Toby Boncey is experienced in all areas of commercial, residential and agricultural landlord and tenant law and real property law. Toby is also interested in other areas of the law where they overlap with property related issues, such as restitution and breach of contract claims.
In addition to frequently advising on all landlord and tenant matters, Toby has recently advised in relation to property-related issues including estoppel, constructive trusts, easements, adverse possession, land registration, public and private rights of way, the Telecommunications Code, shooting and fishing rights, mooring rights, the Pubs Code Regulations, compulsory purchase and the law relating to caravans.
Toby frequently appears in residential, commercial and real property disputes in the County Court and High Court, and deals with all manner of procedural applications. He also has appellate experience and appears regularly in the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal. He has also recently been involved in a judicial review of a decision of HM Land Registry.
Toby has recently appeared on behalf of the successful claimants in Burton & Anor v Bowdery & Ors  EWHC (208) (Ch), concerning the true construction of s.35 of the Limitation Act 1980. Toby has obtained vesting orders under s.44 of the Trustee Act 1925 in two recent cases, one concerning a vendor-purchaser constructive trust (in the High Court (Manchester)), and the other concerning a missing landlord in anticipation of a collective enfranchisement claim (in Willesden County Court).
During his pupillage, Toby was involved in various high profile disputes, including: Westbrook Dolphin Square Ltd v Friends Life Ltd  EWHC 2433 (Ch) (as Mark Sefton’s pupil) (whether SPVs under an artificial discretionary trust structure could exercise right of collective enfranchisement); Peel Land and Property (Ports No. 3) Ltd v TS Sheerness Steel Ltd  EWCA Civ 100 (as Greville Healey’s pupil) (whether a commercial tenant was entitled to remove tenants’ fixtures during the term); Loose v Lynn Shellfish Ltd  EWCA Civ 846 (as Philip Sissons’ pupil) (extent of private fishery).
- BPTC, Kaplan Law School, London
- BCL, Merton College, Oxford- Distinction
- MA Jurisprudence (Law and German Law), Worcester College, Oxford and Regensburg University- 1st class (1st in year)
- Merton College BCL Prize
- Merton Lawyers’ BCL Scholarship
- Barton Prize: Merton College
- Martin Wronker Prize: Oxford University
- Martin Wronker Tort Prize: Oxford University
- Gibbs Prize: Oxford University
- Henriques Prize: Worcester College
- Worcester College Prizes, Scholarship and Exhibition
- Called 2013: Gray’s Inn
- The Reid Senior Scholarship: Gray’s Inn
- Bedingfield Scholarship: Gray’s Inn
- From 2012-2014, Toby was a lecturer and tutor in Land and Trusts Law at St Catherine’s College, Oxford. Between 2012 and 2013 he was also a lecturer and tutor in Land Law at Trinity College, Oxford and St Hugh’s College, Oxford. He has also taught Contract Law at Worcester College, Oxford.
- Enfranchisement and Right to Manage Awards: Young Professional of the Year (Highly Commended 2018).
- VEEE Ltd v Barnard  UKUT 379 (LC). Toby Boncey appeared on behalf of the successful applicant property developer, which applied to the Upper Tribunal under s.84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 to discharge/modify restrictive covenants which would have prevented its proposed development of an end terrace corner plot. The first covenant required the approval of plans by the original developer of the estate. That covenant was discharged under ground (a), the Tribunal finding that it was obsolete since the original developer had been dissolved. The second covenant, a covenant permitting use of the plot as a dwelling house in the occupation of one family only, was modified under ground (aa) to permit the construction and use of an additional dwelling house, the Tribunal rejecting the objectors’ case that the covenant secured practical benefits to them of substantial value or advantage.
- Chehab v Cadogan Estates Ltd  UKUT 0282 (LC). Toby appeared for the respondent in this appeal concerning the appropriate treatment of comparables in a rent determination under s.14 of the Housing Act 1988.
- Marquis Court (Kingston) Ltd v Gehring & Geake (Kingston County Court 21 August 2018). Toby acted for the successful landlord, arguing that the tenants’ notices under s.42 LRHUDA 1993 were invalid, having specified a premium of “nil” (which was not the premium which the tenants proposed to pay under Chapter 2) and a term of 999 years. The tenants unsuccessfully argued that “nil” was a premium that they proposed to pay, the tenants in the block having previously been offered 999 year leases at no premium.
- Chote & Kaur v Clarise Properties Ltd, Re 240 Calshot Road (BIR/00CN/OAF/2016/0013): Toby appeared for the Applicant tenants in the FTT in Birmingham in this case which concerned how the guidance in Clarise Properties Ltd v Rees  EWCA Civ 1135 should be applied when determining the price payable under s.9(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
- Parkes v Wilkes  4 W.L.R. 123;  2 P. & C.R. 15. Toby appeared for the appellant leaseholder of a flat, who sought an order under TOLATA for the grant of a 999 year lease at a peppercorn rent from herself and the defendant as co-trustees of the freehold following a collective enfranchisement under LRHUDA 1993. Birss J rejected the respondent’s argument that the court did not have jurisdiction to make an order requiring the grant of such a lease at no premium since to do so would affect the value of the freehold interest as a trust asset, but held that the Judge had correctly exercised his discretion in refusing to require such a grant on the facts.
- Burton & Anor v Bowdery & Ors  EWHC 208 (Ch). The Claimants amended their claim against the First and Second Defendants to include an alternative claim for breach of warranty of authority against the Third Defendant conveyancing solicitor, after the expiry of the primary limitation period. Toby appeared for the successful Claimants, successfully opposing the Third Defendant’s application to set aside the Order joining him, on the basis that the claim against the him was a “claim made by way of third party proceedings” within the meaning of s35(1)(a) and (2) of the Limitation Act 1980 and accordingly his limitation defence would not be prejudiced by joinder.
- Hewitt & Gould v Barakat (Brighton County Court): Toby acted in a 4-day trial for the successful claimants who were awarded injunctive relief and damages (including negotiation based, aggravated and exemplary damages) for nuisance and trespass in respect of development work which had blocked their right of way.
- Aroma Entertainment Limited v Peer Securities Limited (Croydon County Court 30 November 2016). The parties had entered into a consent order providing for the tenant to be relieved from forfeiture on compliance with certain conditions by March 2016. Toby appeared for the successful tenant in its application of November 2016 to extend time for compliance with the order, the tenant having failed to remedy two of the items in the schedule to the order to the Court’s satisfaction by the deadline.
- Honeywell Control Systems Ltd v The Attorney General of the Duchy of Lancaster: Toby acted for the successful Claimant company in the Chancery Division of the High Court (Manchester District Registry) in this application for a vesting order under s44 Trustee Act 1925 based on a vendor-purchaser constructive trust.
- BCH v Beyene: Toby represented the successful Claimant in a trial at Willesden County Court involving rent arrears, an implied contract of bailment and alleged unlawful eviction.
- 96b High Street, Colliers Wood, London SW19 2BT (LON/00BA/OLR/2015/1162): Toby successfully argued on behalf of the Respondent that the First-Tier Tribunal had no jurisdiction under s48(1) of the 1993 Act to determine the terms of a new lease where none of the “terms of acquisition” remained in dispute. The tenant had agreed the only disputed term of acquisition, namely the premium, after making her application, then later sought to amend her application to seek exclusion of a further term from the existing lease following provision of a draft new lease, despite failing to mention her intention to exclude that term in her notice of claim.
- Eastern Quay Apartments, 25 Rayleigh Road (LON/00BB/LVT/2015/0007): Toby successfully argued that leases which did not provide for full recovery of service charge across a block of flats should be varied by grossing up the existing service charge percentages, not by recalculating the service charge proportions based on square footage.
- 10 Georgian Court (LON/00AM/OLR/2015/0712): Toby successfully resisted an attempt by a tenant in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) to use s57 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 to replace a management company which was party to a lease but which had been dissolved with a new management company.
- GRIP NOMCOs 1 and 2 Ltd v McCullagh: Toby represented the successful Claimants in a trial in Brentford County Court concerning arrears of rent, successfully defeating a counterclaim arising as a result of periodic renewal works on a block of flats.
- Uruakpa v Wright: Toby represented the Defendant in a 2-day trial about the Defendant’s occupation status in the County Court sitting at Barnet and Uxbridge. Toby successfully established that the Claimant’s agent had misrepresented the effect of the tenancy documentation signed by the Defendant.
- Toby is a contributing author of Falcon Chambers, The Electronic Communications Code and Property Law Practice and Procedure
- "A New Line of Attack?". A Masterclass in litigation under the new Electronic Communications Code. Article with Stephanie Tozer (first published in NLJ July 2018)
- “Lease or licence in the commercial context” L. & T. Review 2018, 22(4), 147-152
- "Common intention" constructive trusts arising from informal agreements to dispose of land.Toby Boncey and Francis Ng. Conv. 2017, 2, 146-157
- "Sign of Protest" - article with Anthony Tanney for Solicitors Journal, considering how landowners can prevent the creation of easements of parking over their property in light of Winterburn. September 2016
- “Who let the dog bark? When is an absentee owner and “occupier” in nuisance? (2016) 20(3) L&TR 92
- “Homeward Bound” (2016) 166 NLJ 12 (27 May 2016 edition).
- Implied terms: from "characteristically inspired discussion" to authoritative guidance (Case comment) L. & T. Review 2016, 20(1), 4-12 (with James Tipler)
- Deregulating deposits: further regulation of the protection of tenancy deposits and section 21 notices in the Deregulation Act 2015 L. & T. Review 2015, 19(3), 90-96 (available on Westlaw)
- The valuation exercise under section 28 of the Housing Act 1988 (Case Comment)
- Citation: L. & T. Review 2015, 19(1), 24-27 (available on Westlaw).
- Article 8 defences to possession claims
- Citation: I.H.L. 2014/15, 226(Dec/Jan), 34-36 (with Tricia Hemans)
- Case Comment: Re St Andrew’s (Cheam) Lawn Tennis Club Trust, Trusts & Trustees (2014) 20 (3): 287-294 (with Francis Ng). A pdf of the article is available here
- A flexible approach to s.25(1) of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995, L. & T. Review (2014) Vol.18 No.6 Pages 232-236 (available on Westlaw).
- Contributor to Westlaw Insight: ‘Underleases’,'Licensees'.
- Toby has also worked as a research assistant for Professor Ben McFarlane, working on the books The Law of Proprietary Estoppel, The Restatement Third: Restitution and Unjust Enrichment and Snell’s Equity.