"an incredibly safe pair of hands” "excellent with clients - they all just adore him, he exudes a lot of confidence,” "technical and well read on the law, and excellent on his feet and on paper."

Chambers UK Bar: Chancery Traditional – London 2025

“Excellent on his feet, always thoroughly prepared and a brilliant strategist. Clients love him.”

“Toby managed the client’s expectations well and instilled a sense of calm at a time of flux.”

“Toby is an exceptionally good barrister. He’s an absolute pleasure to work with, tactically excellent and tremendous with clients. He’s also a very persuasive advocate; judges listen to him.”

Legal 500: Private Wealth and Probate – 2024

‘Toby is an excellent barrister. He has technical skills in abundance and excellent presentational skills.’

Chambers High Net Worth: Chancery Traditional – London 2024

“He is excellent on his feet, always thoroughly prepared, a brilliant strategist, and clients love him.”

“Toby has managed the client’s expectations and instilled a sense of calm at a time of flux.”

“Toby is an exceptionally good barrister. He’s an absolute pleasure to work with, tactically excellent and tremendous with clients. He’s also a very persuasive advocate. Judges listen to Toby.”

Legal 500: Private Wealth and Probate – 2023

‘Toby is excellent with clients and puts them at ease with his down-to-earth nature. He is technically brilliant and never misses anything. He is always available when needed and never seems stressed or too busy to help..’

Chambers UK Bar: Chancery Traditional – London 2024

“Toby is a thoughtful and intelligent barrister who is able to quickly identify and understand the most complex issues in a case. He is an excellent communicator of his advice and his written submissions are without exception clear, concise and compelling. He is tremendously hard-working and dedicated to his client’s case. Unflappable in court, he’s always a calm head in even the most difficult circumstances.”

“An excellent advocate, who is strategic and measured in his advice.”

“Toby is an all rounder, whose advocacy is as strong as his written advice. He instantly connects with clients and puts them at ease. His dedication to his clients and attention to detail are excellent.”

Chambers High Net Worth: Chancery Traditional – London 2022

“Toby Bishop is exceptionally bright and thorough, considering all angles of the case. He thrives on pursuing the path with most strategic merit,”

“he is also incredibly approachable and responsive.”

“Toby delivers the perfect balance between written advice and advocacy. He goes beyond simply a safe pair of hands, with an element of natural humour and charisma to put any client at ease and the knowledge and experience to stand face-to-face against any opponent. Toby represents everything an instructing solicitor looks for when instructing counsel.”

Legal 500: Private Wealth and Probate – London 2021

“Clever, approachable and excellent at finding solutions for complex issues.”

Chambers High Net Worth: Chancery Traditional – London 2021

“… very, very clever and he is extremely easy to deal with. He is great with clients and comes up with practical legal solutions to complex legal issues,”

“knows what judges want, which is an immensely useful trait in a barrister.”

Legal 500: Private Wealth and Probate – 2020

‘Brilliant strategically and gets to the heart of the matter – he is great with clients and remains calm and unflappable under pressure.’

‘star of the future‘

Chambers High Net Worth: Chancery Traditional – London 2021

“an incredibly safe pair of hands” and “his written advice is always excellent.”

“He is very client-friendly, excellent with clients – they all just adore him, he exudes a lot of confidence,”

“he is incredibly technical and well read on the law, and excellent on his feet and on paper.”

• Morris v Morris [2024] EWHC 2554 (Ch) – a successful application for relief against the Forfeiture Rule following a death at a Swiss clinic. The case is significant for clarifying that travelling with the deceased will not always engage the rule (a misunderstanding caused by the judgment in Re Ninian below). William East from chambers was instructed by the representative party. Read the judgment here. 
• Gladstone v White [2023] EWHC 329 (Ch) – a dispute concerning the stately home Wotton House with claims of undue influence and proprietary estoppel. Toby was led by Penelope Reed KC, opposing counsel were Tracy Angus KC leading Rose Fetherstonhaugh. Read the judgment here. 
• Re the B Family Trust [PT-2023-BR-000098] – Toby’s trustee clients obtained declarations and directions to enable them to administer the trusts following the loss, by a former advisor, of all of the trust’s documents including the trust instrument.
• Re L, July 2022 unreported, Master Pester; and Re H, November 2022 unreported, HHJ Kramer – Toby’s clients were granted absolute relief from the consequences of the common law forfeiture rule after each had assisted their spouse with an assisted voluntary death at a Swiss clinic (respectively, the Pegasos Clinic and the Eternal Spirit Foundation).
• Re Doggett: Van Geene -v- Van Geene [PT-2022-LDS-000014] – a successful application to strike out probate and rectification claims.
• Re May [PT-2022-000095] an application to progress administration without regard to a highly suspicious later dated will.
• Re Morris; Morris v Fuirer and ors. [2021] EWHC 3566 (Ch) (judgment 2022) – Toby’s charity clients succeeded in the High Court in a rare example of a reverse summary judgment application to dismiss a probate and proprietary estoppel claim (remote hearing). Read the judgment here.
• Re Goff; Almond v Goff and ors. [2021] EWHC 1703 (Ch) – a 5 day remote High Court trial with 11 parties to construe the provisions of a successful London surveyor’s home made will. Toby was instructed by a solicitor appointed pursuant to CPR 19.7 to represent a class whose members could not easily be ascertained. Counsel for the other parties included: Tracy Angus QC, Luke Harris, Mathew Roper and Rose Fetherstonhaugh (remote trial). Read the judgment here.
• Re Whalley; The British University of Dubai v Kambiz Ebrahimi [2021] EWHC 757 (ChD) – a 5 day remote High Court probate trial during which the final witness of the trial confessed to he and the other attesting witness having applied their signatures after the testator’s death. Preceded by a series of hearings as to whether the trial would be conducted remotely. Read the judgment here.
• Re Clarke; Clarke-Sullivan v Clarke-Sullivan [2021] EWHC 4 (Ch); [2021] W.T.L.R. 109 – Toby’s client succeeded in obtaining a direction that his wife’s estate was held on a testamentary trust incorporating the terms of a trust which the couple had purported to wind up by deed during her lifetime. The judgment addresses the scope of section 48 of Administration of Justice Act 1985 and the law applicable to construction. Read the judgment here.
• Re Halim (deceased); Halim v Medsun Food Ltd (unreported, ICC Judge Mullen on 12 November 2020) – T died as the sole director and shareholder of companies incorporated using the Table A articles of association from the Companies Act 1985, leading to the paradox that no person could register the shares or appoint a new director.  Toby’s client extracted a limited grant of probate and obtained an order that the Register of Members be rectified striking out the testator’s name and inserting that of his executor. Toby’s article addressing this problem “Death of a director” appeared in the March 2021 issue of Trusts & Estates.
• Bhusate v Patel [2020] EWHC 52 (Ch); [2019] EWHC 470 (Ch); [2018] EWHC 2362 (Ch) – decisions of the Chief Master and an appeal by which claims reliant on a constructive or resulting trust or proprietary estoppel were struck out and summary judgment entered against them and the incumbent administrator was removed. The widow was then granted permission to bring a 1975 Act claim 26 years and 3 months after she had extracted a grant. It appears where the estate has not been distributed and the claim is strong, permission will now be granted irrespective of the length and cause of a claimant’s delay in commencing the claim. The Chief Master’s decision was upheld on appeal. The judgments can be found here, here  and here. 
• Re Ali; Rehman v Hamid [2019] EWHC 3692 (Ch) –a domicile and forum non-conveniens dispute. The estate consisted principally of English real estate, the testatrix had lived in England for 50 years, but died in Pakistan. Toby’s client succeeded in his application for a stay of the English probate claim, establishing the testatrix had remained domiciled in Pakistan and that the convenient forum was Pakistan, notwithstanding that it would be decided in accordance with English law. Read the judgment here.
• Re Bascoe; Barnaby v Johnson [2019] EWHC 3344 (Ch) – In a 3 day High Court trial, Toby’s client overcame challenges as to testamentary capacity; undue influence; fraud and a lack of knowledge and approval to prove his mother’s last will. The judgment includes a useful analysis of the weight to attach to hearsay evidence of attesting witnesses. Read the judgment here.
• Ninian v Findlay [2019] EWHC 297 (Ch) – A retired captain of industry suffering from an incurable degenerative condition committed suicide with the assistance of Dignitas and his wife. His wife instructed Toby and John Critchley in her successful application for relief against the forfeiture rule. Read the judgment here.
• Ramsey v Ramsey [2015] All ER (D) 32 – Toby’s client established the testatrix’ testamentary capacity and knowledge and approval of the contents of her will, notwithstanding a finding (supported by both parties’ experts) that the testatrix was suffering from moderate to severe vascular dementia.

Toby’s notable cases in this practice area include:

• Karunanandan v Nagaratnam (unreported, 6 July 2021, HHJ Parfitt) – Following a 3 day trial, Toby’s client succeeded in his claim to a declaration he was the sole beneficial owner of a London property and to recover a debt, resisting defences of fraud and non-est factum.
• Brothers v New WorldHospitality [2017] EWHC 2455 (Ch) – this decision of Roth J concerned the duties owed to the Court when applying for ex-parte injunctive relief.  In dismissing an application to restore an interim injunction Roth J offered guidance on the circumstances in which it is appropriate to apply ex-parte without notice and the discharge of the duty to give full and frank disclosure. Toby was led by John McLinden QC. Read the judgment here.
• Pembury v Panzer and Ors(unreported) – Toby successfully sought the striking out of particulars of claim on the basis that they contradicted and were inconsistent with an earlier version, and the Claim Form was struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim.  The decision was upheld on appeal.
• EBS Self Administered Pension Plan Trustees Ltd v Gungor [2016] 11 WLUK 243  – Toby acted for the successful appellant in this case which concerned very late amendments.  In allowing Toby’s client’s appeal, Newey J identified that the following were not good reasons for a recorder to have allowed an application to amend on the first morning of trial: (1) English was not D’s first language (a legally represented party relies on its advisers); (2) the case was about money (most cases are about money); (3) The generosity of the 2-day trial listing; (4) the Cs not having complained about the subject matter of the claim for some time; (5) that D’s solicitors may or may not have been negligent; (6) that D’s proposed defence might have a real prospect of success and that C might obtain a windfall if D was not permitted to amend (this will almost universally be true, if it were not the party would not seek to amend).

• Bar Vocational Course: Outstanding, 3rd in order of merit.
• Advanced International Advocacy Course, Keble, College, Oxford

• Harmsworth Scholar of Middle Temple
• Middle Temple Prize for Outstanding Achievement on the BVC

• Chancery Bar Association
• ACTAPS (the Association of Contentious Trusts and Probate Specialists)
• ConTrA (the Contentious Trusts Association)

Toby writes about and delivers lectures and seminars on many aspects of his practice.

Recently this has included:

Testamentary capacity at home and abroad – January 2022 – webinar delivered to ILM together with Dan Harris and Luke Watson of Stone King

Departing from uncontroverted expert opinion / “The people of this country have had enough of experts” – October 2021 – Trusts & Estates – an article exploring the limitations of expert evidence.

Cross Examination – tarnishing the gold standard – June 2021 – a copy of the recording is available to view by clicking here.

Death of a director – March 2021 – Trusts & Estates – an article addressing the difficulties arising upon the death of a sole director and shareholder of a company which incorporates the articles of association found in Table A of the Companies Act 1985.

Accessory liability: knowing receipt and dishonest assistance – December 2020 – a copy of the recording is available to view by clicking here.

Replacing custodians of estates and trusts – November 2020 – a copy of the recording is available to view at your convenience by clicking here. 

Insolvent Estates and Trusts – September 2020 – with Raj Arumugam – a copy of the recording is available to view at your convenience by clicking here. 

Gilding the lily: The Witness Evidence Working Group’s Recommendations – August 2020 – a copy of the recording is available to view at your convenience by clicking here.

Domicile and Jurisdictions Disputes – June 2020 – a copy of this recording is available to view at your convenience by clicking here. 

• Out of time 1975 Act claims– 5 Stone Buildings’ Trusts and Estates conference 2020.
• Time to call the Police – trusts and estates issues – ConTrA March 2020 – speaking about the Forfeiture Rule which precludes a person from taking a benefit from an unlawful killing.
• Contested Probate: Cases of Interest– at conferences held in spring 2020 in Oxford and Nottingham
• The traditional concept of domicile – Simon Gore Legal Conferences, webinar in 2019, Elderly Client Conference 2019, together with James Ward and Joseph Austin of Kingsley Napley
• Limitation periods for claims against constructive trustees – Simon Gore Legal Conferences, webinar in 2018, together with Roman Kubiak of Hugh James.

Click here to see Toby’s Privacy Notice.