Kelly Pennifer
Practice Areas:
Practice Area CVs:
Year of Call: 1994
Profile
Commercial :
Kelly is a senior and experienced junior who prior to joining Kings Chambers practised at Exchange Chambers. Kelly practices widely in the field of commercial dispute resolution and in particular in the following areas:
- sale of goods (domestic and international)
- carriage of goods (domestic & international)
- agency (including commercial agency)
- banking & finance
- credit (including consumer credit)
- insurance
- suretyship
- employment & fiduciary duties
- restraint of trade
- confidential information.
In these areas, she is frequently instructed on matters requiring urgent injunctive relief including:
- freezing injunctions
- search orders
- injunctions (including springboard injunctions) to restrain breach of confidence, fiduciary duty and restrictive covenants.
Construction :
Kelly also specialises in construction law, construction disputes (residential and commercial ranging in value from£100,000 to in excess of £1m) which forms a large proportion of her practice
Recommendations:
Commercial Dispute Resolution
" Kelly Pennifer is perceived as being "supportive, responsive and really good with clients." She brings an understanding of contractual issues to her broader commercial disputes practice."
2007 : “Kelly Pennifer is also developing an increasingly pronounced market standing, with commentators particularly highlighting her strength in drafting and injunction work.”
2008 : “Kelly Pennifer is always “quick to master the case” according to sources. Contract law is her forte and she is frequently instructed on disputes involving sale and carriage of goods, international trade and shipping.”
2009 : “[Kelly Pennifer is] “exceptionally brilliant and approachable” making her a favourite with regional solicitors.”
2010 : “Young and intelligent [Kelly Pennifer] is considered to be a“tour de force” in mercantile list, technology and construction work and injunctive relief cases, and is applauded for “taking a firm hand when appropriate”.”
Construction:
"Kelly Pennifer is developing a substantial construction practice, with solicitors describing her as "extremely capable" in this field"
Reported Cases
Cream Holdings Ltd & Ors v Banerjee& Ors[2004] UKHL 44, [2005] 1 AC 253.
I was junior counsel for the Cream group of companies. Cream applied for an interim injunction restraining the publication of confidential information obtained without permission by Banerjee, an ex-employee of Cream, and provided by her to the Liverpool Daily Post & Echo. The injunction was granted at first instance and upheld on appeal to the Court of Appeal. The issue before the House of Lords was the construction of the word “likely” in section 12(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998. It was held that its meaning was not rigid but afforded of some flexibility, generally imposing a threshold of probability (in the sense of more likely than not) but, where necessary, imposing a lower burden.
Garside v. Black Horse Ltd & Anor [2010] EWHC190 (QB) [2010] All ER (D) 98 (Mar)
I was counsel for Black Horse Ltd. Garside had acquired an Aston Martin Vanquish on hire purchase from Black Horse. Garside considered the vehicle to be of unsatisfactory quality and purported to reject it 5 months after delivery but gave notice of rejection to the dealer only, not giving Black Horse notice of rejection for a further 9 months. At the date of trial, the vehicle had not been sold, both Garside and the dealer insisting that it should be available for inspection by the trial judge. The usual issues arose in the main proceedings between Garside and Blackhorse. More interestingly, an issue arose between Black Horse and the dealer as to whether Black Horse, in its Part20 claim against the dealer, had to give credit for the value of the vehicle as at the date of effective rejection or as at the date of trial. The Judge found against Black Horse on this issue.
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v. Chandra& Anor[2011] EWCA Civ 192, [2011] All ER (D) 35.
I was junior counsel for RBS. RBS loaned a total of £12.3m to a company owned by Mr & Mrs Chandra to fund the construction of a hotel. The loans were secured, in part, by 2 personal guarantees given by the Chandras (the first limited to £700,000, the second to £1.15m). Mrs Chandra defended the claim on grounds of undue influence. The trial judge found for her in relation to the second guarantee but not the first. Mrs Chandra appealed in relation to the first guarantee, alleging, in effect, that Mr Chandra owed a fiduciary duty to give full and frank disclosure which duty he breached in failing to inform Mrs Chandra that whilst he believed £700,000 would be enough to complete the build it could not be said with certainty that it would be. The appeal was unsuccessful, the defining characteristic of a fiduciary relationship being loyalty and a fiduciary acting negligently but in good faith not acting in breach duty.
Cherfiv. G4S Security Services Ltd [2011] EqLR 825 (EAT)
I was junior counsel for G4S. Cherfi, a Muslim employee of G4S, was not permitted to leave site on Friday lunchtimes to attend communal prayers. He alleged this was unlawful discrimination. The EAT upheld the ET’s decision in favour of G4S.
Other:
Qualified mediator (ADR Group)
Member of Manchester TCC Users’ Group
NCCBA Committee Member
Associate tenant at Littleton Chambers
Published article : New Law Journal, Volume 154, 10 December 2004 on the impact of the ruling of the House of Lords in Cream Holdings Ltd on human rights and press freedom.
