Barry Stancombe provides advisory and advocacy expertise on a range of business related matters. For more details, please follow the specialist profile links.

Indicative Cases

Fenandez v Broad NLP 10/07/96 Divisional Court – Case Stated from Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court. Summons in nuisance claim held not to be defective.

National Bank of Abu Dhabi v Mohammed & Others NLP 21.03.97 CA – Appeal from deputy judge of the Chancery Division. Undue influence alleged by wife of debtor. Represented the Bank in successfully dismissing the claims/the appeal.

Emery v UCB Bank Plc 15.05.97 CA – Successful appeal against strike out order resulting in the reinstatement of the claim concerning the misconduct of a receivership of a nursing home. Instructed in CA only.

Barnes v Gilmartin Associates NLP 29.07.98 EAT – Unfair dismissal redundancy-requirement for part-time work displaced by requirement for full-time worker-what constituted work of a particular kind.

Ord v Belhaven Pubs Limited NLP 13.02.98 CA – Appeal from Judge in Chambers. Judge wrong to substitute the Defendant following the commercial re-structuring of the Belhaven group of companies. Plaintiff not entitled to lift the corporate veil so as to permit substitution.

Treadwell v Dawkins TLR/NLP 24.05.00 QBD – Company Director held personally liable for fraudulent misrepresentation as to the availability of finance for building development.

Nikitin & Ors v Richards Butler & Ors [2007] EWHC 173 (QB); Lawtel 19/2/07 - Acting for one of the successful Respondents. Applications for Norwich Pharmacal orders and pre-action disclosure were refused where proceedings could be fairly brought and pursued without further disclosure.

Briggs-Price v (1) RCPO and (2) Nicholas O'Reilly [2007] EWCA Civ 568; Lawtel 15/6/07 - Acted for the Court Appointed Receiver in an appeal by the RCPO.

He appeared for the SFO in the case of SFO v Lexi Holdings Plc. The Court of Appeal accepted the SFO's submissions that the forfeiture regime is more stringent under the Proceeds of Crime Act compared with the Criminal Justice Act. Section 69(2)(c) of POCA requires the relevant powers to be exercised without taking account of any obligation of the defendant if that obligation conflicts with the object of satisfying any confiscation that has been or may be made. See SFO v Lexi Holdings Plc (In administration) [2008] EWCA Crim 1443, [2009] 1 All ER 586.

Independent Trustee Services Ltd v GP Noble Trustees Ltd & ORS (2009) [2009] EWHC 161 (Ch); Ch D (Lewison J) 26/1/09 - Mr. Stancombe appeared for the Serious Fraud Office as an Interested Party in these proceedings. An application by a company to vary a freezing order was refused where the respondent had a strong arguable proprietary claim to monies that were held in Swiss bank accounts and that had been received by the company allegedly in breach of trust. The balance of justice lay in refusing the variations sought.

Golf Clubs and the Law

Barry Stancombe is also a former Golf Club Captain. He has acted for Golf Clubs in the South East and Midlands in a variety of claims ranging from employment cases to disciplinary proceedings. He has also been involved in libel proceedings, disciplinary proceedings, and breach of contract claims brought against Golf Clubs by members. He also provides advice to the National Golf Clubs' Advisory Association.