David Sawtell

David has a busy construction law practice, encompassing all kinds of infrastructure, PFI, construction, energy and development disputes. David has especial expertise in respect of building safety, where he is an acknowledged expert on the recent Building Safety Act 2022. He has considerable experience of leading, and being led, in respect of large-scale disputes involving multiple high-rise blocks in high-profile residential developments.

He is regularly involved in large-scale, legally complex adjudications. He is often instructed in legally complicated adjudication enforcement actions.

He has a significant international arbitration practice. He is currently instructed as the senior junior (led by a KC) in respect of the delay analysis of a high-value megaproject in the Middle East.

He is also instructed in respect of commercial disputes related to construction operations, including insolvency, investment and development agreements, option agreements, and company law disputes. His instructions are typically legally and factually complicated.

Cases of note

• Waite v Kedai (FTT, 2023) – David acted for the freeholder in the first ever remediation order made in the FTT.
  Judgment
• Mistry v Wallace Estates (FTT, 2023) – David acted for the freeholder in respect of a large residential building with internal fire-stopping defects in the third ever remediation order made.
  Judgment
• Grenfell Tower Inquiry - David acted as lead counsel for a core participant in Phase 2 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.
• Battersea Project Phase 2 Development Company Ltd v QFS Scaffolding Ltd – David acted in 2022 as a sole junior in respect of the successful adjudication enforcement by QFS, and in 2024 was led by Marion Smith KC in respect of a successful response to a Part 8 claim arising out of a conclusive evidence clause in a JCT contract ([2024] EWC 591 (TCC).
  Judgment
• Major Infrastructure Project arbitration – David instructed as a led senior junior, leading a team of juniors in respect of a mega-project in the Middle East in an international arbitration under the ADCCAC Procedural Regulations of Arbitration 2013.
• Notting Hill Home Ownership v Allenbuild Ltd v Lawtech Group Ltd (ongoing) – David is instructed in respect of a large-scale, multi-party fire safety dispute, acting for a specialist sub-contractor.
• Essex integrated waste management and energy power station dispute (ongoing) – David is acting for a specialist engineering company in respect of the construction of a cutting edge waste / energy facility in a series of adjudications, acting along and as a leader leading junior counsel.
• Multi-party building safety dispute (2024) (ongoing) – David is acting in a nine-party, high-rise building safety dispute arising out of a prototype form of modular construction, acting as leading counsel leading a junior.
• Modular construction structural dispute (ongoing) – David acted as leading counsel leading a junior in a multi-million pound adjudication in respect of a prototype modular construction high-rise development.
• Tenants and leaseholders v London and Quadrant Housing Trust (ongoing) – David is acting for a large group of tenants and leaseholders in respect of two residential blocks affected by defective cladding, acting as leading counsel leading a junior.
• Naylor v Galliard [2021] EWHC 3507 (TCC) - David was led by Sian Mirchandani KC in a large-scale cladding dispute for group of over 100 claimants in respect of six buildings in Greenwich, with complicated legal issues in respect of the Defective Premises Act 1972, the Building Regulations and damages for breach of contract in residential cladding disputes.
  Judgment
• JDI Developments Ltd v Grey GR Ltd [TCC, 2022] - David acted for the claimants in a dispute in respect of an airspace development, involving a claim against the freeholder for a failure to ensure that the building had adequate fire safety features, and hence delaying practical completion.
• Conneely Drylining Ltd v United Living South Ltd [TCC, 2020] - David acted for a specialist subcontractor in respect of design liability and product compatibility in a major development.
• Infrastructure Company v Main Contractor - Counsel in a series of large-scale, multi-million pound adjudications under the NEC3 contract between major energy infrastructure company and construction company for programme level change and compensation events in respect of a national multi-site project.
• Party A v Party B [ICC arbitration] - Led by Karim Ghaly KC in respect of major international project in ICC arbitration.
• Peacock v Imagine Property Developments Ltd [2018] EWHC 1113 (TCC) - Five-day TCC trial in respect of a quantum meruit arising out of a residential development and option agreement dispute before Mr Justice Stuart-Smith.
  Judgment

David’s real property work includes mortgages / charges, orders for sale, easements, restrictive covenants, and trusts of land / beneficial interests. His landlord and tenant practice (both residential and commercial) includes possession, disrepair and dilapidations, leasehold enfranchisement, breach of covenant / forfeiture, and management and service disputes. David has particular expertise in cases involving all aspects of property development.

He frequently advises on restrictive covenants, easements, boundary disputes and overage agreements, as well as the recovery of possession from commercial tenants. He is also regularly instructed in respect of joint venture agreements, disputes where the equity in Pallant v Morgan arises, or where obligations and remedies arising from unjust enrichment or equity are live issues.

David has particular expertise in cases involving building and fire safety. His deep subject-matter knowledge (both in practice and academically) is greatly prized by his clients. He is instructed in respect of a number of complicated leasehold structures involving associated entities under the Building Safety Act 2022, where overlapping issues of leasehold obligations, the Defective Premises Act 1972, and development agreements / construction contracts arise.

In 2021, David published the second edition of ‘A Practical Guide to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954: Commercial Tenancies’. David has achieved academic recognition in land law, with his paper on ‘Injunctions, land and the cynical breach’, considering how the defendant’s state of mind influences the availability of an injunction as a remedy in land law, and whether the relevance of this factor is consistent with the proprietary nature of the claimant’s infringed rights, winning the prize for the best paper presented by a doctoral student at the Society of Legal Scholar’s Annual Conference in 2021. In May 2022, his co-authored book, ‘Contested Heritage’, was released. In 2024, he was awarded his PhD from the University of Cambridge, where he researched the interface between construction law and land law.

Cases of note

• Waite v Kedai (FTT, 2023) - David acted for the freeholder in the first ever remediation order made in the FTT Judgement. 
• Mistry v Wallace Estates (FTT, 2023) - David acted for the freeholder in respect of a large residential building with internal fire-stopping defects in the third ever remediation order made. Judgment. 
• Dispute in respect of family property (ongoing) - David conducted a two-week trial in the King's Bench Division as sole junior in respect of dispute arising out of a large number of property transactions within a family. (judgment awaited)
• Dispute over coastal easement (ongoing) - David is currently instructed in respect of ongoing proceedings arising out of a right of way that is being destroyed by coastal erosion and a related boundary dispute. 
• Dispute over agreement for sale and development of land in Buckinghamshire (ongoing) - David is currently instructed in respect of a large-scale, multi-plot dispute over the construction / development of a business park. 
• Dispute over LTA 1954 lease renewal in major Cardiff shopping centre - David is currently instructed in respect of a large scale LTA 19954 dispute over the renewal of a lease in a high profile shopping centre, acting for a national retailer. 
• Pharmaceutical / life science company v NHS Trust - David acted for the pharmaceutical company in respect of a ground (f) LTA 1954 opposed lease renewal, acting against the NHS Trust landlord. 
• Poundland v Various Freeholders - David has acted for a number of freeholders in unopposed lease renewals under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 in respect of large-scale retail parks where the tenant retailer has sought to include ‘Covid-19 clauses’ in the new lease, together with disputes over the effect of the pandemic on rent.
• Creebray Ltd v Deninson [2020] UKUT 262 (LC), [2020] All ER (D) 52 (Sep) - David acted for the objectors in an application to discharge a restrictive covenant imposing a building line at trial, notwithstanding planning permission for the proposed development of a high-value luxury dwelling.
  Judgment
• Connaught House Ltd v Harrison [County Court at Central London] - David acted for the defendant in a claim involving trespass adjacent to an 18th century building, with a dispute over the ad caelum rule, the tort of malicious falsehold and slander of title, and adverse possession. Succeeded at first instance, with the claimant ordered to pay indemnity costs, permission to appeal refused.
• Basnet v Patel [2019] UKUT 141 (LC) - David acted for the claimant in a claim involving, a disputed deed of a trust, estoppel by deed and the circumstances under which such a deed can be disputed.
  Judgment
• Pinisetty v Manikonda [2017] 5 Costs LO 565; [2017] EWHC 838 (QB) - Dispute over an oral agreement to sell commercial property to a solicitor’s partner. David successfully opposed the proprietary claim.
  Judgment
• JDI Developments Ltd v Grey GR Ltd [TCC, 2022] - David acted for the claimants in a dispute in respect of an airspace development, involving a claim against the freeholder for a failure to ensure that the building had adequate fire safety features, and hence delaying practical completion.

As part of his general commercial practice, David has extensive experience in a wide range of civil areas, arising out of construction projects, property development, PFI agreements, franchising agreements, and joint ventures.

He has experience of drafting and appearing in interim applications for injunctions, freezing injunctions, search orders, delivery-up, and disclosure.

His work regularly exposes him to complicated procedural issues such as res judicata, as well as claims involving unjust enrichment. He is also regularly involved in disputes arising out of indemnities and guarantees.

Cases of note

• NV Patel v Crossier Properties - David acted for a property developer and investor in a high-vale dispute over the interpretation of a joint venture agreement and development heard in the Chancery Division. Settled shortly ahead of trial. 
• Dispute over the sale of bioreactors at a Cambridge science park (ongoing) - David is currently retained in respect of a large-scale international dispute over the sale of bioreactors. 
• Sharn Panesar Ltd v Pistachios in the Park Ltd [2020] EWHC 194 (QB) - Trial involving deceit, rescission and misrepresentation in respect of franchise agreement; now on appeal to High Court. 
  Judgment
• PFI Co v Local Authorities [2022] - David has acted in a series of PFI adjudications arising out of insurance cost sharing arrangements, led by Paul Darling KC.
• Wang v Ye (2021) - David acted for the respondent in an unfair prejudice petition in insolvency and Companies List: successfully resisted at trial.
• Property Introducer v Development Co [2022] - David is currently advising in a number of cases in respect of claims for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment for property development introduction fees.

David is regularly instructed in respect of cases involving the alleged liability of professionals, especially where this relates to construction and property development. He has particular expertise in cases involving construction professionals, solicitors (especially in respect of conveyancing or litigation), lettings agents, valuers and insurance brokers. He is also instructed to advise in respect of architect’s and specialist sub-contractor’s professional negligence cases where there has been a failure to supervise the works or to administer the contract appropriately.

Cases of note

• Developer v Architect's firm - David is currently advising in respect of alleged architects' professional negligence in the design and supervision of a large residential development. 
• Occupiers v Architect’s Firm and Contractor - Architect’s professional negligence arising from high-value residential refurbishment.
• Conneely Drylining Ltd v United Living South Ltd [TCC, 2020] - David acted for a specialist subcontractor in respect of design liability and product compatibility in a major development, resulting in an adjudication and TCC litigation.
• Client v Solicitor - Advising in respect of a solicitor’s failure to advise in respect of marriage value in the conveyance of leasehold property.
• Clients v Firm of Solicitors [2020] - Solicitor’s professional negligence arising out of a failure to comply with limitation periods and procedural issues in defamation litigation: successfully settled.

Practising real property, commercial and construction law, David is well placed to advise in respect of private law disputes arising out of art and heritage installations. His PhD at the University of Cambridge, researched incorporation of moveable property into land as part of construction operations. He is currently advising in respect of a multi-million pound claim arising out of the construction of a prominent history and heritage centre. David is also regularly instructed by charities and by ecclesiastical bodies in respect of private law disputes arising out of property. In May 2022, his co-authored book, ‘Contested Heritage’, was released.

Cases of note

• Advising in respect of ownership of restored late-17th century tapestries in a famous country house.
• Successful application for freezing injunction in respect of construction dispute arising out of a notable 1920s Unsworth & Goulder house and grounds.
• Major Engineering Firm v Local Authority - Series of adjudications in respect of regionally renowned arts and music centre.
• Major Engineering Firm v Contractor - Advising in respect of national museum site.
• Main Contractor v Specialist Subcontractor - Advising in respect of alleged design liability for cultural regional cultural centre.

David is regularly involved in insolvency litigation arising out of both corporate and personal insolvency. In particular, he is regularly instructed in cases involving insolvency aspects of construction law, property or cross-border disputes.

Cases of note

Application for vesting order (2023) - David acted for a sub-tenant in respect of a complicated application for a vesting order arising out of the disclaimer of a leasehold interest in a large business park formerly owned by an Isle of Man incorporated entity. 

Higgins v Liquidators of Acepark Development [2022] - David is Currently representing creditor in appeal against liquidators’ decision in respect of proof of debt in construction dispute in the ICC.

JEDS Investment v various creditors [2021] - David represented creditor in application to set aside statutory demand arising from guarantees for property development for £3.5m.

Mulalley and Company Ltd v Regent Building Services Ltd [2017] EWHC 2962 (Ch) - David successfully obtained an injunction against both a company and its former director from presenting a winding-up petition against a well-known UK contractor for debts allegedly arising out of construction contracts.
Judgment

Creditors v Charitable Trustees - David advised and represented a group of trustees of a charitable trust who were served with a statutory demand for £1.6m where the Attorney General intervened. The statutory demand was successfully set aside.

Creditor v Construction Employer [ICC] - David successfully resisting winding up proceedings where a pay less notice was not served in response to an application for payment in reliance on extensive defects and incomplete work arising out of the construction of a new veterinary hospital.