Richard Selwyn Sharpe

Richard joined chambers in March 2009 from St. John's Buildings, Manchester.

He practises in general Chancery and Commercial law with an emphasis on property, wills, trusts, company and insolvency law. Particular property expertise includes: Landlord and Tenant (commercial and residential), boundaries and easements, rivers/riparian rights, restrictive covenants, land options, development contracts, mortgages, agricultural holdings, nuisance claims, public access to the countryside (including applications to modify the defninitive map), highways and planning.

Company law including director's breaches of duty, director's disqualification and voidable transactions.

Sale and Carriage of Goods, Consumer Credit, Insurance and Agency law.

Restraint of Trade and business secrets. Intellectual Property. Partnership Law.

Professional Negligence, (Solicitors, Accountants, Insolvency practitioners, Architects, Surveyors and Insurance Brokers).

Wills and Trusts: contentious and non-contentious, Inheritance Act claims. Removal of Trustees.

Door tenant at New Square Chambers, Lincoln's Inn.

Accepts Direct Access instructions from surveyors and accountants.

Lectures regularly to solicitors on Insolvency Law, Rights of Way, Wills, Probate and Proprietary Estoppel.

Trustee of the Matthew Robinson Trust North Yorkshire
(almshouses and educational charity)

Lives in North Yorkshire.

Reported / Important Cases

Ord v Upton [2000] Ch 352 CA
(Insolvency: rights of bankrupt to damages for personal injury): and see article: 2001 Insolvency Lawyer

Stephenson v Johnson 2000 EGCS
(Boundary dispute: implied boundary agreement)

Dodsworth v Hulme [2003] EWHC 22 (Ch) Lawtel 30.1.03
(Boundary dispute: construction of conveyance and plan)

Zyxel Communications COPR, Bluebell Overseas Limited v Fairbridge Communications Limited [2004] D Foskett QC
(Construction of Compromise agreement) Lawtel AC0103710

Halpern v Halpern [2006] EWHC 1728 Comm [2006] 3 AER 113
(a party could not avoid a contract procured by duress in circumstances where he could not offer the other party restitutio in intergrum or counter restitution)

Halpern v Halpern [2007] ewca 603 (Comm) The Times 14th May 2006
On appeal from the decision of Christopher Clarke J (2006) EWHC 603 [2006] 2 All ER (Comm) 251 ("Halpern No 1") the Court of Appeal held that under Art 4(2) of the Rome Convention English Law was the applicable law to the compromise agreement but that Jewish law might be relevant to interpretation.
On appeal from the decision of Nigel Teare QC (2006) EWHC 172 [2006] 3 WLR 946 the Court held that rescission for duress should be no different in principle from rescission for other vitiating factors. However, the practical effect of counter-restitution would depend on the circumstances of each case. If the defendants were able to establish at trial that the compromise was procured by duress then it would be suprising if the law could not provide a suitable remedy but that would be a matter for the trial judge to decide. It was not necessarily the case that the party wishing to obtain rescission for duress had to be able to provide counter-restitution.
Richard acted for the Appellants/Defendants.

Crowe & Heaton v Massey & Massey Land Tribunal (Nigel Rose) (2008) LP/34/2006
Application to discharge restrictive covenant.

Brookfield v Drury & Whitehead LTL 6/3/2009 [2009]

The sale of real property, including a strip of land which the original owner had intended to keep, was not capable of legal rectification in the original owner's favour on the basis that the transfer of the strip was a mistake. The property as sold clearly included the disputed strip, and the purchasers were entitled to rely upon their ignorance of the original owner's uncommunicated desire to retain the strip.

Thompson v Bee [2009] EWCA Civ 1212
The Times 3rd December 2009
2010 2 WLR 1355

Right of way by will expressed to be at "all times and for all purposes". CA adopted single transaction approach to construction to ascertain rights of beneficiaries under Will. Appellant's claim that right not limited to agricultural purposes upheld. Respondent's claim to injunction restraining use of way to access three houses upheld but court left open question whether could use way for less than three houses.
Richard was instructed on behalf of the Defendant/Appellant Mr Thompson at first instance and was led by James Thom QC on the appeal.