s application to appeal against a refusal of relief from sanction where the appellant had failed to comply with an unless order, having allegedly been one day late. Costs awarded on an indemnity basis.
  • Stockdale & Reid Ltd v (1) Darren Ellison (2) Patricia Murray (2016): obtained a substantial settlement prior to Judgment being handed down in a case where (a) the solicitor’s alleged failure to advise his client to accept the defendant’s offer in a neighbour boundary dispute had resulted in the client losing the land subject to the dispute due to the size of the adverse costs order; and (b) it was alleged that the solicitor had breached the indemnity principle. The settlement arose out of the Judge asking the parties to go outside and settle the case as the Judge did not want to make findings that would possibly end the solicitors career.
  • Topham v Ageas Insurance (Dr. Grace Kerali as Interested Party) (2016): led by Colm Nugent, a unique widely reported case, including The Times, in which the insurer sought to challenge the expert who had provided expert reports in support of the Claimants’ claims for modest whiplash.
  • Claimant v a firm of solicitors – substantial settlement arising out of a property conveyancer failing to follow the client’s instructions that resulted in the developer pulling out of the transaction after the deadline to exchange had expired.
  • Claimant v a firm of solicitors – settlement achieved in a case where the solicitor was alleged to have failed to have obtained adequate ATE insurance.
  • Stamp Duty Mitigation Schemes – settlements achieved in multiple cases where the purchaser’s conveyancing solicitor had promoted the use of stamp duty mitigation schemes that were subsequently deemed to have failed with a resulting tax liability.
• Intellectual property

  Intellectual property

  Robert’s intellectual property practice covers trade marks, designs, copyright, confidential information and patent-related disputes. He is particularly well placed to advise and act in technically complex matters, especially those involving pharmaceuticals, specialty chemicals and scientific evidence.

  Prior to commencing practice at the bar Robert obtained a PhD in synthetic organic chemistry concerning the synthesis, characterisation and measurement of the physical properties of new photochromic organic chemicals.

  Following his PhD studies Robert was a scientist in the pharmaceutical industry for seven years, predominantly at AstraZeneca, where he gained a broad experience of the pharmaceutical research and development process, from early lead identification to Phase III clinical trials.

  He is a named inventor, has researched the solid state chemistry (polymorphs, hydrates and salts) of many candidate drugs and AstraZeneca’s marketed drug Brillinta, Brilique (Ticagrelor, AZD6140) – an oral anti-platelet for the treatment of acute coronary syndromes. As a scientist he has undertaken patent infringement testing of both drug substances and drug products.

  In 2008 Robert was at the IP/IT department within Freshfields where he worked on both non-contentious and contentious IP matters including multi-jurisdictional patent litigation concerning extended wear contact lenses (Novartis v Johnson & Johnson Medical Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1039). As part of this involvement, he witnessed experiments in the US concerning the manufacture and testing of extended wear contact lenses.

  He has presented and chaired sessions at numerous international conferences concerning the identification of suitable solid state forms for use as the pharmaceutical drug and pharmaceutical patents in respect of the same, including at Assa International IWPCPS-13 and IQPC Developing IP Strategies for Crystalline Forms 2010.

  Recent work

  Including (anonymised where appropriate):

  • Professor Peter Tymms v University of Durham (2026 ongoing) – High Court claim concerning unjust enrichment and breach of contract concerning provisions relating to employee compensation engaged by exploitation of IP rights in academic assessment projects within a research centre (CEM) that was sold to Cambridge University for £16.3m.
  • Airconco UK Ltd v DC Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Ltd [2026] EWHC 998 (Ch) (IPEC) – appeal concerning quantum of damages for copyright infringement.
  • Clinical Outcomes Solutions Limited v Ela Polek [2026] (IPEC) – claim against former employee for copyright infringement and breach of confidential information.
  • Advice concerning breach and termination of a franchise agreement and post termination restrictions.
  • Advice concerning a professional negligence claim arising out of the litigation of an intellectual property claim.
  • Advice concerning trade mark infringement concerning a craft beer.
  • Advice concerning comparative advertising and keyword advertising.
  • Thurgood v Laight (IPEC) – claim concerning passing off.
  • Glass Slipper Ltd v Crimson Flower Productions Ltd [2019] EWHC 1273 (IPEC) – claim concerning rights in a film.
  • Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW) v BMW Telecommunications Ltd [2019] EWHC 411 (IPEC) – claim concerning passing off and trade mark infringement.
  • Delivering Happiness Limited (2018) – claim concerning registered and unregistered design rights in flat plastic wine bottles.
  • Kupros Ltd. v Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Energy, Commerce, Industry and Tourism [2017] – case concerned opposition to the applicant’s UK trade mark applications for ANGLOUMI and ANGLUMI under s.5(2)(b) and s.5(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 relying upon the earlier UK trade mark HALLOUMI. Case settled prior to hearing.
  • Willow Automotive Limited v Colin Nash [2015] Cancellation No 9012C (INVALIDITY), OHIM: case concerned allegations of bad faith in making a community trade mark application.
  • Nduka v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks [2013] EWHC 2193 (Ch): appeal to the High Court from UK Intellectual Property Office in relation to a patent application for a biomedical device.
• Commercial dispute resolution

  Commercial dispute resolution

  Robert accepts instructions concerning commercial disputes involving a wide range of issues including breach of contract, consumer credit, breach of trust and undue influence. He has particular expertise in obtaining injunctions and opposing applications for injunctions and related orders including Bankers Trust Orders.

  He is experienced in providing advice, drafting and as an advocate in procedural applications, trials and appeals.

  Solicitors value his strategic advice that encompasses analysis of the problem, out of the box thinking and identification of a creative solution.

  Recent work

  • Sonny Gill v Secretary of State [2026] EWCA 315 (Admin) – permission to appeal to High Court of an enforcement appeal decision under s.289 Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Defective service on the Secretary of State resulted in court determining it did not have jurisdiction to consider the permission to appeal application. Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal has been sought despite the Lane v Esdaile principle under the court’s residual jurisdiction and alternatively that the decision concerned a case management decision.
  • Vladimir Makhlay v Valentina Semova [2024] – freezing injunction granted in the High Court in respect of a £4.5m property and a prohibitory injunction in respect of an email address. Underlying claim concerned deception, undue influence and that the TR1 form for transfer of the property allegedly did not bear a genuine signature and was not signed in the presence of the conveyancing solicitor thus failing to comply with s.1(3)(a) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.
  • Part 85 claims (controlled and executed goods concerning bailiffs) and related issues – acted for Marstons in more than sixty cases in both the County Court and High Court concerning applications, claims and appeals concerning disputed ownership of goods.
  • Payment protection insurance (PPI) claims – instructed to act for high street banks, building societies and catalogue companies in more than one hundred cases in County Courts across England and Wales. Issues concerning Consumer Credit Act 1974 and s.32 Limitation Act 1980.
  • Syeda Bushra Ali Naqvi v Saeed Hassan Shah [2023] – freezing injunction against Defendant granted by the High Court in 2022, Bankers Trust order against Yorkshire Bank followed by a successful summary judgment application against the defendant for breach of trust and with costs awarded on an indemnity basis.
  • Liu v Sandra Campbell [2021] – freezing injunction granted against defendant’s (solicitor) and her client account, bankers trust order against Barclays bank in respect of the defendant’s client and office accounts. Followed by a successful compensation claim to SRA. Defendant solicitor subsequently struck off roll of solicitors.