Chambers and ex-tenant face trial over unpaid rent

Chambers and ex-tenant face trial over unpaid rent

7 April 2026 Posted by Neil Rose

No5: Successful applications

A dispute between a leading chambers and a barrister over £71,200 of contributions that he allegedly failed to make is set to go to trial later this month.

The dispute between No5 Chambers Ltd – the management company of the Birmingham-based set – and Paul Marshall, who was a tenant between 2012 and 2016, came into the public domain with a recent ruling striking out various paragraphs from his witness statement.

Recorder Graeme Robertson in Central London County Court said that members of No5 had to pay a basic 15% of their receipts (but on a reducing sliding scale), plus £200 per month as a contribution towards communal expenses, and an additional sum if they had an office within the chambers’ premises.

It claims £71,200 from Mr Marshall in respect of unpaid invoices plus interest, and an order for an account for all payments he received in relation to which contributions were payable to chambers.

Recorder Robertson said: “The primary issue in this case appears to be a question about the legal identity of the claimant party (i.e. whether the entity to which Mr Marshall is obligated to pay his chambers’ expenses is properly represented by the claimant or the heads of chambers)

The trial is listed for 20 April and last month’s hearing concerned whether Mr Marshall’s witness statement complied with PD 57AC, as paragraph 4.3 of directions issued a year ago said the practice direction would apply as though the trial were one in the Business and Property Courts.

The judge said the statement “contained numerous paragraphs that were not, on any view, compliant with PD 57AC and the statement of best practice appended to it”.

He went on: “There was no certificate of compliance from the defendant or his legal representatives (as required by paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 of PD 57AC). Parts of the statement rehearsed the content of documents or set out a narrative derived from those documents, consisted of argument and included commentary on other evidence in the case (all contrary to paragraph 3.6 of the statement of best practice).

“The defendant accepts that certain paragraphs, some 30 of them, were non-compliant, and he subsequently agreed to remove those paragraphs and served an amended statement.

“Remarkable as it may seem, it is said that the defendant’s legal advisers simply overlooked paragraph 4.3 of Recorder Midwinter’s order. The defendant offered his apologies to the court in Mr Segal’s skeleton argument, and he has expressed his regret to the claimant.”

But No5 wanted more paragraphs excised and the judge agreed in relation to most of those in dispute.

“When I read the disputed paragraphs, it was obvious to me that some of them, at least, were non-compliant with PD 57AC on their face,” said Recorder Robertson.

“How, then, Mr Marshall and his solicitor Mr Kushner felt able to sign the statement of compliance is far from clear to me. The breaches in the paragraphs I have struck out were not minor. They were substantial.

“I do not make that criticism lightly, particularly as Mr Kushner has not given evidence, but it is important to stress – in general terms – that practitioners must exercise proper judgement over witness statements generally, and those to which PD 57AC applies in particular.”

He also acceded to No5’s application for specific disclosure of statements from bank accounts into which Mr Marshall received payments for work done while a member of the set. The barrister failed to provide them earlier as part of standard disclosure.

The recorder ordered Mr Marshall to pay 80% of the costs of the application, amounting to £8,233, and disallowed him from recovering 35% of his costs of preparing the trial witness statement should he successfully defend the claim.

He also revealed that the case has been costs budgeted to roughly £100,000 for No5 and £117,000 for Mr Marshall, who practises from Cornerstone Chambers.

Sign up to our free e-newsletter

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published. Name *

Email *

Comment *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog

8 April 2026

Client accounts: Opportunity, obligation and the risks in between

The profitability gap between well-run firms and the rest is not primarily a function of size, location or practice area – it is a function of financial management.

Read More More Blogs 7 April 2026

Motor finance – the FCA is more worried about banks than consumers

The Financial Conduct Authority’s motor finance redress scheme announced last week amounts to one of the largest ever consumer failures by the regulator.

Read More More Blogs 2 April 2026

Mazur: a symptom not a cause?

If Mazur is a symptom, what does it mean for the underlying health of our civil justice system: the ‘finest legal system in the world’?

Read More More Blogs

Upcoming Webinars

• 09/04/2026 ### Providing for pets in wills
• 14/04/2026 ### The court’s case management powers in practice

• 15/04/2026

  Placement orders, adoption and associated contact- key legal issues for 2026

  More Webinars

  Conferences

- ### Housing Condition Conference 2026

• Claims Futures Conference 2026

  Related News

• Judge: Unqualified agency advocates “risk undermining legal system”

• Solicitor develops free software to organise court bundles

• Cockerill: Costs budgeting ‘lite’ pilots set for expansion

• Litigation funder announces huge loss after cases fail

• CPS left without counsel after chambers confusion

  More Stories

  Features

• Flat roof developments: legal disputes and strategic representation

- ### Mazur – a problem 300 years in the making

- ### When the dust doesn’t settle: Enforcement in housing disrepair claims

More Features

Associate News

• ### Nearly one in eight employers does not provide sexual harassment training, as key Employment Rights Act deadline arrives
• ### 7 practical tips for planning your digital legacy
• ### HMRC property transaction reaction: “Ominous tone for the housing market”
• ### From helpdesk to Head of Product: Why the best product leaders start by listening
• ### Why transparency is the new currency in personal injury law
• ### Verisk Claims data bites: Personal injury psychological injury trends
• ### Why client onboarding still frustrates both clients and law firms More Stories ## Associates

#### SearchFlow #### Internet Erasure Ltd #### Qanooni #### InfoTrack #### Conscious Solutions #### OneAdvanced #### AxiaFunder #### Litera #### O'Connors #### Sentry Funding #### Fenchurch Legal #### tmGroup #### Verisk #### Legmark #### Document Direct #### Linetime #### National Accident Law #### Landmark Information Group #### DG Legal #### Recovery First Limited #### Clio #### Bundledocs #### OneSearch Direct #### National Accident Helpline #### Acquira Professional Services #### Express Solicitors #### R&R Solutions #### Fraser and Fraser #### Allianz Legal Protection #### CEL Solicitors #### Finders International #### Temple Legal Protection #### iCOFA #### Auto Claims Assist #### Ignite Specialty Risk #### VinciWorks #### Financial & Legal #### Miller Insurance Services LLP #### LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions #### Checkboard #### Valid8 IP #### Actionstep #### Lockton Companies LLP #### SOS Legal #### ARAG #### BigHand #### Search Acumen #### Osprey Approach #### DR Solicitors #### LexisNexis®InterAction® #### Stridon #### National Claims #### Dye & Durham #### Nexa Law #### LEAP Legal Software #### Legal intelligence from LexisNexis® #### Brabners #### Perfect Portal #### LPG #### Access Legal

Sign-up for our e‑newsletter

Get our news roundup every Friday.

Email * Sign-up here Services Directory Advertise Become an Associate