'Widely regarded as one of the foremost sets in this area'
Toby is a Chancery practitioner specialising in succession and trust disputes including contentious probate, 1975 Act claims, the removal of personal representatives, the administration of estates and trusts, proprietary estoppel, constructive, resulting and express trusts and issues of domicile.
Before coming to the bar Toby was a cabinetmaker. When not working he will be skiing, running, or making furniture in his workshop.
Chambers and Partners High Net Worth 2019, Chancery: Traditional
Widely regarded as one of the foremost sets in this area
About Toby Bishop
Toby’s notable cases in this practice area include:
- Bhusate v Patel  EWHC 470 (Ch) – this was an application under s.4 of the 1975 Act brought 26 years and 3 months after the applicant extracted letters of administration. Toby was led by Richard Wilson QC.
- Ninian v Findlay  EWHC 297 (Ch) – A retired captain of industry suffering from an incurable degenerative condition committed suicide with the assistance of Dignitas and his wife. His wife instructed Toby and John Critchley in her successful application for relief against the forfeiture rule.
- Bhusate v Patel and others  EWHC 2362 (Ch) – this was an application to strike out particulars of claim. The case offers guidance from the Chief Master on four issues: (1) whether the inferred and imputed common intention constructive trust analysis (Jones v Kernott) extends beyond the domestic consumer context into an intestacy; (2) the limitation period which applies to a spouse’s claim to a statutory legacy and capitalised life interest; and (3) the way in which the court approaches a strike out and summary judgment application in Part 8 proceedings; and (4) the extent to which a party may plead incompatible cases in the alternative. Toby was led by Richard Wilson QC.
- RG v SG (unreported) – this case concerned financial abuse of a vulnerable adult. Toby was instructed by a professional deputy who had been appointed by the Court of Protection and authorised to institute proceedings to reconstitute P’s estate. Toby’s client obtained a freezing injunction and disclosure orders together with non-party disclosure orders. Toby’s client then succeeded in a summary judgement application obtaining a declaration and directions which restored that which remained of P’s estate.
- Ramsey v Ramsey  All ER (D) 32 – Toby’s client established the testatrix’ testamentary capacity and knowledge and approval of the contents of her will, notwithstanding a finding (supported by both parties’ experts) that the testatrix was suffering from moderate to severe vascular dementia.
Toby’s notable cases in this practice area include:
- Brothers v New World (unreported) – this decision of Roth J concerned the duties owed to the Court when applying for ex-parte injunctive relief. In dismissing an application to restore an interim injunction Roth J offered guidance on the circumstances in which it is appropriate to apply ex-parte without notice and the discharge of the duty to give full and frank disclosure. Toby was led by John McLinden QC.
- Pembury v Panzer and Ors (unreported) – Toby successfully sought the striking out of particulars of claim on the basis that they contradicted and were inconsistent with an earlier version, and the Claim Form was struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim. The decision was upheld on appeal.
- EBS v Gungor (unreported) – Toby acted for the successful appellant in this case which concerned very late amendments. In allowing Toby’s client’s appeal, Newey J identified that the following were not good reasons for a recorder to have allowed an application to amend on the first morning of trial: (1) English was not D’s first language (a legally represented party relies on its advisers); (2) the case was about money (most cases are about money); (3) The generosity of the 2-day trial listing; (4) the Cs not having complained about the subject matter of the claim for some time; (5) that D’s solicitors may or may not have been negligent; (6) that D’s proposed defence might have a real prospect of success and that C might obtain a windfall if D was not permitted to amend (this will almost universally be true, if it were not the party would not seek to amend).
- Bar Vocational Course: Outstanding, 3rd in order of merit.
- Advanced International Advocacy Course, Keble, College, Oxford
- Harmsworth Scholar of Middle Temple
- Middle Temple Prize for Outstanding Achievement on the BVC
- Chancery Bar Association
- ACTAPS (the Association of Contentious Trusts and Probate Specialists)
- ConTrA (the Contentious Trusts Association)
Toby writes about and delivers lectures and seminars on many aspects of his practice.
Recently this has included:
- The traditional concept of domicile – Simon Gore Legal Conferences, webinar in 2019, Elderly Client Conference 2019, together with James Ward and Joseph Austin of Kingsley Napley
- Limitation periods for claims against constructive trustees – Simon Gore Legal Conferences, webinar in 2018, together with Roman Kubiak of Hugh James.