Jonathan Roberts
After obtaining a degree in Modern History at Oxford University, Jonathan joined the firm as an articled clerk in 1973. In 1976 he qualified as a solicitor and became a partner in 1982, and senior partner in 1989.
He has vast experience in dealing with a broad spectrum of work but now specialises in dealing with a range of business clients both in resolving disputes and property matters. Jonathan has a firm and longstanding relationship with many of his clients reflecting the care and commitment he invests in his work.
Jonathan has been included in the Legal 500 as a Recommended Lawyer for a number of years. The Legal 500 2019 remarks that he provides sensible pragmatic advice while previous editions also single out his ‘good depth of knowledge’, being ‘painstaking and accurate’, as well as ‘pleasant to deal with’, as well as having ‘a keen eye for the commerciality of a settlement'; he has ‘outstanding qualities’ which ‘include incredible commercial acumen and an ability to solve the most intractable of cases’.
Jonathan Roberts is known amongst his peers and clients as an exceptional solicitor who has been at the forefront of developments in commercial litigation for the past 30 years. In particular Jonathan led the case of Re D’Jan of London Ltd [1993], the leading authority on director’s liability, the principles of which were codified in the Companies Act 2006. Jonathan is also a Registered Lawyer under The FA Football Agents Regulations.
A selection of significant cases led by Jonathan and reported over the past 30 years include:
- Islam v Al-Sami and another [2011] EWCA Civ 32 Existence of a loan- Claimants obtaining charging order over property owned by another defendant- first defendant contending second defendant’s property- First defendant caution against registered title of second defendant’s property- Claimant’s issuing proceedings against defendants challenging existence of alleged loan and charge- Judge finding second defendant not indebted to first defendant as alleged- Judge finding loan agreement not a bona fide transaction- Whether judge erring.
- Chantry Estates (South East) Ltd v Anderson [2010] EWCA 316 Contract terms- Implied terms- Option to buy- Property developers- Sale of property-Specific performance- Summary judgment.
- Hextalls v Al-Sami [2009] EWHC 3678 (QB) Cost orders- Representation- master was wrong to make an order debarring a paying party from making representations at a costs hearing on the ground that he had failed to comply with earlier court orders.
- M&J Marine Engineering Services Co Limited v Shipshore Limited [2009] EWHC 2031 (Comm) Enforceability of contract and certainty of terms- Manufacturing agreements-Sale and purchase of goods- Distance negotiations- Whether contract existing based on negotiations and actions.
- Ofulue v Bossert [2009] 3 All ER 93 Adverse Possession- Defendant admitting owner’s title in defence by counter-claiming for tenancy- Acknowledgement of title in a document- Leading authority on without prejudice privilege- Court considered the issues of proportionality and public interest- Possession proceedings eventually stayed and struck out- Section 15 and 29 Limitation Act 1980.
- Mortgage Credit Ltd v Kalli [2007] EWCA Civ 1156 Adverse possession- Judicial decision-making- oral evidence-unfair conduct.
- Koulias v Makris [2005] EWHC 526 (Ch) Abuse of process- beneficial ownership- constructive trusts- proprietary estoppel- resulting trusts- unconscionability.
- Kyriakides v Pippas [2004] EWHC 646 (Ch) Beneficial ownership- Co-ownership and disposition of property upon death- property registered to father and daughter jointly- Resulting trusts.
- Hussain v King’s College Hospital NHS Trust [2002] EWCA 1269 Amendments- Appointments- Claims- Doctors- Hospitals- NHS trusts- Race Discrimination
- Kubiangha v Ekpenyong [2002] EWHC 1567 Beneficial interests- Matrimonial home- Transactions at an undervalue for the purposes of Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986
- Kuppusami v Kuppusami [2002] EWHC 2758 (Ch) Freedom from encumbrances- Mortgagees’ powers and duties- resulting trusts.
- Arogol Co Ltd v Rajah [2001] EWCA Civ 454 Possession orders- Protected tenancies- Applicability of Section 34(1)(b) Housing Act 1988 to the facts of the case.
- Re D’Jan of London Ltd [1993] B.C.C. 646 Winding up- Summary remedy against delinquent directors- Whether a director was negligent in signing insurance proposal- Materiality of director’s 99 per cent ownership of company-Whether director had acted honestly and reasonably and ought fairly to be excused for negligence. Section 212 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
- Armstrong v Glofield Properties Ltd [1992] P.I.Q.R. P358 Defendant serving a request for further and better Particulars of Claim- Whether the conduct on the part of the Defendant induced the Claimant to incur further costs- Estoppel- Striking out.
- Peart v Stewart [1983] 2 A.C. 109 Committal Order- Disobedience to orders restraining domestic violence- Committal for period exceeding one month- Whether order in excess of jurisdiction of county court- Section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
Jonathan Roberts' Recommendations
Jonathan Roberts 'gives sensible, pragmatic advice'; Legal 500 2019
Jonathan Roberts... ‘outstanding qualities include incredible commercial acumen and an ability to solve the most intractable of cases’ - Legal 500 2017
Ronald Fletcher Baker LLP has ‘excellent teams’ that are ‘dynamic and result-driven’. Rudi Ramdarshan is ‘a formidable litigator’ and Jonathan Roberts provides ‘strong backbone’ to the team. - Legal 500 2016
Jonathan Roberts shows ‘good depth of knowledge’ - Legal 500 2015
‘painstaking and accurate’ - Legal 500 2015
Jonathan Roberts has ‘a keen eye for the commerciality of a settlement'.- Legal 500 2014
'Excellent all round advice and service.’
'I am very grateful to Mr. Roberts for steering my charity through a difficult time for us in an extremely professional and efficient manner'
'Very much enjoy working with RFB feel we get sound commercial advice, in good time at a very fair price. Thanks.'
'I was informed of my right and appropriate questions were asked of me. Throughout I was dealt with, with sympathy, understanding and kindness and I left feeling that my confidence had been restored.'
