Alexander Bunzl

Alexander has a wide-ranging commercial practice. He defended a production company, which was sued for breach of contract, and advised clients on bringing an action against a wedding venue. He recently advised on a claim brought by one of the UK’s largest charities under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 at the High Court. He is often asked to advise on matters of company law, including in respect of fiduciary duties and piercing the corporate veil. He regularly advises on proposed claims, including in relation to restitution and misrepresentation. He was junior counsel to Jacqueline Perry KC in a High Court appeal concerning unjust enrichment and the enforceability of a contract, and the subsequent appeal before the Court of Appeal. His work encompasses partnership disputes and he recently secured a six-figure settlement in a negotiation. He is also instructed in costs disputes, having represented a pop artist in an application to set aside a default costs certificate.

Recent cases:

Glaser and Miller v Atay [2024] EWCA Civ 1111

In this second appeal, the Claimant sought to appeal the decision of Turner J who had found that the contract in a financial remedies case breached the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It was the first time the Court of Appeal was reviewing this particular statute. The Court dismissed all five grounds of appeal, finding the contract term unfair and therefore unenforceable. Alexander was junior counsel for the Defendant.

Glaser & Miller v Atay [2023] EWHC 2539 (KB)

In this appeal, the Defendant successfully argued the Claimants were not entitled to quantum meruit for work they had not undertaken. The payment term was unenforceable, running contrary to the provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Alexander was junior counsel for the Defendant.

Santander Consumer (UK) PLC v Reut [2023]

The Claimant sued the Defendant for purchasing a second-hand car in circumstances where the original buyer had not paid off the finance. Alexander, acting for the Defendant, persuaded the Court that his client was a purchaser of the motor vehicle in good faith, doing so without notice of the conditional sale agreement.

Alexander often attends court for landlord & tenant cases, both residential and commercial. This includes multi-track possession hearings and a full gamut of injunctions. He successfully appealed in a case where a judge erred in law about whether a party was entitled to remain in the property. His residential work encompasses illegal eviction, disrepair, harassment and Equality Act claims, representing landlords, tenants, local authorities and management directors. Executors have instructed him in landlord & tenant disputes arising prior to probate, combining his experience in both areas. His commercial work includes advising landlords & tenants in relation to forfeiture, grounds of opposition to a new tenancy, 1954 Act compensation and drafting s25 notices.

Alexander’s property work frequently involves cases about constructive trusts and proprietary estoppel. He has assisted with matters involving boundary disputes, party wall agreements and the overriding of easements. He has been instructed in disputes over title, including a case where the buyers did not register their title and the land passed to a third party. He recently advised more than 40 households in relation to restrictive covenants and the implications for a planning application. His work has encompassed injunctions in the High Court. He represents clients in adverse possession disputes, and the City Law Journal has published his research. He also represents parties at the Property Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal in respect of variations of leases, service charges disputes and rent repayment orders.

Recent cases:

Peabody Trust v Hamdi [2025], an appeal

The Court had already granted a possession order when an interested party applied to succeed to the tenancy. The party was a relative of the defendant and sought to be added to the proceedings, asking the Court to set aside the possession order. Alexander, acting for the Claimant/Respondent, contended that the Judge at first instance had been entitled to exercise his discretion in ruling that joinder would be undesirable. It was a discretionary succession policy and Alexander emphasised the importance of finality in possession proceedings in recent case law. The Court agreed with him and dismissed the appeal.

Ozbay v Bahcecioglu [2023], an appeal

The Claimant had been represented at first instance by someone acting under a power of attorney. Alexander, acting for the Appellant/Defendant, argued the Court had not properly considered the test for whether someone acting under a power of attorney should be able to address the Court, and it should not have been permitted. Also, the Claim Form had not set out the grounds for possession, contrary to the Civil Procedure Rules. The Appeal succeeded on both accounts.

Alexander is instructed in probate, inheritance and trust disputes. His work has included breaches of fiduciary duties by executors and trustees, as well as allegations of forgery in trust deeds and wills. This has included advising on the merits of appealing to the Supreme Court. His cases often have an international element, including a recent matter where the testator died intestate and the assets were held across different jurisdictions. He has particular experience in bringing and defending applications to replace personal representatives. Alexander regularly advises on non-contentious matters too. This has included requests under the Trustee Act 1925 for money to be paid for the advancement of beneficiaries as well as queries about the administration of trusts. His clients have included executors, beneficiaries and trustees. Alexander’s work encompasses claims brought under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA claims).

Alexander has successfully brought and defended bankruptcy petitions. This included a case in which he defended a bankruptcy petition for approximately £750,000 where his client had agreed to be personally liable for the debt. In a separate matter, the Court found there were genuine and substantial reasons to consider that his client’s debt was unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act. He frequently represents parties through the Bankruptcy Representation Scheme for the Chancery Bar Association. 

Alexander has advised clients on many aspects of insolvency law, such as setting aside statutory demands, appealing bankruptcy orders and challenging disclaimers. He has provided advice regarding the effects of bankruptcy, including the powers of a trustee in bankruptcy and the status of residential property in the bankrupt’s estate. This has included cases involving allegations of fraud. He also accepts instructions relating to corporate insolvency, which has included defending winding up proceedings for a professional rugby league club.

Sadiq & Sohn Orientteppich GmBH & Others v Talib [2025]

The debtor was a director of several companies that owed sizeable debts. In a meeting with the creditors, the debtor entered into a personal guarantee for the debts, becoming personally liable at a great disadvantage. Alexander acted for the debtor throughout the proceedings, which included the final hearing in the High Court. He established that the personal guarantee was not executed as a deed and was unenforceable for lack of consideration from the creditors. The bankruptcy petition was therefore dismissed.

Alexander also has a practice in matrimonial finance. He recently obtained judgment for a large proportion of the equity in the family home, arguing his client’s short marriage should be considered within the context of five years of cohabitation. In opposing an application to vary a final order, he successfully argued that an increase in the maintenance should be limited to inflationary adjustments. He is experienced in making applications, including for third party disclosure orders and injunctions to prevent the sale of matrimonial assets. His understanding of family matters has assisted clients where their cases coincide with proceedings in property and insolvency law. In addition to financial remedies, Alexander has ample experience of child arrangement orders as well as non-molestation and occupation injunctions.

Alexander delivers frank advice in conferences while prioritising client objectives. He has advised about the rights of grandparents to apply for contact under the Children Act and considered the application of the Hague Rules where the children attended school in another jurisdiction. He understands the importance to clients of protecting their economic interests, having advised on a case where the other side tried to include loans from family members in the asset schedule.

Alexander’s work in professional negligence litigation benefits from his experience in specialist areas of law, including matrimonial finance. More broadly, his cases have included allegations of false imprisonment, unlawful arrest and personal injury. He has represented the Chief Commissioners of the Metropolis, West Midlands Police and Devon & Cornwall Police. He is asked to advise on liability and quantum in complex cases, such as a case where the next of kin were not notified after their relative died. He has obtained strike outs with findings of no merit for vexatious claims and advised a chief commissioner who obtained a civil restraint order. Likewise, he has defended local authorities in claims brought under the Highways Act. He has rebuffed attempts to disapply QOCs and has protected his clients from allegations of fundamental dishonesty.

Recent cases:

AKS v National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Limited [2025] EWHC 126 (SCCO)

A costs dispute arose from this claim. The Claimant had been represented by a Deputy who was instructed prematurely to pay a success fee to a firm of solicitors, pursuant to a conditional fee agreement. Upon the firm of solicitors going into administration, the Court initially declined to approve the success fee that the Deputy had already paid. The Deputy applied retrospectively to obtain the Court’s approval. Alexander represented the Deputy in the Senior Courts Costs Office where the High Court agreed to award a success fee.

Alexander accepts instructions as counsel in domestic and international arbitration. He recently advised on a commercial property dispute where the agreement contained both an arbitration clause and an exclusive jurisdiction clause for the courts of England & Wales. His practice benefits from a strong foundation in UK commercial disputes, including experience in the Senior Courts. He has particular interest in multi-jurisdictional matters and values opportunities to collaborate with international teams. He is able to assist with disputes in the Middle East and Far East, as well as within Europe.

Alexander has intermediate proficiency in French and Italian.