“Joe did a smashing job today. Settled the whole matter for everything we wanted. I'll be looking to work with him again. ”Solicitor
Joseph specialises in civil litigation and accepts instructions across the key areas of our civil practice. He has a particular interest in property litigation and trusts. He has experience in a variety of cases including possession actions for public and private sector tenancies; probate proceedings; and serious anti-social behaviour. He 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 acted in applications on very short notice.
Joseph is efficient, effective and clear in his advice and advocacy.
Joseph acts in matters across property law. He often appears in residential landlord and tenant cases, including where public sector tenancies are involved. He also has experience of commercial tenancies and forfeiture claims.
Joseph has advised on boundary disputes and on co-ownership. He has obtained injunctions relating to access and anti-social behaviour and acted on committal proceedings for enforcement under Parts 65 and 81.
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.
Joseph also accepts instructions on financial provision from estates for family and dependents under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975.
Joseph accepts instructions across commercial law. He has appeared in small claims and summary judgments for a variety of debt and negligence claims. He is experienced in arguing about the interpretation of contracts.
Joseph has appeared in the County Courts and the Insolvency and Companies Court in insolvency matters. He accepts instructions in personal and corporate insolvency.
Joseph regularly acts in personal injury cases on the fast track and small claims track. He accepts instructions from claimants and defendants. He has experience of a range of accidents and injuries, particularly arising from road traffic accidents, and of fundamental dishonesty.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
S v R: Joseph successfully secured an anti-social behaviour injunction at a 1-day return date where the defence involved counter-allegations of anti-social behaviour against the Defendant by other tenants.