Winston specialises in property, commercial and insolvency litigation. He provides advice, drafting and advocacy to clients across these specialisms. He has appeared as sole counsel at all levels up to and including the Supreme Court.
Winston appeared for the successful Respondent RTM company in the Supreme Court in A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Co Ltd [2024] UKSC 27; [2024] 3 W.L.R. 601, which is likely to prove an important authority on statutory interpretation and failures to comply with statutory notice procedures. The Supreme Court delivered judgment on 16 August 2024. In doing so, it rejected the Appellant’s challenge to the Court of Appeal decision in Elim Court RTM Co Ltd v Avon Freeholds Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 89, in which Winston appeared for the successful party. Winston regularly appears in the High Court, the County Court, the Upper Tribunal and the First-tier Tribunal in petitions, applications and trials.
Please click on a specialism link below for more details of his experience in the relevant practice area.
Winston is valued by his clients for his comprehensive advice and thorough preparation for court appearances. He has provided insolvency training to internal lawyers at the Bar Standards Board. He has provided lectures on various topics to solicitors, corporate lay clients and the judiciary. He edits the Tenant arrears and bankruptcy section of the RICS isurv website.
Winston accepts direct instructions on a public access basis.
He was appointed a Deputy District Judge on the South Eastern Circuit in May 2020.
His reported cases include:
- A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Co Ltd [2024] UKSC 27; [2024] 3 W.L.R. 601: the Supreme Court considered the proper approach for ascertaining Parliament’s intention as to the consequences of failing to comply with the right to manage legislation and upheld the Upper Tribunal’s decision by way of a leapfrog appeal.
- A1 Properties (Sunderland) Ltd v Tudor Studios RTM Co Ltd [2023] UKUT 27 (LC); [2023] L. & T.R. 11: following Elim Court v Avon Freeholds [2017] EWCA Civ 89, the Upper Tribunal considered that an RTM company’s failure to serve a claim notice on an intermediate landlord with no management responsibilities did not invalidate its claim, whether or not the failure was deliberate. The Supreme Court upheld the Upper Tribunal’s decision, although for reasons different to the decision in Elim Court.
- Sturgiss v Boddy [2022] L. & T.R. 12: tenancy deposit penalty claim under s. 214 of the Housing Act 2004 available to tenants who paid deposit to outgoing tenants rather than direct to landlord.
- Yasin v Whitmore Law Solicitors [2021] EWHC B30 (Costs); [2021] Costs LR 1219: Supreme Court Costs Office held that a client could request detailed assessment of a solicitor’s gross sum bill under s. 64(3) of the Solicitors Act 1964 more than 12 months had passed since delivery of the bill and no special circumstances existed to justify assessment under s. 70(2)-(3).
- Q Studios (Stoke) RTM Co Ltd v Premier Grounds Rent No. 6 Ltd [2020] UKUT 197 (LC); [2020] H.L.R. 44: Upper Tribunal considered what constitutes a flat for the purposes of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, s. 112(1), and when premises are occupied for residential purposes within meaning of 2002 Act, Sch. 6.
- Elim Court RTM Co Ltd v Avon Freeholds Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 89; [2018] Q.B. 571: Court of Appeal considered the correct approach to non-compliance with statutory notice provisions in context of notices seeking the right to manage.
Feedback
‘Thank you for your help in this multi track trial. The outcome was an unconditional victory, and the clients were very impressed with your performance. As they put it: ‘we believe you all could not have fought harder for us and we certainly couldn’t have wanted for any more. Winston was outstanding. He ran rings around the opposition’: John Gordon, Partner, Wilson Browne Solicitors
‘I recently instructed Winston in a complex property damage and boundary case. He provided invaluable advice throughout the process; in particular, on preparation of evidence and settlement offers. His most important contribution was his advocacy at trial. Winston was a highly effective advocate with a good understanding of the law and the complex factual background. He was able to use his knowledge deftly in cross-examination, including of an expert witness. We were able to achieve a great outcome for the client and an indemnity based costs award’: Toby Walker, Head of Dispute Resolution, Hedges Law
Further information
Qualifications
- 2005 Called to the Bar (Middle Temple)
- 2004-2005 Bar Vocational Course (Very Competent)
- 1997-2000 Balliol College, University of Oxford, MA (Hons) in Jurisprudence
Memberships
- COMBAR
- Chancery Bar Association
- R3 Association of Business Recovery Professionals
Background
Before joining the Bar, Winston worked in the Commercial Litigation Department of Norton Rose and in the Insurance/Reinsurance Department of CMS Cameron McKenna.
