Amy Proferes

Amy regularly advises on and appears in relation to matters such as restrictive covenants, easements, applications to alter or rectify the Register, boundary disputes, and possession actions.

Recent Cases

• B5 v Vural [2026] UKFTT 12 (PC) – Acted for the applicant in an application to the Land Registry for cancellation of a unilateral notice, on the basis of implied terms in an option agreement. The FTT found that the terms should be implied, but that the applicant had not used all reasonable endeavours as required.
• Shearn v McKeown [2024] (Unreported. Winchester County Court) – Successfully defended a claim in trespass and obtained a declaration as to the true position of the common boundary between the parties’ property, on the basis of an oral boundary agreement and estoppel. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendants’ costs partially on the indemnity basis.
• Dyer v Webb [2023] EWHC 1917 (KB), [2023] EWHC 2651 (KB) – Successfully defended a pre-action injunction application seeking to prohibit the respondents from, amongst other things, objecting to the applicants’ planning applications. The respondents were awarded their costs on the indemnity basis and the application was recorded as being totally without merit.
• Radwan v Radwan – Acting for the claimant in his claim asserting beneficial ownership of a multi-million pound London property against his mother and sister, the legal owners. The claim is part of a larger dispute amongst the family regarding inherited wealth, which has linked proceedings in Saudi Arabia, Dubai, and St Vincent and the Grenadines.
• Kendall v Norton (Unreported, July 2022) – Represented the defendants in a hotly contested boundary dispute. The judgment is an interesting example of how the court may find a boundary which neither side has argued for, as well as the relevance of hedging covenants.
• Poundland v Toplain Limited (Unreported, April 2021) – Acted for a 1954 Act tenant seeking to change certain terms in the renewal lease, including introducing so-called ‘Covid clauses’.
• HT Investment 10 v Stone & Ors (QBD) – Represented 7 defendants to an interim injunction obtained by a property investor which prohibited most of the residents of a small village from posting notices or communicating with potential purchasers of adjoining land, with underlying claims in unlawful means conspiracy and conspiracy to injure. After the start of submissions at the return date hearing, the claimant agreed to discontinue all claims and to pay the defendants’ costs on the indemnity basis.
• Drummond v Bastow [2018] UKUT 8 (LC) – Obtained substantial monetary compensation for the objectors to an application for modification of a restrictive covenant, in the context of a scheme of development.