Andrew Noble LLB (Hons) [Manchester] FRICS, FCIArb

Contact details

T:   +44 (0) 845 299 6760
Skype: andrew.noble0860

Please read this website's Legal Notice

Construction law

High Court & International Commercial Advocacy Experience

Andrew Noble is an experienced advocate, having appeared in construction cases (interim Hearings and Trials) lasting up to 10 days duration before QBD (TCC) Judges in London, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and Newcastle-upon-Tyne (as well as before Judges of the Chancery Division) including the following. These are in addition to very many cases where Andrew has appeared, as an Advocate, before County Court (Circuit) Judges and Recorders, the breadth and depth of England and Wales, from Berwick upon Tweed to Truro:

High Court Advocacy in the Technology & Construction Court

  1. Trespass to commercial property caused by a developer including the local authority issuing dangerous structure notices: TCC Salford District Registry (“DR”) (HHJ Gilliland QC);
  2. Damage to dwellings by utility companies pipeline: TCC Salford DR;
  3. Court of Appeal: Successfully resisting an appeal from a party’s (excused) non-compliance with the terms of an Unless Order granted by HHJ Gilliland QC (TCC Salford DR) and HHJ Grenfell’s exercise of discretion excusing the non-compliance: Unanimous (3-0) Court of Appeal decision, London;
  4. A case involving the supply and installation of defectively designed and/or manufactured Fan Assorted Terminal Units: (TCC London – HHJ Hicks QC);
  5. Resisting enforcement of a contractual remedy on the basis of ‘time bar’: Forbes J Manchester DR (QBD);
  6. Claim involving an industrial estate’s defectively constructed re-enforced concrete slab: (TCC Salford DR);
  7. Dispute with developer concerning damage to the structure and fabric of a dwelling in Manchester (TCC Salford HHJ Gilliland QC);
  8. Adjudication enforcement cases:  TCC London (HHJ Thornton QC)  & Salford DR (HHJ Raynor QC);
  9. Defective roofing case: TCC Leeds DR (5 days);
  10. Defective Dwelling case: TCC Leeds DR (10 days);
  11. Hotel Bedroom Pods final account claim: (TCC Leeds DR - HHJ Langan QC);
  12. Successfully resisted an appeal to the TCC Salford DR (HHJ Gilliland QC) by the losing party in dilapidations and commercial arbitration dispute (including fraudulent misrepresentation allegations) following a successful 5 day hearing before a chartered arbitrator: successfully defended the appeal under s. 68 (2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (serious irregularity) over two days including against leading counsel;
  13. Successfully defended an appeal to the Court of Appeal (including Hale LJ) by the losing party in a defective double glazing claim from the County Court in Preston (sitting at the Moot Hall in Lancaster Castle);
  14. Drafted pleadings in a very substantial first instance case involving circa 80 Defectively designed and/or constructed dwellings in mulit-party litigation against developer, NHBC and BCS: Leeds & London TCC (Ramsay J);
  15. Successfully enforced the validity of an arbitration clause incorporated into a subcontract by reference: (TCC Liverpool DR – High Court Judge);
  16. Disturbance to adjoining property (in prime residential area) caused by a developer: TCC Manchester DR;
  17. Defective new extension: TCC Leeds DR (HHJ Langan QC);
  18. Successfully partially resisting the enforcement of an Adjudicator’s decision: TCC London (Stuart-Edwards J);
  19. Boundary and easements dispute: London .

High Court Advocacy in the Chancery Division of the High Court

Andrew is an experienced advocate, having appeared in the following Commercial Chancery, Property and Professional Liability cases (Hearings and Trials) before Judges in London, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and Newcastle-upon-Tyne. These are in addition to very many cases where Andrew has appeared as an Advocate before County Court (Circuit) Judges and Recorders, the breadth and depth of England and Wales from Berwick upon Tweed to Truro:

Commercial/Chancery/Property/ Professional Liability cases: 

(a) Right to Light Case (Leeds District Registry Before the Vice Chancellor);
(b) Contempt of Court Proceedings Manchester District Registry (HHJ Raynor QC);   
(c ) Appeal from a 1954 Act Rent Review Arbitration (Leeds District Registry (HHJ Kay QC);  
(d) Boundary Dispute (Leeds District Registry (HHJ Raeside QC);
(e ) Property Dispute (Chancery Division – London); 
(f)  Whether a deed silent as to interest nonetheless carries interest; (Manchester D.R sitting at Stafford Kay J);
(g) Construction of a Will (HHJ Hodge Manchester DR);
(h)  Dilapidation case (Newcastle DR HHJ Langan QC);
(i) Summary Judgment application Leeds £0.5 Million (Leeds DR);
(j) Defective dwelling cases conveyancing aspects (TCC London & Leeds);
(k) Interpleader proceedings (Salford DR);
(l) Family business dispute involving minority shareholders etc – Newcastle DR (HH Langan QC);
(m) Directors Disqualification proceedings - Manchester DR;
(n) Partnership/ conveyancing Dispute involving Iraqi families - Manchester DR;
(o) Re A London pub. Insolvency (London Chancery Division – Henderson J);
(p) Farmland/new development boundary dispute (Leeds DR)
(q) Minority shareholders Rights case – Leeds D.R (HHJ Langan QC);
(r ) Mortgage foreclosure case Leeds (HHJ Behrens);
(s) Commercial Landlord and Tenant case: peaceable re-entry and relief from forfeiture (Manchester DR);
(t) Defective Fiat motor vehicles (Preston District Registry: HHJ Appleton) 
(u) Electronic communications dispute - mandatory injunction proceedings (Preston DR);
(v) Professional liability of Chartered Valuation Surveyor (Milton Keynes)
(w) Insolvency proceedings involving Motor cycling sponsorship preferences and transactions at an undervalue (Preston DR);
(x) Construction Insolvency case London;
(y) Wrongful partial demolition of an (empty) commercial storage building (Preston DR)

International Commercial Arbitration - Advocacy
Case 1: Acting for substantial private Master Developer in the UAE in a DIAC Arbitration comprising three diverse DIAC arbitrators in a claim for damages brought by a disgruntled sub-developer for the lack of provision of infrastructure in breach of a master developer/sub developer land sale contract, in the wake of the 2007/8 world financial downturn.

Case 2: Acting for a private developer of a high rise mixed development in Dubai Marina in a claim brought by the Main Contractor for damages for breaches of contract (FIDIC red book 1999), following acceptance of the developer’s alleged repudiatory breach of contract for allegedly micromanaging the Main Contractor.

Case 3: Acting for a substantial private developer of a low rise development in the UAE, in a claim brought by the Owner against the Main Contractor, for damages for breaches of contract (FIDIC red book 1999), following acceptance by the Owner, of alleged repudiatory breaches of contract by the Main Contractor, relating to the abject lack of performance and impecuniosity of the Main Contractor.

Vat & Excise Cases – Advocacy 
As a successful applicant to HM Government to become Treasury Counsel, Andrew remained on the panel for approximately 8 years and was instructed by The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, in a number of interesting cases, in both the VAT Tribunal and the First Tier Tribunal concerning vat and excise (including in one case successfully overturning a London First Tier Tribunal decision by an esteemed panel of specialist VAT Judges, sitting in the North of England), which cases are reported as follows:

Case 1: First-tier Tribunal (Tax) Transcripts/0-499/TC00347: HJB [2010] UKFTT 33 (TC)
Value Added Tax - Partial Exemption - Input tax recovered on purchase of land and buildings which were used for making of taxable and exempt supplies - did the attribution of input tax under the standard method reflect the use to which the land and buildings were put - No - did the standard method over-ride apply - Yes - did a method of attribution based upon site area provide a fair and reasonable proxy for use - Yes - Appeal dismissed

Case 2: First-tier Tribunal (Tax)….0-499/TC00166: Re [PP, RTK, EKK] :  [2009] UKFTT 216 (TC)
FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL TAX :  Decision Number TC00166
VAT - assessment - penalty (S 60 VAT Act) - appeals dismissed.
‘Effectively, the respondents' case is that this aspect of the evidence confirms that the appellants were operating a deliberate system of under-declaration and that they made an error in the operation of that system which has demonstrated beyond doubt that it existed’ with which the Tribunal agreed..

Case 3: VAT Decisions….. 20000-20499/20054: Re [MC]
VAT -- Assessments -- best judgment -- no appearance by Appellant -- assessment made to correct output tax declared having regard to sales invoices left out of account, discrepancies in gross takings and excessive input tax claims -- assessment found to be in order -- appeal dismissed with costs summarily assessed. [2007] Lexis Citation 582

Case 4: VAT Decisions…. 19500-19999/19882: Re [KM]
VAT - Input Tax - cars - BMW X5 Diesel Sport purchased by proprietor of post offices and newsagents - no valid VAT invoice produced - input tax sought to be recovered on basis that vehicle acquired exclusively for business use - vehicle found to have been made available for private use - appeal against refusal to allow input tax claim dismissed
[2006] Lexis Citation 940

Case 5: VAT Decisions….19500-19999/19793:Re [JW]
VAT- Zero-Rating - Hot food - pasties baked in oven - some placed in a heated cabinet others placed in wicker baskets and on trays - whether the pasties destined for the heated cabinet were heated for the purpose of enabling them to be consumed hot - satisfied on the evidence that the Appellant's predominant purpose was to heat them to be consumed hot - Appeal dismissed - Note 3(b) Item 1Group 1 Schedule 8 VAT Act 1994. [2006] Lexis Citation 864
Case 6: VAT Decisions….19500-19999/19642: Re …. HFI
VAT -- Takeaway -- assessment of tax on takings alleged suppressed following test eats, internal observations and external observations of appellants' premises -- held assessments to best judgment -- appeal dismissed VAT -- civil evasive penalty -- penalty instigated by 10 per cent for appellants co-operation in determination of the amount of tax penalty confirmed in mitigated amount -- appeal dismissed [2006] Lexis Citation 723

designed and built by In Form Design Services