Soofi Din
- Year called:
- 1984
- Email:
- soofidin@ropewalk.co.uk
- Qualifications:
- BA (Hons), University of Manchester.
- Practice areas:
- Business and Property
Soofi Din was called to the Bar in 1984.
His practice began in London after a pupillage in The Temple and New Square, Lincoln’s Inn and a tenancy in New Square.
In 1989 he joined Ropewalk Chambers and has specialised in all areas of Chancery work focused in London, Birmingham and Leeds.
He has a special interest in Land Law, particularly relating to all aspects of Trusts and Mortgages and other securities affecting land.
Business and Property
He is regularly instructed on property matters including those involving land registration, boundaries, covenants, easements, trusts and conveyancing.
He deals with insolvency matters, both individual and corporate. He has been instructed by licensed insolvency practitioners in all areas related to asset recovery and protection.
He has considerable experience in wills and probate matters, particularly contested probate and construction.
His mortgage work has had a focus on possession, undue influence and priorities.
He has dealt with all aspects of Inheritance Act claims ranging through advising, mediations and trials.
He has an interest in partnership disputes. A recent example of this work is advising in a major multimillion pound farming partnership dispute from initial advice through lengthy negotiations involving contested valuations and related probate and Inheritance Act issues through to a very satisfactory settlement.
He deals with landlord and tenant matters, both commercial and residential. He recently advised a commercial landlord that became entangled in a tenant’s attempt to rescind a winding up order that would (had it succeeded) have involved a substantial claim against the client landlord. Contrasted with this, he has advised and conducted a public sector housing possession claim that engaged the discrimination elements of the Equality Act 2010.
Other important areas of his practice are construction claims (including arbitrations), professional fees disputes, breach of contract and quantum claims. He has advised in and conducted a multimillion dollar arbitration relating to the sale of plastic tooling and intellectual property by a German company to an American subsidiary of the client.
He has a particular interest in professional negligence claims, mainly in respect of surveyors, architects and solicitors.
Professional Membership
Chancery Bar Association.
Professional Negligence Bar Association.
Reported cases
Thompson v Foy (Lewison J) [2010] 1 P. & C.R. 16 (an undue influence contest between the Claimant and secured lender. A number of important points arose. The land registration point concerned “actual occupation” under the LRA 2002. It has been applied by Court of Appeal in Link Lending Ltd v Hussein [2010] 2 P. & C.R. DG15).
Beauchamp Pizza Ltd v Coventry City Council [2010] EWHC 926 (Ch) (the Claimant was a company which had the benefit of a premises licence to operate a night club in Coventry. The company was struck off the Register and dissolved before the CA 2006 was in force, it was subsequently restored by the new administrative restoration procedure. Coventry CC contended that the new procedure did not apply but relented on seeing Soofi Din’s Skeleton Argument. HHJ Cooke ruled that the effect of the restoration was to bring the licence back into operation, s 1028 of the Companies Act 2006 providing that 'the company shall be deemed to have continued in existence as if its name had not been struck off').
Derbyshire County Council v (1) Glen Neil Fallon (2) Tracy Jayne Fallon (2007) 25 EG 182 (CS) (on appeal the Judge decided that the Adjudicator had the power to refuse an alteration that had been won on the law and evidence because the Applicant may be refused an injunction in any action brought to prevent a trespass).
Archer Structures Ltd v Griffiths [2003] EWHC 957 (Ch); [2004] B.C.C. 156; [2004] 1 B.C.L.C. 201; [2003] B.P.I.R. 1071 (where a Defendant director's new company had a name that suggested a clear association with a liquidated company, the director could not rely on differences in get up to avoid the thrust of the Insolvency Act 1986 s.216. Also the director’s attempt to rely on an insolvency set off failed in the face of the joint and several liability imposed by s.216).
