Peter, a consultant solicitor with Caytons has over 20 years’ experience in consumer law. He also specialises in insurance law (particularly professional indemnity insurance matters) which has a substantial cross over into group litigation on consumer law issues.

He is able to:

• Provide advice and defence of cases for businesses facing the threat of regulatory action in relation to consumer law and in particular:
• Action taken or threatened by the Consumer and Markets Authority (“CMA”) under part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002.
• Defending claims for infringements of consumer law in alleged unfair commercial practices and unfair contract terms claims.
• He will in due course act in claims arising against businesses arising out of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill which was passed as a bill on 23 May 2024 including enforcement activity undertaken by the CMA and thereafter litigation arising through the Courts.

Peter has experience of:

• High Court and Appellate litigation (as detailed in his notable cases below) including the Supreme Court.
• Defence of businesses involved in Group Litigation.
• He has the ability to manage large disclosure exercises using appropriate litigation support software and including the ability to respond to regulatory enforcement orders.

Notable Consumer, Group Action Cases and Appellate work

Johnson v FirstRand Bank Limited, Wrench v FirstRand Bank Limited and Hopcraft v Close Brothers Appeals in the Supreme Court (Appeals heard 1 – 3 April 2025). The motor commission cases. (Supreme Court) Peter jointly led the Caytons team instructed by the National Franchised Dealers Association which successfully intervened in the Appeals and was granted permission by the Supreme Court to file written submissions and to make oral representations during the Appeals. This is one of the most important cases to have come before the court in the last decade and will consider whether motor dealerships owe customers fiduciary duties when introducing them to finance. 

Morris and ors v Williams & Co [2024] EWCA Civ 376: (Court of Appeal) Group action by some 134 investors in Northern Powerhouse Developments, a failed hotel room investment scheme, for professional negligence against its solicitors alleging failure to warn that the scheme was an unlawful Collective Investment Scheme under FSMA. An appeal in that litigation is now the leading authority on whether a group action can be commenced by a single claim form under CPR7.3.

R (Berkeley Burke SIPP Administration Ltd) v Financial Ombudsman Service, Charlton and the Financial Conduct Authority [2019 Bus LR 437] Acted on behalf of SIPP administrator in judicial review claim against FOS decision in relation to the Ombudsman’s right to impose duties on the basis of the FCA’s general Principles for Business and associated group litigation claim brought in the High Court by disappointed investors alleging mis selling of financial products against Berkeley Burke.

R (Kingston upon Hull City Council) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Newcastle City Council and Greggs plc (High Court, Admin, 2016): acted for Greggs plc, an interested party, in a judicial review of the endorsement by BIS’ Better Regulation Delivery Office (‘BRDO’) of advice given under the Primary Authority Scheme to Greggs plc, concerning provision of washroom room facilities in its outlets. 

Makdessi v Cavendish Square Holdings BV; Beavis v ParkingEye Ltd [2016] AC 1172; [2015] 3 WLR 1373 (Supreme Court and Court of Appeal) acted for the conjoined parking company in appeal to the Supreme Court (after acting in the Court of Appeal) concerning an £85 parking charge; the case is now the leading decision on penalty clauses, re-examining the scope of the common law doctrine and the approach to challenges to unfair terms in consumer contracts. Commentators on the decision have noted that “these cases provide some welcome clarification to the law in this area”, and that “it seems that where parties have negotiated a contract, on a level playing field and with the assistance of professional advisors, it will now be much harder for the party paying liquidated damages to challenge the validity of those provisions on the basis that they are a penalty.”

Grovewood Holdings plc v James Capel & Co Limited – Chancery Division 26 July 1994. (resolved before Court of Appeal) Early in his career acted for the liquidator of a company which had assigned a cause of action against a bank to a third-party funder, in which the existing law of champerty and maintenance was considered. One of the earlier cases in the 1990’s which led to the development of the litigation funding industry.

R v Independent Television Commission, ex parte Television South West [1994] 2 LRC 414 (House of Lords, Court of Appeal). As a junior lawyer was a part of this team in this judicial review brought by various ITV franchisees following the ITC auction implementing the Broadcasting Act 1990. The case went rapidly through the Courts eventually reaching the House of Lords in February 1992 which ultimately upheld the ITC’s decision. 

Investigations into clients by the CMA

CMA investigation into a high-profile ticketing issue. Represented a party who was requested to provide information to the CMA under its Enterprise Act powers. No action against Caytons’ client. 

CMA Investigation into a construction company which was alleged by the CMA to be part of a cartel involved in price rigging in the office fit out market. Investigation was discontinued against Peter’s client.

Associations

Peter has worked closely with Gough Square Chambers over a number of years (Gough Square Chambers: #1 in consumer law & consumer finance) in particular Jonathan Kirk KC who is a leading practitioner in consumer law, financial mis selling and group litigation.

He is also a contributing editor in Consumer and Trading Standards: Law And Practice (the ‘Pink Book’) (https://goughsq.co.uk/book/the-pink-book/) published by Lexis Nexis.