“Edward is very charming, technically detailed and very much about the bigger picture.”

As well as being consistently ranked in Chambers & Partners and Legal 500, Edward is recommended as a private client junior in Who’s Who Legal’s UK Bar directory and included in the Private Client Global Excellence directory. Quotes from recent editions of the directories include:

“A future star of the Chancery Bar, Ed is highly impressive on his feet and a powerful and persuasive advocate. He is also superb with clients and has excellent judgment.”
Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2024

“Edward’s advocacy is tough and tenacious but glazed in charm. He is an excellent strategic thinker but has all the skills of a traditional chancery barrister, making him a top choice for complex trusts and estate litigation.”
Legal 500 2024

“Edward is brilliant and incredible in court.”
Chambers & Partners HNW 2023

“a very impressive advocate on his feet. He is very collaborative and clients invariably feel that they are in a safe pair of hands.”
Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2023

“Edward is a true Chancery barrister who has in-depth expertise in not just trust and probate law but the drafting of trusts and wills and the practical administration of the same. He is an invaluable source of wisdom to any private client solicitor.”
Legal 500 2023

“a dream to work with; commercial, responsive, totally unflappable and great with clients.”
Chambers & Partners HNW 2022

“Sharp-witted and highly intelligent, he adopts a considered approach which instils confidence and leaves no stone unturned in furthering his client’s objectives. He is also extremely user-friendly, accessible, approachable and willing to chat through issues when required.”
Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2022

“One of the few juniors at the Bar who is truly schooled in Chancery drafting and
advisory work. He is a delight to work with but, as a litigator, there is a steely core
beneath his obvious charm.”
Legal 500 2022

A “thoughtful and gifted advocate”. “He is also extremely user-friendly, accessible, approachable and willing to chat through issues when required.”
Chambers & Partners HNW 2021

“Always on hand to provide practical yet commercial advice in the most tricky cases whilst keeping the clients’ objectives at the forefront. On his feet he a quick thinker and excellent advocate”
Legal 500 2021

“[He] is great at things with a tax angle, succinct and to the point.” “He’s user-friendly, his response times are amazing, and you can pick up the phone and just talk things through with him – he’s a brilliant sounding board”. “His advice is always sensible, and clients like him.”
Chambers & Partners HNW 2020

A substantial part of Edward’s practice consists of challenges to the validity of wills, claims brought pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, proprietary estoppel claims and claims concerning beneficial interests in land.  He also has extensive experience in advising and acting in applications for the proper construction and the rectification of wills and applications for the removal and substitution of trustees and personal representatives.

Notable cases:

•  Provincial Equity Finance Ltd v Dines [2023] EWHC 103 (Ch): Edward represented Helen Dines, the widow of the late Graham Dines, in an inheritance dispute with her two stepchildren. After Mr Dines’ death, a company which he had left to his two children, Provincial Equity Finance Ltd, brought a claim against Mrs Dines, arguing that 12 buy-to-let properties in Bournemouth registered in Mrs Dines’ sole name were held on resulting trust for the company, and that Mrs Dines also owed it £130,000. At the conclusion of a 6-day trial, the High Court dismissed all of the company’s claims.
• Re Tucker [2021] EWHC 3485 (Ch). Edward represented the deceased’s minor daughter in her 1975 Act claim against her late father’s estate. A compromise of the daughter’s claim was approved by the Court.
• Re Nodes [2021] EWHC 1057 (Ch); [2021] WTLR 507. Edward represented Cancer Research UK in proceedings involving the construction and rectification of the will of the late Michael Nodes. Unusually, the proceedings involved contested factual evidence and culminated in a 2-day (remote) trial, at which the court rejected the evidence of the will draftsman.
• Taulbut v Davey [2018] EWHC 730 (Ch). Edward represented three of the four executors throughout these proceedings for directions as to whether a homemade manuscript letter of wishes had been incorporated into a homemade manuscript will, as to the proper construction of the two documents (by which the deceased sought to create a new charitable trust for individuals who suffer from severe facial disfigurement), and rival claims by the parties for the removal of the other as executors. The proceedings culminated in a 2-day hearing in the Chancery Division in Bristol.
• James v James [2018] EWHC 43 (Ch) and [2018] EWHC 242 (Ch) (costs). Edward was led by Penelope Reed QC in this dispute concerning the succession to a substantial farm in Dorset, which involved a proprietary estoppel claim and a challenge to the validity of a will based on lack of testamentary capacity and resulted in a 7-day trial in the Chancery Division in Bristol. Edward also dealt with consequential matters following judgment, including the validity of a Part 36 offer and the application of the Spiers v English costs principles to the probate claim, which led to a separate costs judgment ([2018] EWHC 242 (Ch)).
• Kunicki v Hayward [2016] EWHC 3199 (Ch); [2017] 4 WLR 32. Edward represented the successful claimants in this probate dispute between brother and sister regarding their father’s £1.3m estate. Following a three-day trial in the High Court, the court dismissed the brother’s challenge to the validity of the father’s will based on testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval and fraudulent calumny, and his novel claim that he and his sister had contractually agreed to share the estate equally
• Jump v Lister [2016] EWHC 2160 (Ch); [2017] WTLR 61. In this case husband and wife had made mirror wills which included a 28-day survivorship clause. They later died in circumstances which made it impossible to determine who had died first. The construction issue for the court was whether the survivorship clause applied to the gift made by the wife to her husband.  Edward represented the draftsman in the construction claim
• Fielden v Christie-Miller [2015] EWHC 2940 (Ch); [2015] WTLR 1689. Edward was led by Gilead Cooper QC in this dispute regarding the succession to a substantial estate in Oxfordshire, which raised issues of rectification of wills and of deeds of appointment, proprietary estoppel, the requirement that trustees act unanimously, the principle that trustees must not fetter their discretion and removal of trustees.
• Reading v Reading [2015] EWHC 946 (Ch); [2015] WTLR 1245. The court was asked to decide whether the word “issue” in a discretionary will trust included the testator’s stepchildren and their descendants as well as his own descendants and, if not, to rectify the will.  Edward represented the successful claimants throughout the proceedings.
• Christofides v Seddon [2014] WTLR 215. Edward represented the successful defendants throughout the proceedings and at the concluding four-day trial, at which the 1975 Act claim brought by an adult son against the estate of his late mother was dismissed.
• Webster v Ashcroft [2013] EWHC 1316 (Ch). Edward represented the claimant at the six-day High Court trial of a dispute concerning the succession to an estate in Somerset.  The litigation involved a proprietary estoppel claim and a challenge to the validity of a will based on knowledge and approval.

Edward is regularly instructed in relation to all manner of trust disputes, both on and offshore.  He has extensive experience in advising and acting in breach of trust claims, claims brought pursuant to the Variation of Trusts Act 1958, applications for the proper construction and the rectification of wills and trust instruments, applications for disclosure of trust documents, and applications for the removal and substitution of trustees.

Notable cases:

•  Provincial Equity Finance Ltd v Dines [2023] EWHC 103 (Ch): Edward represented Helen Dines, the widow of the late Graham Dines, in an inheritance dispute with her two stepchildren. After Mr Dines’ death, a company which he had left to his two children, Provincial Equity Finance Ltd, brought a claim against Mrs Dines, arguing that 12 buy-to-let properties in Bournemouth registered in Mrs Dines’ sole name were held on resulting trust for the company, and that Mrs Dines also owed it £130,000. At the conclusion of a 6-day trial, the High Court dismissed all of the company’s claims
• Taulbut v Davey [2018] EWHC 730 (Ch). Edward represented three of the four executors throughout these proceedings for directions as to whether a homemade manuscript letter of wishes had been incorporated into a homemade manuscript will, as to the proper construction of the two documents (by which the deceased sought to create a new charitable trust for individuals who suffer from severe facial disfigurement), and rival claims by the parties for the removal of the other as executors. The proceedings culminated in a 2-day hearing in the Chancery Division in Bristol.
• Public Trustee v Harrison [2018] EWHC 166 (Ch). Edward represented the Public Trustee in these proceedings for directions concerning the correct construction of a 1924 trust deed which had been varied by a court order made in 1953.
• Blades v Isaac [2016] EWHC 601 (Ch); [2016] WTLR 589. Edward represented the beneficiary in this claim against trustees for disclosure of information concerning a discretionary trust.  The decision considered the costs consequences of different types of trust litigation and analysed the interaction between inter partes costs orders and a trustee’s right to an indemnity.
• Fielden v Christie-Miller [2015] EWHC 2940 (Ch); [2015] WTLR 1689. Edward was led by Gilead Cooper QC in this dispute regarding the succession to a substantial estate in Oxfordshire, which raised issues of rectification of wills and of deeds of appointment, proprietary estoppel, the requirement that trustees act unanimously, the principle that trustees must not fetter their discretion and removal of trustees.
• Reading v Reading [2015] EWHC 946 (Ch); [2015] WTLR 1245. The court was asked to decide whether the word “issue” in a discretionary will trust included the testator’s stepchildren and their descendants as well as his own descendants and, if not, to rectify the will.  Edward represented the successful claimants throughout the proceedings.
• JF and MF v Hexagon Investments [2014] (Cayman Islands, Grand Court). Edward appeared unled in this two-day trial seeking declarations as to the beneficial ownership of share portfolios that had been transferred into the name of a company.
• Re Erskine Trust; Gregg v Pigott [2012] EWHC 732 (Ch); [2013] Ch 135; [2012] 3 WLR 913. The court was asked to decide whether two adopted nephews were included in the expression “statutory next of kin” in a 1948 trust and therefore entitled to the trust fund.  The court held that as a matter of English law they were not, but that the European Convention on Human Rights forced the court not to discriminate against them if possible and that in the circumstances they were entitled to the trust fund.  Edward represented the trustees.

Edward’s offshore practice is predominantly in the trusts arena. His experience includes advising in relation to Jersey, Guernsey and Cayman trust issues (both contentious and non), and he has appeared unled in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands.

Notable cases:

• JF and MF v Hexagon Investments [2014] (Cayman Islands, Grand Court). Edward appeared unled in this two-day trial before the Chief Justice seeking declarations as to the beneficial ownership of share portfolios that had been transferred into the name of a company

The inheritance and trust disputes Edward deals with often raise issues concerning real property, in particular proprietary estoppel claims and disputes concerning beneficial interests in land.  Edward also has experience advising and acting in disputes between cohabitants as to their respective beneficial interests in land and other claims involving the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996.

Notable cases:

•  Provincial Equity Finance Ltd v Dines [2023] EWHC 103 (Ch): Edward represented Helen Dines, the widow of the late Graham Dines, in an inheritance dispute with her two stepchildren. After Mr Dines’ death, a company which he had left to his two children, Provincial Equity Finance Ltd, brought a claim against Mrs Dines, arguing that 12 buy-to-let properties in Bournemouth registered in Mrs Dines’ sole name were held on resulting trust for the company, and that Mrs Dines also owed it £130,000. At the conclusion of a 6-day trial, the High Court dismissed all of the company’s claims.
• James v James [2018] EWHC 43 (Ch) and [2018] EWHC 242 (Ch) (costs). Edward was led by Penelope Reed QC in this dispute concerning the succession to a substantial farm in Dorset, which involved a proprietary estoppel claim and a challenge to the validity of a will based on lack of testamentary capacity and resulted in a 7-day trial in the Chancery Division in Bristol. Edward also dealt with consequential matters following judgment, including the validity of a Part 36 offer and the application of the Spiers v English costs principles to the probate claim, which led to a separate costs judgment ([2018] EWHC 242 (Ch)).
• Flanders Community Centre Ltd v Newham LBC [2016] EWHC 1089 (Ch). The dispute concerned a claim for the renewal of a business tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.  The community centre charity tenant and local authority landlord disagreed about the extent of the property to be demised and the rent to be paid under the new tenancy.  Edward represented the tenant at the two-day trial in the Central London County Court and later successfully defeated the landlord’s appeal to the High Court
• Fielden v Christie-Miller [2015] EWHC 2940 (Ch); [2015] WTLR 1689. Edward was led by Gilead Cooper QC in this dispute regarding the succession to a substantial estate in Oxfordshire, which raised issues of rectification of wills and of deeds of appointment, proprietary estoppel, the requirement that trustees act unanimously, the principle that trustees must not fetter their discretion and removal of trustees
• Webster v Ashcroft [2013] EWHC 1316 (Ch). Edward represented the claimant at the six-day High Court trial of a dispute concerning the succession to an estate in Somerset. The litigation involved a proprietary estoppel claim and a challenge to the validity of a will based on knowledge and approval
• Llewellyn v Lorey [2011] EWCA Civ 37. Led by Vivian Chapman QC, Edward represented the successful appellants both at trial and on this appeal against the finding of two prescriptive rights of way over their land and the calculation of damages for trespass. The decision confirms that an interruption in user for a period of five years will ordinarily be fatal to a claim for a prescriptive easement and that time will not run for prescription purposes when the servient tenement is tenanted unless there is some evidence that the freeholder knew of the user and acquiesced to it.  Edward addressed the Court of Appeal on one of the grounds of appeal.

Edward is frequently instructed in disputes in the Court of Protection. He has experience advising on and acting in applications concerning property and affairs, such as applications for statutory wills and gifts, and disputes concerning attorneys, deputies and incapacitated trustees. He has also represented clients in disputes concerning health and welfare, such as care and residence disputes.

Most of the inheritance and trust disputes Edward deals with raise tax issues, primarily in relation to IHT.  Edward has experience in advising, drafting and acting in relation to tax-efficient variations of trusts and estates, both out of court and pursuant to the Variation of Trusts Act 1958.

Many of the inheritance and trust disputes Edward deals with arise out of a professional negligence background or raise professional negligence issues, in particular in the context of will and trust drafting. Edward also frequently advises on claims involving negligent advice in relation to tax planning.

Edward read law at King’s College London, graduating with First Class Honours.  He then completed his BVC at the College of Law before reading for the BCL at Brasenose College, Oxford.  He is a Wigglesworth and Hardwicke scholar of Lincoln’s Inn and a recipient of the Buchanan Prize.

Chancery Bar Association

STEP

ACTAPS

British Italian Law Association

Edward frequently delivers seminars, lectures and webinars on all aspects of his practice, both through leading training providers and ad hoc at venues across the UK and abroad, including at his solicitors’ offices. He has recently spoken at conferences and events organised by CLT, MBL, the Bedfordshire Law Society, the Kent Law Society, the Chancery Bar Association, IBC and STEP, including the IBC conference in the Cayman Islands and the STEP Caribbean Conference in the Bahamas.

Recorded webinars include:

• Removing PRs: some practical issues, recorded on 13 August 2021 (with Luke Harris), available here
• Will rectification: an update, recorded on 12 February 2021, available here
• Are success fees recoverable in 1975 Act claims?, recorded on 8 June 2020 (NB before the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hirachand v Hirachand ), available here

Edward is the author of A Practical Guide to the Construction and Rectification of Wills and Trust Instruments (2nd edition), and of Covid-19 and Wills – The Essential Guide . He is one of the editors of the Wills & Trusts Law Reports and a regular contributor to Trusts & Estates. He has also written some practice notes for LexisPSL.

Other publications include:

• ‘We’ll have the bill (of costs), please’ (2023) 29 Trusts & Trustees 9
• Should I stay or should I go? Fiduciary neutrality in removal claims in England and Wales (2019) (17) Trusts Quarterly Review 23
• Will construction, non-discrimination and human rights: Re Hand (2017) (4) Private Client Business 120
• Costs in litigation involving trustees: Blades v Isaac (2016) (4) Private Client Business 159
• Ilott v Mitson: Round Five(!) (2015) (5) Private Client Business 242
• Estrangements and 1975 Act Claims (2015) (4) Private Client Business 172
• Who’s holding the strings? (2014) 19(3) Private Client Adviser 28
• Re Erskine; Gregg v Pigott [2012] EWHC 732 (Ch) (2012) 18 Trusts & Trustees 718
• The end of Re Hasting-Bass (2011) 16 Trusts & Trustees 548
• HMRC v Re Hasting-Bass: the battle begins (2010) 16 Trusts & Trustees 548-557

Click here to view Edward’s Privacy Notice.