John Beresford

Areas of expertise

• Property
  • Real property & mortgages

    Real property & mortgages

    John regularly acts in disputes concerning the ownership, use and enjoyment of land. His practice encompasses easements, rights of way, restrictive covenants, boundaries, adverse possession, trespass, nuisance and land registration matters.

    He has particular experience of disputes between neighbouring landowners and claims involving competing rights over land. These matters frequently involve questions of historic use, the interpretation of deeds and conveyances, the acquisition or extinguishment of property rights and the availability of injunctive or other relief.

    John also acts in mortgage and lender disputes, including possession claims, questions concerning the validity and enforceability of security, competing interests in land and applications for rectification of the register.

    His work in this area includes complex claims involving allegations of fraud, mistake and misrepresentation.

    Recent work:

    • John acts for a lender defending a High Court unjust enrichment claim exceeding £3 million. The claim raises issues concerning the validity and enforceability of a mortgage deed, which the claimant alleges failed to comply with the requirements of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.
    • John acts for a lender in proceedings to enforce security over commercial premises in respect of a debt of approximately £2.1 million. The dispute raises issues concerning the priority of competing interests in land, in particular whether rights arising under an option agreement take priority over the lender’s mortgage.
    • John successfully acted for the claimants in a complex boundary dispute between neighbouring landowners involving claims in nuisance, harassment, breach of deeds of covenant, prescriptive easements, and adverse possession. The five-day trial was heard before HHJ Darren Walsh in the summer of 2024, with judgment handed down in the claimants’ favour in early 2025.
    • Baylis v Haider [2024] EWHC 187 (Ch): John successfully acted for a commercial lender in a five-day trial in the Chancery Division concerning the validity of a property transaction and the enforceability of the lender’s security. The claim raised complex issues involving non est factum, mistake, rectification of the land register, overriding interests and the regulation of sale and rent back agreements under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
    • John (led by David Lewis KC) acted for the Respondents in proceedings concerning rectification of the land register involving serious allegations of fraud.
  • Development

    Development

    John is regularly instructed in disputes arising out of the development of land, including substantial claims involving residential and commercial development schemes.

    His work encompasses disputes concerning development agreements, rights of way, easements, restrictive covenants, boundaries, nuisance and the interpretation of contractual and proprietary rights affecting development land. He also acts in disputes involving the impact of development works on neighbouring properties.

    John has experience of complex and high-value development litigation, including claims involving multiple parties. He acts both as sole counsel and as part of a larger counsel team.

    Recent work:

    • John acts (led by Jamal Demachkie) in a claim for approximately £17 million against a property developer responsible for a substantial residential development scheme involving thousands of new dwellings.
    • John acts for the landlord of a residential block in Chelsea in proceedings brought by a leaseholder against the landlord and a developer. The claim concerns roof and airspace development works which are alleged to constitute a nuisance and a breach of the lease.
    • John acts (led by Jamal Demachkie) for a prominent Middle Eastern investor in a claim against an investment bank and its offshore subsidiaries concerning the alleged mis-selling of real estate investments in the UK and USA.
    • John acts for a seller seeking to recover an overage payment following the subsequent disposal of development land to a third party. The dispute concerns the enforceability of the overage obligations where no restriction was entered against the registered title and the original purchaser failed to procure a direct covenant from the subsequent purchaser, in breach of the overage deed.
    • Freear v Andrews [2020] EWHC 3497 (QB): John successfully resisted a summary judgment application in a claim concerning a £1.6 million investment into the development of a residential property in Hampstead.
  • Leasehold & leasehold management

    Leasehold & leasehold management

    John has substantial experience of leasehold disputes, regularly acting for freeholders, landlords, management companies and leaseholders. His experience includes complex multi-party proceedings involving substantial sums and technical questions of lease construction and statutory interpretation.

    A significant part of his practice concerns service charge disputes, including questions of interpretation, apportionment, recoverability and reasonableness. He has appeared in countless applications before the First-tier Tribunal under section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 concerning the payability and reasonableness of service charges. His work includes substantial litigation involving the recovery of significant expenditure on repairs and major works, including disputes concerning statutory consultation requirements and applications for dispensation.

    John also has extensive experience of wider leasehold management disputes, including applications for the appointment of managers by the Tribunal, breaches of covenant, and the construction and enforcement of leases.

    Recent work:

    • John acts for the landlord of a substantial mixed-use development in proceedings against its former managing agents arising out of alleged mismanagement of the development. The claim concerns the alleged misappropriation of service charge funds and the irrecoverability of substantial service charges from tenants as a result of the managing agents’ alleged negligence.
    • John successfully represented a major social housing landlord in proceedings before the First-tier Tribunal concerning the liability of leaseholders to contribute through their service charges towards roof replacement works costing approximately £8 million. This matter attracted coverage in the London Evening Standard and BBC News.
    • John acted in substantial proceedings concerning the Fitzroy Place development in Fitzrovia, where the apportionment, payability and reasonableness of millions of pounds worth of service charges were in dispute. The proceedings included an appeal in the Upper Tribunal (Fitzroy Place Residential Limited v Lovitt [2024] UKUT 63 (LC)).
    • John successfully acted for a leaseholder in an application to the First-tier Tribunal for the appointment of a manager under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
    • Ramjotton v Patel [2021] 2 WLUK 148: Upper Tribunal decision concerning the scope of the jurisdiction under paragraph 5A of Schedule 11 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
  • Commercial landlord & tenant

    Commercial landlord & tenant

    John has experience of a broad range of commercial landlord and tenant disputes, including claims concerning forfeiture and relief from forfeiture, breaches of covenant, possession, service charges, dilapidations, lease renewals, and the interpretation and enforcement of leasehold obligations. Chambers & Partners describes John as “very impressive on technical commercial forfeiture.”

    Recent work:

    • John successfully acted in 2026 for a landlord in an appeal before HHJ Parker concerning the forfeiture of a commercial lease for non-payment of service charges. The appeal turned on whether the lease reserved service charges as rent, such that forfeiture could be effected without the need to serve a notice under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
    • John acts for the landlord of a hotel in a terminal dilapidations claim valued at approximately £1.2 million.
    • John acts for the tenant of a restaurant in London’s West End in defending possession proceedings arising from the alleged forfeiture of its commercial lease.
    • John acts for a landlord opposing the renewal of a commercial tenancy under section 30(1)(f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. The dispute raises issues concerning the landlord’s genuine and settled intention to carry out redevelopment works.
  • Housing (social & privately rented)

    Housing (social & privately rented)

    John has extensive experience of residential landlord and tenant disputes and has acted for a number of major social housing landlords in London, as well as private landlords and tenants. He has acted in a substantial number of residential possession proceedings, including contested claims involving complex statutory and public law defences.

    His practice includes possession proceedings, claims involving breaches of tenancy agreements, disrepair, anti-social behaviour, injunctions and disputes concerning landlords’ obligations to carry out repairs and other works. He has experience of possession claims involving defences under the Equality Act 2010, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the public law.

    Recent work:

    • John is regularly instructed by one of London’s most prominent historic family-owned property estates in proceedings to recover possession of high-value residential properties.
    • John is instructed in proceedings to recover possession of a residential property in Kensington. The claim raises complex issues concerning service out of jurisdiction, the effect of a joint tenant’s bankruptcy and waiver of the right to forfeit.
    • John has extensive experience of obtaining injunctions on behalf of major social housing landlords, including injunctions relating to anti-social behaviour, harassment and breaches of tenancy. He has also represented landlords in committal proceedings arising from alleged breaches of injunctions.
    • John is regularly instructed in housing disrepair claims, including disputes concerning landlords’ repairing obligations, the extent and cause of alleged defects, the scope of remedial works and claims for damages.
    • John recently acted for a major social housing landlord in contested possession proceedings raising complex issues concerning the tenant’s capacity, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Equality Act 2010 and allegations of housing disrepair.
  • Trusts of land

    Trusts of land

    John has experience of a broad range of disputes concerning the beneficial ownership of property and the rights and obligations of parties with competing interests in land.

    His practice includes claims involving express, resulting and constructive trusts, proprietary estoppel and disputes concerning the family home, including claims between cohabitees and former partners as to their respective beneficial interests in property. He also has experience of complex commercial disputes involving trusts of land (including Pallant v Morgan equities and Quistclose trusts).

    John’s experience of property-related commercial litigation is particularly relevant to claims where questions of beneficial ownership arise alongside contractual arrangements, financing transactions or allegations of misrepresentation and fraud.

    Recent work:

    • John acted in a dispute between a father and son concerning the beneficial ownership of a property. The case raised issues regarding the presumption of advancement and its application in the context of the parties’ particular cultural context.
    • John acted in a dispute between former partners concerning the beneficial ownership of a portfolio of residential investment properties.
    • John (led by Nigel Jones KC) advised a property developer in relation to a potential claim involving a Pallant v Morgan equity and proprietary estoppel.
    • Freear v Andrews [2020] EWHC 3497 (QB): John successfully resisted a summary judgment application in a claim concerning a £1.6 million investment into the development of a residential property in Hampstead. The claimant alleged that the investment sum was held under a Quistclose.
• Commercial litigation

  Commercial litigation

  John acts on commercial matters and has particular experience of disputes arising in the context of property transactions, investments and development projects.

  He has experience of high value claims involving allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, banking and finance litigation, joint venture disputes and claims concerning the ownership and recovery of assets.

  John’s practice frequently involves matters in which commercial and property law issues overlap, including disputes arising from investment arrangements, development agreements, lending transactions and the acquisition and disposal of property.

  He has experience of complex litigation involving multiple parties, substantial financial claims and issues of valuation, acting both as sole counsel and as part of a larger counsel team.

  Recent work:

  • John acts (led by Jamal Demachkie) for a prominent Middle Eastern investor in proceedings against an investment bank and its offshore subsidiaries concerning the alleged mis-selling of real estate investments in the UK and USA.
  • Tillman v Lloyds Bank Plc and Better Capital LLP: John (led by Brie Stevens-Hoare KC) acted for Harold Tillman, the former owner of the Jaeger and Aquascutum fashion brands, in a claim for approximately £150 million alleging unlawful means conspiracy in the Commercial Court.
  • Freear v Andrews [2020] EWHC 3497 (QB): John successfully represented the Defendant in proceedings concerning a £1.6 million property investment involving Quistclose trusts.
  • Holyoake v Candy [2017] EWHC 3397 (Ch): John acted for the Claimants in their £132 million claim against the Candy Brothers and others arising out of a property development dispute (led by Roger Stewart KC). The nine-week trial was heard in the Chancery Division. The proceedings also generated a number of significant interlocutory decisions concerning matters including privilege, third-party funding and costs.