Jonathon Rushton is a specialist Chancery barrister. Called to the Bar in 1997 his practice is firmly within the specialist spheres of property law, commercial and residential landlord and tenant law. Dealing with the contentious and non-contentious matters within these sectors Jonathon has developed a reputation for his no nonsense approach to problem solving whilst keeping a weather eye on litigation.
Jonathon lectures and writes on property matters within chambers and externally in partnership with solicitors firms and other professionals. Jonathon is also a CEDR qualified mediator.
- Administrative/Public Law
- Anti-social behaviour
- Commercial Tenancies
- Equity and Trusts
- Landlord and Tenant
- Land Registration
- Property and Commercial Litigation
- Restrictive Covenants
- Rights of way
Appointments & Memberships
- Agricultural Law Association
- Property Bar Association
- Social Housing Law Association
- Planning and Environmental Bar Association
- British Association of Sports Lawyers
- Inner Temple
Clarke v Get Training Limited  EWCA 121
Contract: The Court of Appeal held that the Respondent Company was not entitled to recover funds under a loan agreement on account of their misrepresentation, failure of consideration and lawful termination of the loan agreement.
SWI Limited v P & I Data Services Limited  EWCA Civ 663
Construction/Contract: The Court of Appeal rejected the Appellant’s arguments seeking to introduce into a fixed price contract a unit rate of payment where the contract did not make provision for such payment in circumstances where the Respondent had been requested to perform less than they had quoted for.
West v The London Borough of Newham  EWCA Civ 304
Social Housing/Right to Buy: The Court of Appeal held that there was nothing in the Housing Act 1985 to the effect that the valuation of a district valuer was conclusive as to the extent of the tenancy as the function of the district valuer was solely to determine the value of the property.
Feld v. The London Borough of Barnet  EWCA (Civ) 1307
Social Housing/Homelessness: The Court of Appeal held that there was no apparent bias where a s.202 review of an earlier original homelessness decision had been carried out by the same reviewing officer who had carried out a previous, but unconnected, review; nor was there any apparent bias - or breach of the Review Procedure Regulations - where the reviewing officer had sought the views of her superior officer on the related issue of allocations.