“An extremely bright and persuasive advocate who is always immaculately prepared - whether for a client conference or for a complex multi-day trial. A real joy to work alongside and always efficient in returning advice and paperwork.”
Legal 500
John Beresford specialises in property law. His practice encompasses lender claims, land registration matters, leasehold management disputes, landlord and tenant disputes, joint venture disputes and a wide variety of matters heard in the Tribunal. John has experience of complex and high value litigation.
John also acts on commercial matters and is regularly instructed in commercial disputes arising in the property context. He was trial counsel in Holyoake v Candy [2017] EWHC 3397 (Ch) which was described by EGi as “the property trial of the century”.
The Legal 500 describes John in the following terms: “His legal analysis is excellent. He does not take bad points or waste time. His advocacy is measured, calm and thorough" and “John has a calm authority and a wealth of knowledge, making him a very effective advocate.”
Notable current and past instructions include:
Baylis v Haider [2024] EWHC 187 (Ch): Claim concerning ownership of a property that raised complicated issues of law relating to non est factum, mistake, invalid execution of deeds, rectification and the legality of sale and rent back agreements under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Following a trial in the Chancery Division, John was successful for the lender.
The Fitzroy Place litigation: John continues to act in these proceedings concerning the Fitzroy Place development in Central London where the apportionment, payability and reasonableness of millions of pounds worth of service charges is in dispute. These proceedings have given rise to an appeal in the Upper Tribunal (Fitzroy Place Residential Limited v Lovitt [2024] UKUT 63 (LC)).
Toner v Telford Homes Ltd [2022] EWHC 634 (QB) & [2021] EWHC 516 (QB): John acts for the Fourth Defendant in these ongoing proceedings which concern a property purchased ‘off plan’ by the Claimant who is making allegations of breach of contract, negligence, deceit, harassment and defamation against various parties.
Tillman v Lloyds Bank Plc and Better Capital LLP: John acted for the Claimant (a former owner of the Jaegar and Aquascutum fashion brands) in his c£150m unlawful means conspiracy claim which was being litigated in the Commercial Court. John was led by Brie Stevens-Hoare KC.
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. John acted successfully for the Appellant.
Freear v Andrews [2020] EWHC 3497 (QB): John successfully represented the Defendant in this matter concerning a £1.6m property investment involving Quistclose trusts.
A v B: John acted for the Respondents in a HM Land Registry rectification claim where serious allegations of fraud were made. John was led by David Lewis KC. This matter settled.
Holyoake v Candy [2017] EWHC 3397 (Ch): John acted for the Claimants in their £132m claim against the Candy Brothers & others arising out of a property development gone wrong (led by Roger Stewart KC of 4 New Square Chambers). The 9 week trial of this matter (which featured in The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2017) was heard in the Chancery Division and judgment was handed down in December 2017. These proceedings generated a number of interlocutory decisions (([2017] EWHC 387 (Ch), [2018] EWHC 377 (Ch), [2018] 2 WLUK 495, [2018] EWHC 502 (Ch)).
R v J: John was instructed by a high-end fashion label to defend a £3m claim for statutory compensation under the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 (led by David Lewis KC). This matter settled.
B v S: John acted (as sole counsel) in Queen’s Bench Division proceedings on behalf of a start-up drinks company defending allegations that it had wrongfully terminated an exclusive distribution agreement. This matter settled
John acted successfully for an entrepreneur in seeking an order for pre-action disclosure against a publicly listed real estate services company. This matter received coverage in the Guardian, the Times and the Financial Times.
John graduated from the University of Oxford with a Double First in Law where he received numerous university and college prizes including the Gibbs Prize (Proxime Accessit) for the best university performance in Contract, Tort, Trusts and Land Law.
John has experience of a wide range of commercial disputes acting as both junior and sole counsel.
John’s commercial practice encompasses contractual disputes, civil fraud, banking and finance, partnership and shareholder disputes, international trade, personal and proprietary restitution, joint venture disputes, breach of fiduciary duty claims, tracing claims and the economic torts.
Recent work
Holyoake v Candy [2018] EWHC 502 (Ch): On whether an unsuccessful claimant was liable to pay indemnity costs.
Holyoake v Candy [2017] EWHC 384 (Ch):: On an application pursuant to section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 seeking an order that a litigant disclose its third party funders.
Holyoake v Candy [2017] EWHC 387 (Ch): On the scope of the collateral waiver principle following the disclosure of privileged material to rebut an allegation of late fabrication.
Advising a property developer in relation to a potential Pallant v Morgan / proprietary estoppel claim (led by Nigel Jones KC).
Advising a multinational clothing brand on the enforceability of an arbitration award in the United Arab Emirates.
Advising a foreign national on a prospective claim against a London embassy relating to unpaid professional fees. This matter involved issues of sovereign immunity arising under the Sovereign Immunity Act 1978.
Drafting a statement of case in relation to a contractual dispute heard in the Dubai International Arbitration Centre.
Blackett v GE Money Limited: Successfully appearing at a strike out/summary judgment application hearing on behalf of a bank facing allegations that it acted in breach of contract and financial services regulations. This matter raised issues as to the scope of Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
Asif Hakim Adil v Frontline Development Partners Limited[2014] DIFC CFI 015: Advising a government advisory firm based in the Dubai International Financial Centre as to the application of Article 18 of the DIFC Employment Law.
Drafting written submissions in relation to a discrete procedural point arising under the Court Rules of the Dubai International Financial Centre Courts (heard before Chief Justice Michael Hwang SC).
O’Brien v Landmark Global UK Ltd & BPost International BV: Advising and appearing at various interlocutory hearings on behalf of a subsidiary of a global logistics company facing allegations that it acted in breach of a consultancy agreement. This ongoing maters gives rise to issues relating to restrictive covenants and the scope of the res judicata principle
Advising in relation to a prospective tracing claim arising from a fraud perpetrated across multiple jurisdictions. This ongoing matter involves complex issues of private international law and proprietary restitution.
CW Publishing Limited v Simpsons Limited: Successfully appearing at trial on behalf of an SME resisting a claim by a publisher for unpaid fees. The primary issue before the court was whether a binding contract had been entered into between the parties.
D Hammond Limited v Bromilow: Successfully appearing at trial on behalf of an engineering contractor seeking recovery of unpaid fees in the context of a dispute between two former shareholders.
National Westminster Bank Plc v Ramzan: Drafting pleadings on behalf of a bank pursuing a subrogated claim against a residential borrower arising out of a fraud committed by a third party.
Advising and drafting pleadings on behalf of a building surveyor facing allegations of professional negligence.
Advising and drafting pleadings on behalf of an architect facing allegations of professional negligence.
Drafting pleadings on behalf of a contractor pursuing a claim against a specialist sub-contractor for unpaid fees.
In addition to the above, during pupillage John gained experience of the following commercial matters:
A $300m claim brought by a US based vulture fund against the Republic of Argentina in the UK courts raising novel issues relating to sovereign immunity in relation to the enforcement of foreign judgment debts against states.
An interest rate swap misselling claim brought by a private investor against a major bank.
A professional negligence and dishonest assistance claim brought against a major bank arising out of a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by a third party.
An arbitration in the Singapore International Arbitration Centre arising out of an alleged fraud committed against a publicly listed company by one of its directors.
An unfair prejudice petition pursued by a minority shareholder of a hedge fund incorporated in the British Virgin Islands.
An application to pursue a derivative claim on behalf of a publicly listed company.
John has experience of commercial landlord and tenant disputes.
Recent work:
Appearing on behalf of commercial landlords in possessions claims based on forfeiture of long leases.
Cousins v Alhasan & British Developments Limited: Appearing on behalf of landlords seeking injunctions to obtain access to their tenanted properties for the purposes of carrying out inspections and works.
Appearing at a hearing for a Party Wall injunction.
Successfully appearing at trial on behalf a landlord on the question of the reasonableness of service charges.
John handles a wide variety of residential landlord and tenant disputes. He acts for most of the major social housing landlords in London and particularly enjoys possession claims where the tenant has raised Equality Act 2010, Human Rights Act 1998 and public law defences.
Recent work:
Appearing in countless possession claims concerning ASTs, assured tenancies, secure tenancies and Rent Act tenancies facing a broad range of issues including tenancy deposit schemes, the service of notices and counterclaims for disrepair.
Successfully obtaining numerous anti-social behaviour injunctions under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. This includes matters which have made it to trial.
Appearing on behalf of residential landlords in possessions claims based on forfeiture of long leases.
Appearing on behalf of landlords seeking injunctions to obtain access to their tenanted properties for the purposes of carrying out inspections and works.
Drafting pleadings in numerous disrepair claims.
Drafting witness statements in respect of an adverse possession claim in the First-tier Tribunal.
Appearing in numerous committal hearings arising from breach of anti-social behaviour injunctions.
John welcomes instructions in relation to real property disputes and also mortgage work.
Recent work:
Drafting a claim on behalf of a mortgage lender seeking an order from the court directing the Registrar of HM Land Registry to rectify the register.
Appearing on behalf of estate trustees in possession claims where the occupier has issued a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
Professional associations
Commercial Bar Association
Chancery Bar Association
The London Common Law and Commercial Bar Association
TECBAR
Publications
Contributing author to Construction All Risks Insurance (2nd Edition, 2016, Sweet & Maxwell)
Contributing author to Construction Professional Indemnity Insurance (2nd Edition, 2017, Sweet & Maxwell)
Contributing author to Insurance Broking Practice and the Law (CMS Cameron McKenna)
Qualifications
BA (Jurisprudence) – Corpus Christi College, University of Oxford (Double First)
BPTC – BPP Law School (Very Competent)
Shelford Scholarship, Lincoln’s Inn
Gibbs Prize, University of Oxford
Lord Mansfield Scholarship, Lincoln’s Inn
Hardwicke Scholarship, Lincoln’s Inn
College Scholarship, Corpus Christi College, University of Oxford
Isaiah Berlin Prize, Corpus Christi College, University of Oxford
The Citigroup Scholarship, University of Oxford
Directory recommendations
John is recommended as a Leading Junior in The Legal 500 for Property Litigation:
“John’s legal analysis is excellent. He does not take bad points or waste time. His advocacy is measured, calm and thorough.” (The Legal 500, 2025)
“An extremely bright and persuasive advocate who is always immaculately prepared – whether for a client conference or for a complex multi-day trial. A real joy to work alongside and always efficient in returning advice and paperwork.” (The Legal 500, 2024)
“John has a calm authority and a wealth of knowledge, making him a very effective advocate.” (The Legal 500, 2023)
Insights
Case summary: Chug v Dhaliwal [2023] EWHC 804 (Ch)
30/06/2023
Property Litigation Column: Applications to appoint a manager under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
15/03/2022
The importance of acting with “reasonable promptitude” when applying for relief from forfeiture: Keshwala and another v Bhalsod [2020] EWHC 2372 (QB)
14/10/2020
When do you lose the right to challenge the recoverability and reasonableness of service charges?
08/04/2019
Collateral waiver of privilege (Holyoake and another v Candy and others)
05/12/2017
Newsletters
Property Newsletter: April 2019
08/04/2019
Custom PDF
Which sections would you like to include in your PDF download?
X
Manage Cookie Consent
We use cookies to optimize our website and our service. Not consenting or withdrawing consent may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
We use cookies to optimise our website and our service.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
