“Joseph was excellent and very much impressed those who were present and [we] would definitely be eager to use him again in upcoming hearings.”

Instructing Solicitor


Joseph specialises in property and Chancery litigation. He accepts instructions for advice and representation in a broad range of cases in this area including possession actions for public and private sector tenancies; real property; and serious anti-social behaviour. He also acts in cases in other areas of law where property and trusts issues often arise, including contentious probate and property ownership following relationship breakdown. Joseph is very good at dealing with cases which raise technical points of law or procedure and has advised on security of tenure and tenancy fraud. 

Before coming to the bar, Joseph appeared in over 500 cases as a solicitor’s agent in the County Court. He appeared in substantive trials as well as many applications for summary judgments, strike-outs, and set-asides. He has experience of breach of contract, personal injury and credit hire cases.

Joseph has acted in applications on very short notice, including those for injunctive relief. Solicitors instruct him because he is extremely efficient and able to absorb the details of cases quickly whilst delivering a very high standard of work.  


Possession claims and forfeiture

Joseph has significant experience of possession claims against tenants and mortgagors. He regularly appears in cases involving secure and assured tenancies. Joseph also acts in commercial landlord and tenant matters.

Joseph has experience of forfeiture actions including for long residential and commercial leases. He has settled pleadings, defended the validity of forfeiture, and provided ongoing advice on these matters in addition to appearing in court. He has appeared in the High Court to defend the validity of a business tenancy’s forfeiture.

Joseph accepts instructions on behalf of landlords and tenants. He has acted in related proceedings, such as anti-social behaviour cases leading to mandatory grounds. Joseph is also interested in cases which involve the law of trusts, and has acted for landlords and tenants where serious disputes about beneficial interests arise in possession proceedings.

Joseph also regularly acts in cases of trespass and non-succession to tenancies.

Landlord and tenant

Joseph accepts instructions across landlord and tenant law. He has acted in service charge proceedings in the First Tier Tribunal and has appeared in cases relating to the regulation of houses of multiple occupation. Joseph also has experience of the tenancy deposit regime and housing disrepair cases. He has advised on leasehold enfranchisement cases and the interpretation of leases.

Joseph also acts in cases of nuisance.

Real property

Joseph accepts instructions in relation to easements, covenants, and boundaries. He has experience of boundary disputes and adverse possession claims in both the First Tier Tribunal and the County Court. He regularly advises on the extent of property rights, especially where there are allegations or trespass or where there is a leasehold element.

Joseph also acts in cases of nuisance and disturbance of easements.

Committal proceedings and anti-social behaviour

Joseph has experience of anti-social behaviour cases, securing injunctions, and enforcing them through committal proceedings. Joseph has acted for public sector landlords in Part 65 urgent breaches and in the resulting committal trials. He has acted in Part 81 committal proceedings and has previously secured 36 findings of breach in a contested trial.

Wills and trusts

Joseph accepts instructions in contentious and non-contentious probate. He has advised on the construction of wills and on the misuse of trust and estate property. He has also advised on the existence of constructive trusts. 

Recently Joseph successfully represented the intervenors in matrimonial finance proceedings who had been accused of hiding matrimonial assets and holding them on trust for the husband: Uddin v Uddin [2022] EWFC 75. In a five-day trial the trust claims were defeated. 

He has experience of the link between housing possession cases and trusts, being currently instructed on two cases, one each for landlord and tenant respectively, where possession actions have specific performance counterclaims seeking transfers of property said to be held on trust.

Joseph also accepts instructions on financial provision from estates for family and dependents.



Business and commercial

Joseph accepts instructions across commercial law. He has experience of acting in debt claims and in building disputes, where he can also draw upon his experience of property disrepair cases. He also has experience of using consumer rights legislation.

He has experience in a variety of disputes where businesses and property interact, such as forfeiture proceedings and matters relating to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

Joseph has appeared in the County Courts and the Insolvency and Companies Court in insolvency matters. He accepts instructions in personal and corporate insolvency.

Regulatory (property based)

Joseph has experience of prosecutions under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. He has experience of arguing on the jurisdiction of the court under s82(6), on who is responsible for the nuisance, and on the recoverable costs under s82(12).

Joseph has experience of housing regulation more broadly. He has obtained and defended against rent repayment orders in the First Tier Tribunal. Joseph has also appeared successfully in proceedings following a penalty notice and acted in criminal proceedings for offences under the Housing Act 2004.


To instruct Joseph please contact Greg Piner


  • BA Hons First Class, University of Nottingham, 2016
  • Graduate Diploma in Law, City, University of London, 2017
  • LLM Bar Professional Training, City, University of London, 2018


  • Property Bar Association
  • Chancery Bar Association


  • Inner Temple BPTC Exhibition Award
  • Winner of the Inner Temple Rawlinson Cup Debating Competition, 2019
  • Winner of the UKELA Lord Slynn of Hadley Moot, 2018
  • Highly Commended, Andrew Lees Essay Prize, 2017

Notable Cases

The Geek Taverna Limited and Penge v Khan: Application for permission to appeal in the Chancery Division of the High Court. The Appellant alleged that the right to forfeit had been waived by various acts, including commercial rent arrears recovery. Joseph successfully argued for the Respondent that there was no real prospect of success and that the forfeiture was valid. He also defeated other criticisms of the Defendant’s money judgment in a dilapidation counterclaim.

S v J: Joseph acted for the tenant in a multi-track claim listed for 3.5 days. The landlord sought possession under section 21, and the tenant sought specific performance of a poorly drafted deed of trust containing a time-limited option to purchase. The case settled days before trial on better terms for the client than the court could have awarded.

Uddin v Uddin [2022] EWFC 75: Joseph acted for the intervenors in matrimonial finance proceedings, successfully defending the trust claims brought against them in a five-day trial. 

T v H: a possession claim following succession to a secure tenancy. Currently defending on reasonableness and public law grounds for unlawful interference with the right to buy; disability discrimination; and convention rights in article 8 and protocol 1 article 1.

N v C: in proceedings for a rent repayment order Joseph secured 100% of the possible rent for the tenants, defeating a reasonable excuse defence and successfully arguing that the conduct of the landlord in the proceedings justified a high award.

Re F: Joseph advised on challenging a will and seeking the return of fraudulently mis-applied estate property decades later.

M v R: Joseph represented the Defendant in a £74,000 rent arrears possession. Mandatory ground 8 was knocked out on procedural grounds. As part of this, Joseph identified and advised on a deposit protection counterclaim.

O v B: a 1-day committal trial in the County Court successfully proving 36 breaches of an injunction.

O v R: In a hearing listed for 1 ½ days Joseph secured and extended an anti-social behaviour injunction against a Defendant accused of threats to kill who contested the facts and alleged discrimination and anti-social behaviour by other tenants.

P v O: defending against a private prosecution under s82 Environmental Protection Act 1990. Joseph successfully argued that there was no proven nuisance at the making of the complaint. The case also involved additional arguments on costs, including whether there was a valid conditional fee agreement or instead no costs had been incurred.

Back to people