Picture of Emma Pinkerton

Emma Pinkerton

Partner

CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP
College Square
2 Anchor Road
Bristol
BS1 5UE
United Kingdom
CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP
College Square
2 Anchor Road
Bristol
BS1 5UE
United Kingdom
Languages English

Emma Pinkerton is a partner in our Real Estate Disputes team. She works closely with our wider Real Estate team where she provides advice based on her in depth experience of all types of property disputes in  Courts and Tribunals as well as alternative dispute resolution.

She acts for a wide range of clients but focuses on the energy sector, advising on development agreements, interpretation of deeds, option and overage provisions, rights of light, nuisance and trespassers. She also has experience of contentious planning matters including Judicial Review and applications to modify restrictive covenants.

Emma is very responsive to clients’ needs and works to build lasting relationships.

more less

Relevant experience

  • The vacant possession strategy for the development and re-development a major city centre shopping centre. Also dealing with a claim for noise disturbance and advising in relation to an extensive rights to light issue which was successfully resolved by reaching settlement with adjoining landowners.
  • Various issues in preparation of site disposal including assisting and facilitating moving and removing tenants to enable remediation works; reviewing 300 tenancies at will and advising on impact in terms of vacant possession strategy; reviewing the position at various sites to advise on rights to move and remove pipelines and associated equipment.
  • Alongside the planning team on a number of Judicial Review proceedings including challenging the granting of planning permission to ensure the continued viability of a town centre shopping area.
  • Six defendant property fund companies within the Lloyds Banking Group in a High Court claim in relation to a breach of contract and a GBP 4m counterclaim for rectification of the value of various pension funds.
  • Scottish Widows in a High Court claim for rectification of a lease and under-lease. This decision was over-turned on Appeal and is now cited as one of the leading authorities on interpretation of contracts.
more less

Education

1998 - Anthropology and Law BA, London School of Economics

2001 - LPC, College of Law, London

more less

Feed

Show only
11 January 2017
Con­sumer products and re­tail dis­putes and in­vest­ig­a­tions
12/10/2017
Ring-fen­cing: what Land­lords need to know
What is ring-fen­cing? Ring-fen­cing is a pro­cess that the largest UK banks must com­ply with in or­der to sep­ar­ate their core re­tail bank­ing from in­vest­ment bank­ing. The pur­pose of the pro­cess is to sup­port fin­an­cial sta­bil­ity by sim­pli­fy­ing the struc­ture of.
04/09/2017
Flex­ib­il­ity for Frack­ing
The Plan­ning Court has con­firmed that a pet­ro­leum ex­plor­a­tion and de­vel­op­ment li­cence ("PEDL") is cap­able of be­ing var­ied by agree­ment between the li­censee and the Sec­ret­ary of State, not­with­stand­ing the lack of an ex­press power to do so with­in the Pet­ro­leum.
20/06/2017
Galle­on­deal Lim­ited v Far­rar: Re­cov­er­ing Money and Pos­ses­sion
The Court of Ap­peal has gran­ted per­mis­sion to ap­peal in a case which will con­sider wheth­er a land­lord who has suc­cess­fully brought pos­ses­sion pro­ceed­ings against its former ten­ant is pre­ven­ted from start­ing a new claim on the same grounds to re­cov­er mesne profits.
26/05/2017
Busi­ness Rates: The valu­ation of stripped out premises
The Valu­ation Of­fice Agency (VOA) has up­dated its prac­tice note on valu­ation prin­ciples in the light of the de­cision of the Su­preme Court in New­bi­gin (Valu­ation Of­ficer) v S J & J Monk (a firm).   The amend­ments refer to Part 6: Dis­repair prac­tice note and now.
21/03/2017
Land­lord and Ten­ant - Lim­its on dam­ages for fail­ure to re­pair 
Land­lords’ dilap­id­a­tions re­cov­ery may be lim­ited to the cost of work they ac­tu­ally carry out -Car Gi­ant Ltd and an­oth­er v May­or and Bur­gesses of the Lon­don Bor­ough of Ham­mer­smith [2017] EWHC 197 (TCC) Back­ground Ham­mer­smith Bor­ough Coun­cil’s lease in­cluded.
17/03/2017
Busi­ness spe­cial­ist courts come to­geth­er un­der a new um­brella
From June of this year, the spe­cial­ist civil courts are to be known as the “Busi­ness and Prop­erty Courts of Eng­land and Wales”, the Courts and Tribunals Ju­di­ciary has an­nounced. The Busi­ness and Prop­erty Courts will bring to­geth­er all the busi­ness spe­cial­ist.
10/03/2017
Guard­i­an of the Prop­erty? The risk and re­ward of us­ing prop­erty guard­i­ans...
A re­cent de­cision in the Bris­tol County Court high­lights the risks of prop­erty guard­i­an­ship schemes for prop­erty own­ers. Guard­i­ans live in com­mer­cial prop­erty which would oth­er­wise sit un­oc­cu­pied and, through their oc­cu­pa­tion, de­ter van­dal­ism and squat­ting.
03/03/2017
Busi­ness rates: fi­nally some good news for a rate pay­er
The UK Su­preme Court has is­sued its de­cision in the ap­peal in New­bi­gin (VO) v S J & J Monk, which is likely to have a sig­ni­fic­ant pos­it­ive ef­fect on rates li­ab­il­it­ies for own­ers and de­velopers of prop­erty which is the sub­ject of re­fur­bish­ment or re­devel­op­ment.
14/12/2016
Pub­lic in­terest may trump breach of leg­al ob­lig­a­tions
A hous­ing de­vel­op­ment has been al­lowed even though it was built in breach of a re­strict­ive cov­en­ant on the land, on the con­di­tion that the de­veloper pays a sum of money in com­pens­a­tion to the party with the be­ne­fit of the re­strict­ive cov­en­ant.
12/12/2016
Asda kept on the hook by us­ing one wrong word in a de­vel­op­ment agree­ment
The case Dooba De­vel­op­ments Ltd v McLagan In­vest­ments Ltd [2016] EWHC 2944 (Ch) in­volved an at­tempt by Asda (through its sub­si­di­ary McLagan) to walk away from a con­di­tion­al de­vel­op­ment agree­ment af­fect­ing a site on the edge of Work­sop in Not­ting­ham­shire.
02/12/2016
Court con­firms cir­cum­stances in which “nor­mal meas­ure” of dam­ages...
In Quilter v Hod­son De­vel­op­ments Ltd [2016] EW­CA Civ 1125 the Claimant, Ms Al­is­on Quilter, pur­chased an apart­ment man­aged by the De­fend­ant, Hod­son De­vel­op­ments Ltd. When re­spond­ing to the Claimant’s stand­ard pre-con­tract en­quir­ies, the De­fend­ant made mis­rep­res­ent­a­tions.
09/11/2016
Pre­vi­ous valu­ation of same prop­erty by the same valu­er does not pre­clude...
The Court of Ap­peal has held that a valu­er ap­poin­ted un­der a set­tle­ment agree­ment was not pre­ven­ted from be­ing “in­de­pend­ent” for the pur­poses of that agree­ment merely be­cause he had val­ued the same prop­erty be­fore.
17/10/2016
Land­lord con­sent to as­sign: the bad may viti­ate the good
A re­cent ap­peal de­cision of the High Court con­siders the reas­on­able­ness of a land­lord’s re­fus­al to grant con­sent to an as­sign­ment. The judg­ment con­firms that where the land­lord re­lies upon mul­tiple reas­ons for with­hold­ing con­sent, one un­reas­on­able con­di­tion.
14/10/2016
Land Re­gistry privat­isa­tion plans post­poned
Gov­ern­ment plans to privat­ise the Land Re­gistry for Eng­land and Wales have been put on hold. Pro­pos­als earli­er this year had set out al­tern­at­ives to the pub­lic mod­el and meas­ures to this ef­fect were ex­pec­ted to be put be­fore Par­lia­ment in Septem­ber.
03/10/2016
Fly tip­ping may war­rant ur­gent high court ap­plic­a­tions
The ar­rival of tres­pass­ers on com­mer­cial land usu­ally res­ults in large amounts of fly tip­ping in a mat­ter of days that can cost thou­sands of pounds to clear up with little or no re­course to the tres­pass­ers.
27/09/2016
Break no­tices - a Scot­tish and Eng­lish per­spect­ive
Sum­mary A re­cent de­cision of the Scot­tish courts in Tyco Fire & In­teg­rated Solu­tions (UK) Lim­ited v Re­gent Quay De­vel­op­ment Com­pany Lim­ited [2016] sug­gests that in Scot­land at least, a cler­ic­al er­ror alone in in­clud­ing only part of the de­mised premises, will.
09/09/2016
A light touch - take care with neigh­bours rights
Ot­ter­croft Ltd – v – Scan­dia Care Ltd; Ot­ter­croft Ltd – v – Rahimi­an In this re­cent case, which should act as a re­mind­er to de­velopers not to act in a heavy handed man­ner, the Court of Ap­peal un­an­im­ously up­held an in­junc­tion awar­ded at first in­stance re­quir­ing.