Ian is vastly experienced in dealing with all aspects of Claimant personal injury litigation and his vast experience, knowledge and tenacious approach often involves him in accepting cases rejected elsewhere.

Public Liability – Highways

Ian has a wealth of experience of Claimant personal injury work and related litigation at all levels.  He has a particular interest and specialises in cases involving the Highways Act 1980 and is well known nationally as having  developed a reputation as an expert in this area of law and his ability to defeat a Highway Authority’s purported section 58 Defence. He has, for example, successfully represented the Claimant on a second appeal to the Court of Appeal in the case of Wilkinson v City of York Council. [2011] All ER (D) 162 (Jan), [2011] P.T.S.R. D39 which established that a Local Authority’s budget restrictions has no part to play in the consideration of the statutory defence under s.58 of the Highways Act 1980. He has also represented the Claimant in the second appeal to the Court of Appeal in the case of Ali v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1282 -[2010] All ER (D) 193 (Nov), [2011] P.T.S.R. 1534; [2011] 3 All E.R. 348; [2011] R.T.R. 20; [2011] P.I.Q.R. P6; [2010] N.P.C. 113, where the claimant slipped on a great deal of mud and detritus left on very dirty steps and involving the question of whether the Highway Authority was liable for breach of statutory duty under the Highways Act 1980, s 130 and or under the Tort of Public Nuisance. Ian also successfully represents Claimants in unusual and novel circumstances involving Highways and serious injuries such as the deceased and injured in the high profile matter involving an alleged ‘wind tunnel’ effect created by the erection of the tallest building in Leeds (‘Bridgewater Place’) and a lorry being lifted into the air by high winds and blown across the highway into pedestrians.

He regularly accepts and succeeds on cases rejected elsewhere by others which further enhances his national reputation for representing Claimants in this specialised area.

 R.T.A.’s, Product, Occupiers, Employers Liability & Inquests etc.

Ian also regularly, and successfully, represents Claimants in Personal Injury claims in the above areas.

His incisive analytical ability, experience and tenacity ensures he is not risk averse and ensures an extremely high level of demand for his services which, in itself, evidences his ability to succeed on cases which may otherwise appear extremely difficult.

Ian has vast experience in dealing with all aspects of abuse work and he regularly appears in the High Court and Court of Appeal. He has only listed officially ‘reported’ cases below and has greater experience of such matters in the County Court (and the High Court and Court of Appeal with ‘unreported’ cases).

The frequency with which he is involved in major ‘reported’ cases speaks for itself.

Ian has vast experience in dealing with all aspects of Chancery and Commercial work and he regularly appears in the High Court and Court of Appeal. He has only listed officially ‘reported’ cases below and has greater experience of such matters in the County Court (and the High Court and Court of Appeal with ‘unreported’ cases).

The frequency with which he is involved in major ‘reported’ cases speaks for itself.

Ian regularly represents Claimants (and Defendant drivers where the indemnity is withdrawn) where Fraud is alleged and readily does so upon a C.F.A. basis which indicates his confidence and ability in such areas. His vast experience, knowledge and tenacious approach often involves him in accepting cases rejected elsewhere.

Our specialist family property and finances team has a wealth and breadth of experience and expertise covering all aspects of the financial consequences of relationship breakdown (whether marriage, civil partnership or cohabitation).

The dedicated team cover:

• Matrimonial finance following the breakdown of a marriage or the dissolution of a civil partnership
• TOLATA claims over property and all aspects of disputes arising from unmarried cohabitation
• Financial provision for children under Schedule 1
• Claims upon death under the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependants) Act

In an emergency when assets are at risk of being disposed of, we will provide urgent advice and representation to obtain the necessary orders to prevent financial loss. Please contact our senior family clerk (Mark Williams) on 0113 228 5043.

Matrimonial Finance

Members of the team are instructed by an impressive client base in high-value cases to needs-based cases made complex by limited assets.

We have particular expertise with:

• complex business arrangements
• farms & agricultural assets
• inherited wealth & non-matrimonial property
• trusts
• assets held abroad & jurisdiction disputes
• large pension arrangements
• third parties claiming beneficial interests in matrimonial assets
• asset bases comprised of significant Personal Injury awards
• annulment of sham bankruptcies designed to defeat the other spouse’s claim

The team combine commercial acumen and a strong understanding of business and finance. Where applicable, this includes having a thorough understanding of the application of the chancery principles in the Family Court.

We advise in writing and in conferences on all aspects of matrimonial property and finance, including on the terms of marital agreements whether pre-nuptial (ante-nuptial), post-nuptial or separation agreements.

We facilitate and host private FDR’s and early neutral evaluation: the barrister of your choice to conduct the FDR, at a convenient location and on a date fixed to your availability.

Cohabitation

Disputes arising from cohabitation are often complex and require specialist counsel: we provide that expertise. The team provides advice and representation in all aspects of complex cohabitation disputes between unmarried couples but particularly concerning claims over property under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act (TOLATA). This includes drafting the pleadings pre-issue or the defendant’s response.

The team also has significant experience of advising on and obtaining financial provision for children under Schedule 1 of the Children Act.

Inheritance Act

Our team advise and represent in cases where financial provision is sought under the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependants) Act following the death of a family member. These are often complex applications where early advice pays dividends.

Ian has vast experience in dealing with all aspects of Public and Adminstrative work and he regularly appears in the High Court and Court of Appeal. He has only listed officially ‘reported’ cases and has further experience of such matters with ‘unreported’ cases.

The frequency with which he is involved in major ‘reported’ cases speaks for itself.

Ian has vast experience in dealing with all aspects of costs litigstion work and he regularly appears in the High Court and Court of Appeal. He has only listed officially ‘reported’ cases below and has greater experience of such matters in the County Court (and the High Court and Court of Appeal with ‘unreported’ cases).

The frequency with which he is involved in major ‘reported’ cases speaks for itself.

Ian has vast experience in dealing with all aspects of Inquest work and he regularly appears in the High Court and Court of Appeal. He has only listed officially ‘reported’ cases below and has greater experience of such matters in the County Court (and the High Court and Court of Appeal with ‘unreported’ cases).

The frequency with which he is involved in major ‘reported’ cases speaks for itself.

Ian has vast experience in dealing with all aspects of Property Litigation work and he regularly appears in the High Court and Court of Appeal. He has only listed officially ‘reported’ cases below and has greater experience of such matters in the County Court (and the High Court and Court of Appeal with ‘unreported’ cases).

The frequency with which he is involved in major ‘reported’ cases speaks for itself.

Ian has vast experience in dealing with all aspects of Industrial Disease work including NIHL, VWF and WRULD/RSI type claims and he regularly appears in the High Court and Court of Appeal. He has only listed officially ‘reported’ cases below and has greater experience of such matters in the County Court (and the High Court and Court of Appeal with ‘unreported’ cases).

The frequency with which he is involved in major ‘reported’ cases speaks for itself.

Chancery Bar Association ; Professional Negligence Bar Association; Personal Injury Bar Association; Public Access Bar Association

Walsh v Kirklees Borough Council [2019] All ER (D) 28 (Mar) Highways, s.41/58, Intepretation of photographs, pothole on roundabout causing cyclist to fall of and sustain limb threatening injuries.

Riyait v Dawett [2018] EWCA Civ 593, [2018] 2 WLUK 135 Fraud, fraudulent representation, Limitation periods, accrual of cause of action and whether knowledge of the Claimant’s solicitor can be imputed to a Claimant for the purposes of s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980 when the fraud upon the Claimant was concealed.

Sharp v Leeds City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 33, Court of Appeal, Civil Division                                                                                                                                   Jackson, Briggs and Irwin LJJ1 February  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                                              The Court of Appeal Civil Division held that the regime for fixed costs provided by s IIIA of CPR 45 for claims which had been started, but no longer continued, under the pre-action protocol for low value personal injury (employers' liability and public liability) applied to the costs of an application under s 52 of County Courts Act 1984 for pre-action disclosure in connection with such a claim.

Hatfield v Drax Power Station [2017] 8 WLUK 224 Five day P.I. case involving the loss of an arm by the C who could not recall precisely how it occurred due to amnesia when his vehicle collided into a crash barrier when it slid on the D’s muddy road.

West Sussex County Council v Fuller - [2015] All ER (D) 140 (Mar) In a manual handling situation (Reg 4) where the Employer did not carry out a Risk Assessment and the previous authorities held that it was for the employer to prove he reduced the risk to the lowest level practicable and not for the Employee to prove causation, the C.A. ‘clarified’ previous judgments to the effect that, contrary to the ‘understanding’ of prior judgment that was not applicable in every case and it was still for the employee to prove causation.

Mills v Farmfoods Distribution Ltd [2015] 11 WLUK 751 An appeal regarding the application of Fixed costs to pre-action disclosure.

Mirza v Dayman [2015] EWHC 1902 (QB), [2015] 4 WLUK 403 Money Transfer to abroad subject to ‘freezing injunction’ and whether it was held on Trust for the payer or whether he was merely an unsecured creditor after the receiver had, effectively, utilised all the money transfer agents funds.

Ma’har v O’Keefe [2014] EWCA] Civ 1684, [2014] 11 WLUK 727 Cost orders, Dissolution, No order for costs, Partnership accounts, account and enquiry.

Lord Chancellor v Saleem [2014] EWCA Civ 671, [2014] 4 WLUK 804 Real property, Legal advice and funding

Kingstons Solicitors v Reiss Solicitors [2014] EWCA Civ 172, [2014] 2 WLUK 37; [2014] 6 Costs LR 998 Agents, Bill of Costs, Costs, Fees, Solicitor and client costs.

Incommunities Ltd v Boyd - [2013] All ER (D) 258 (Jun) Evidence – Hearsay. The claimant landlord issued possession proceedings against the defendant tenant. The landlord sought to rely on anonymous witness statements from three local residents. The recorder admitted the statements as evidence and found that, inter alia, the tenant was guilty of anti-social behaviour. The tenant appealed against the admission of the statements. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the appeal holding that the recorder had carried out the necessary evaluation exercise in an entirely proper manner and that there was no basis upon which the court could or should interfere with the judge's careful findings. Singh and another v Akhtar (administratrix of the estate of Basharat Hussain deceased) - [2013] All ER (D) 229 (Apr) Easement – Right of way. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that a judge had been entitled to find that the claimants had established an interference with their right of way over a disputed parcel of land. The defendant had failed to adduce any evidence to support her contention that the land had been acquired by the local authority as a highway at public expense.

Stevens v Hamed - [2013] All ER (D) 318 (Jul) Jurisdiction - Egyptian National - Unjust Enrichment - Immoveable property in foreign Non-EU Jurisdiction - Common Law Exclusionary Rule - Applicability

Nutting and Anor v Khaliq and Anor - [2013] All ER (D) 58 (Jan)?? Whether a Trustee's costs incurred in recovering a Bankrupt's assets are ‘properly incurred’ and recoverable from the Bankrupts estate when the Trustees actions were ‘wholly disproportionate.’

Rashid v General Medical Council - [2012] All ER (D) 318 (Oct) Medical practitioner – Disciplinary committee – Interim suspension – Appellant doctor being suspended when facing allegations of misconduct and fraud – Appellant appealing – Whether suspension necessary, desirable or proportionate.

Akhtar v Hussain - [2012] All ER (D) 225 (Nov) Joint tenancy – Application to court for order for sale – Occupational rent – Parties co-habiting in property held as joint tenants – Claimant leaving property in 1997 – Claimant subsequently applying for order for sale – Judge finding parties each holding 50% of property – Sale being postponed until defendant's youngest child reaching age 18 – Defendant being ordered to pay occupational rent until sale – Whether judge erring in failing to make allowance for fact defendant only 50% owner when calculating rent – Whether claimant failing to discharge evidential burden in respect of figure for rent.

Stevens v Hamed - [2012] All ER (D) 78 (Jul) A forum non-conveniens and exclusionary Jurisdictional rules of the common law relating to ownership of property in Egypt and a claim for $300,000 for alleged unjust enrichment.

Naseem v Kang, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 12 May 2011; [2011] EWCA Civ 737 Civil procedure; Construction law; Contractors; Costs orders; Joint expert evidence; Misstatements; No order for costs

Salter v Wetton Chancery Division (Bankruptcy Court), 02 December 2011; [2011] EWHC 3192 (Ch); [2012] BPIR 63 Insolvency; Trusts, Bankruptcy; Transfer of assets, Burden of Proof, Trustee making Application on the basis of one large debt found to be not due and owing at a relevant time for transfer of asset, Procedural unfairness in allowing Trustee to rely upon other debts in summing up and Judgment; Inconsistent application of 'Cashflow' and 'Balance Sheet' tests for solvency.

Wilkinson v City of York Council. [2011] All ER (D) 162 (Jan), [2011] P.T.S.R. D39. A Local Authority's budget restrictions or other shortage of resources has no part to play in the consideration of the statutory defence under s.58 of the Highways Act 1980.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel and another - [2010] All ER (D) 160 (Dec) CICA were wrong to refuse the Applicant's loss of earnings claim for approximately £70,000

Hemingby Agricultural Traders Ltd v East Lindsey DC Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), 28 October 2010 - : [2010] UKUT 390 (LC); [2011] R.V.R. 85; Real property; Local government; Planning; Compensation; Compulsory purchase; Listed buildings; Valuation.

Saddique v Sadiq and another C.A. [2010] All ER (D) 28 (Mar) Whether an unconditional court order appointing A as a Receiver over B’s assets [who had disappeared and suspected the victim of murder] permitted A to sue C for the return of B’s assets. If not who could?

Ali v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1282 -[2010] All ER (D) 193 (Nov), [2011] P.T.S.R. 1534; [2011] 3 All E.R. 348; [2011] R.T.R. 20; [2011] P.I.Q.R. P6; [2010] N.P.C. 113. Highway – Maintenance – Negligence and/or statutory duty – Claimant slipping on public highway – Highway being badly maintained and obstructed – Whether highway authority liable for breach of statutory duty and/or in negligence – Highways Act 1980, s 130

Hussain v Bradford Community Housing - [2009] EWCA Civ 763; [2010] H.L.R. 16, (2001) 3 L.G.L.R. 50; [2001] A.C.D. 89; (2001) 98(20) L.S.G. 45. Landlord & Tenant; Agreement; Date of termination; Joint tenancies; Notice; Rent; Tenancies; Variation

Midgeley v Oakland Glass Ltd - [2009] All ER (D) 02 (Jul) Queen's Bench Division, Leeds District Registry 21 May 2009. An appeal concerning the application of the ‘without prejudice’ rule.

Thompson and another v Collins and another - [2009] All ER (D) 67 (Apr) Court of Appeal, Civil Division 6 April 2009. “…Lord Justice Lloyd agreed it was a “rather odd-shaped boundary” and ruled their appeal should be allowed to progress to a full Appeal Court hearing…He said: “I have to admit that, as I read these papers in preparation for this hearing, I thought it unlikely I would grant permission to appeal. But Mr. Pennock has persuaded me that there are viable grounds of appeal.”

Furmans Electrical Contractors v Elecref Ltd - [2009] All ER (D) 97 (Mar) Court of Appeal, Civil Division 10 March 2009, [2009] T.C.L.R. 6. Building contract – Subcontractors – Remuneration – Claimant charging Defendant daily rate for work – Dispute as to number of working hours forming basis of daily rate – Defendant refusing to pay outstanding invoices – Defendant submitting Claimant overpaid on previous invoices – Judge finding no agreement as to basis of daily rate – Judge finding claim for quantum meruit – Claimant appealing – Whether Claimant establishing course of conduct which could have led to contract – Whether basis on which Defendant entitled to reopen issue of paid invoices.

Beechwood Construction Ltd (Creditor) -v- Nudrat Afza (Debtor) & Stan Batty (Third Party) [2008] EWHC 2671 (ChD) (Judgment 31.10.08), Civil procedure News [White Book Service] Issue 10/2008, [2009] B.P.I.R. 7. The correct procedure for how to obtain a third party debt order in relation to a debtor who was a successful claimant but legally aided and against whom should it be obtained: the unsuccessful defendant ordered to pay the debtor or the L.S.C.?

Gopakumar v General Medical Council - [2008] All ER (D) 113 (Apr) Court of Appeal, Civil Division 9 April 2008, (2008) 101 B.M.L.R. 121. The role of a Legal Assessor before a Fitness to Practice Panel in respect of a GP was not analogous to the directions that a criminal judge would give to a jury.

Legal Services Commission v Rasool - [2008] All ER (D) 43 (Mar) Court of Appeal, Civil Division 5 March 2008, [2008] 1 W.L.R. 2711; [2008] 3 All E.R. 381; [2008] 4 Costs L.R. 529; (2008) 158 N.L.J. 414; Times, April 21, 2008. Limitation case concerning an action to recover costs under a revoked legal aid certificate.

Mehnaz Bi -v- Sabre Insurance Co Ltd [2007] All ER (D) 23 (Dec) Appeal from the County Court where the successful Appellant, who won on all issues, was only awarded 60% of her costs. Guidance given on the correct exercise of discretion in relation to the award of costs.

Azam -v- Iqbal [2007] All ER (D) 45 (Jul); (2007) ACD 88; (2008) Bus LR 168. Concerning whether money paid to a money transfer agent ("Hawallader") which was subject to a 'freezing' injunction, obtained on behalf of HMC&R, was subject to a resulting trust or whether the payer was simply an unsecured creditor.

Accent Foundation Ltd -v- Lee [2007] All ER 143 (Jun), [2008] H.L.R. 3; (2007) 104(26) L.S.G. 34; (2007) 151 S.J.L.B. 806. Whether the benefit of an injunction can be waived by one of the persons for whom it was intended to benefit.

Phipps -v- The General Medical Council, C.A., (2006) Lloyds Rep Med 345 Contrary to the previously understood position it was now incumbent upon a disciplinary panel, passing a determination upon disciplinary charges, to give adequate and sufficient reasons.

Bradford & Bingley PLC -v- Ishaq [2006] All ER (D) 129 (Dec) Appeal concerning the correct approach to mortgage identity fraud, mortgage indemnity guarantees, limitation and 'shortfalls.' Re I [2006] EWHC 2625 (Admin), [2006] 10 WLUK 324 Money Transfer to abroad subject to ‘freezing injunction’ and whether it was held on Trust for the payer or whether he was merely an unsecured creditor after the receiver had, effectively, utilised all the money transfer agents funds.

Phipps -v- The General Medical Council, H.C., [2005] All ER (D) 297 (Jul) Appeal against the disciplinary findings against a Consultant.

R (On application of Stephenson) v Stockton on Tees Borough Council, C.A. [2005] All ER (D) 364 (Jul); [2005] WLR (D) 102, (2005) Times 5 September; [2005] 2 FCR 248; [2006] LGR 135, (2005) 8 C.C.L. Rep. 517. Appeal against the refusal of the High Court to quash the decision of the Local Authority who refused to consider an exception to their policy.

Laiquat v Majid, QBD (Leeds District Registry) [2005] ALL ER (D) 231 (Jun) ; (2005) 26 EG 130 (CS); (2005) NPC 81. Appeal from the County Court, concerning the proper approach to be taken to an aerial intrusion and the issue of trespass.

Abbot v Will, Gannon Smith Ltd, CA [2005] All ER (D) 36 (Mar); 103 Con LR 92; (2005) Times, 28 April ; (2005) BLR 195; (2005) PNLR 30; (2005) CILL 2225; (2005) 10 EG 154 (CS); (2005) NPC 30. Appeal from the County Court, concerning limitation and the accrual of the cause of action in professional negligence cases.

Mortimer and another v Bailey and another, C.A. [2004] All ER (D) 436 (Oct); [2005] 1 EGLR 75; [2005] 02 EG 102 ; (2005) BLR 85. Appeal from the County Court, concerning the barring of injunctive relief in the context of delay.

R (On application of Stephenson) v Stockton on Tees Borough Council, H.C. [2004] All ER (D) 127 (Oct); [2005] 1 FCR 165, (2004) 7 C.C.L. Rep. 459. The correct approach by a Local Authority to the calculation of a disabled person's charge for care provided.

R (on the application of Gregan) and others v Hartlepool Borough Council and another, [2003] All ER (D) 258 (Dec); (2004) Times 22 January, [2004] J.P.L. 1088. Judicial review of the local planning authority's decision to permit the dismantling of redundant American Navy warships, "The Ghost Ships" in Hartlepool.

Friends of the Earth v Environment Agency and Others, QBD, Adminstrative Court, [2003] ALL ER (D) 140 (Dec) ; (2004) Env LR 31; (2004) ACD 27; (2003) NPC 153. Judicial review of the E.A.'s decision to grant a Waste Management Licence permitting the dismantling of the "Ghost Ships".

Pickering and another v McConville, C.A, [2003] ALL ER (D) 417, (2003) Times, 19 April, (2003) 100(21) L.S.G. 29; Times. Appeal from the County Court, concerning the correct approach of the Court in the face of the raising of an un-pleaded issue of illegality in a construction contract.

R -v- Local Government Ombudsman ex parte Hughes, H.C. (Admin) (2001) ACD 492. Judicial Review of the failure of the Local Government Ombudsman to adopt the correct statutory construction of sections 219 and 220 of the Highways Act 1980 ("The Advance Payments Code") and the failure of the Local Authority to obtain a deposit from a developer.

"Wilkinson lives on in Crawley" an article by Ian Pennock, recently published in the Solicitors Journal. Please follow this link for the full article.

"Boundary Disputes - the Pennock Principle", BPP Law School, Leeds, 26/04/12

LLB (Hons), 1st Class ; Awarded prizes at University by HSBC, Waterstones, Sweet & Maxwell, Cavendish, Jacksons, Hardwicke & Blackstone and Cecil M. Yuill prize for best graduating student in any field; Woolfson Scholarship from Lincoln's Inn.