Skip to content
Follow us on Twitter

Robert Salis

Year of call: 1999

VAT No: 769869048 | BSB Registration Click Here

Email: Send Email | Download full CV

Robert Salis has been a member of 4 King’s Bench Walk since 2009, and practises in the areas of property and chancery law, criminal law and in areas where there is a cross-over between these two areas of law, such as civil and criminal fraud.

Robert receives regular instructions to appear in the High Court and in the County Court in all types of land and trust dispute.  These instructions have covered all aspects of the relevant cases, from providing initial advice in relation to proposed claims and defences to claims and interim injunctions and applications to representation at trial and on appeal.


  • applications under Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996;
  • claims involving allegations of undue influence;
  • civil fraud claims;
  • mortgage disputes;
  • disputes involving the application of the Land Registration Act 2002 and the Land Registration Rules 2003;
  • boundary disputes and disputes over easements, covenants, boundaries and rights of way;
  • business tenancies;
  • claims arising out of residential leases, including leasehold enfranchisement disputes, service charge disputes and leasehold forfeiture applications; housing disputes (including public sector tenancy disputes and disputes over homelessness decisions);
  • construction disputes; and
  • professional negligence claims arising out of property disputes.


  • contentious probate;
  • partnership, LLP and company disputes;
  • disputes involving trusts and charities; and
  • insolvency cases.

Recent cases include Golstein v Bishop, which is the leading case examining how a partnership in which the partners have fallen out with each other can be terminated. The first instance judgment is reported at [2014] Ch 131 and the report of the appeal appears at [2014] Ch 455.  The case is also of significance in relation to the circumstances under which challenges to Individual Voluntary Arrangements can be made, and as to the exercise of the Court’s discretion in determining the appropriate remedy when a challenge has been upheld, with extensive guidance set out in the cases of Re Bishop, Golstein v Bishop [2016] EWHC 2187 (Ch) and [2016] EWHC 2804(Ch).


Robert is willing to undertake work on a public access basis.


Robert is a member of the Chancery Bar Association


“I’m just closing my  file and wanted to thank you fulsomely for your work on this which came to a successful conclusion, despite indications along the way that it would not”

Partner – Deighton Pierce Glynn, Solicitors’


  • Case Profile

    London Borough of Waltham Forest v Roberts [2004] EWCA (Civ) 940

    Professional Hair Care v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [2001] VATTR 271