"Known for handling complex commercial disputes."Legal 500, 2017
“Recommended for company and shareholder disputes.”Legal 500, 2016
"His advice is incisive."Legal 500, 2015
Marc Living is a chancery practitioner who specialises in employment, insolvency, company and partnership, landlord and tenant, probate and inheritance.
He has appeared in a number of reported (or otherwise noteworthy) cases including Sandhu v Farooqui  1 P&CR 3 (adverse possession and licenses) Millam v Print Factory  IRLR 526 (effect of Tupe on a share sale agreement), and Fowler v Barron  EWCA Civ 377 (constructive trusts), and has been rated as “excellent’ in employment matters by the Legal 500.
Specific Practice information
- Recently acted on a case involving a (17 year old) resident hoping to succeed to his (deceased) great grandmother’s Housing Association assured tenancy. The tenancy agreement allowed an “adult member of the tenant’s family” – who had been living at the property for the past 12 months – to succeed to the tenancy. The resident had lived with his great grandmother since he was 5 years old, and she was his main carer during that period
- The issues were (a) was the resident a “member of the family” and (b) whether the age restriction was justified under the Equality Act. It was held that the definition in the 1985 Act did not apply to the 1988 Act assured tenancy, and that neither the 1988 Act, nor the tenancy agreement, had defined the phrase “member of the family” which, therefore fell to be determined under previous caselaw, and that the resident was a member of the tenant’s family for that purpose. It was further held that the age restriction had not been justified
- Currently advising and acting on a claim by purchasers and occupiers of land pursuant to an oral contract (but where the purchase price had been substantially paid) which sale was never completed, and in respect of which the trustees had subsequently mortgaged the land, the mortgagee had taken possession of the land, and sold it to a third party who seeks possession. The issues involve the relationship between equitable rights protected by actual occupation and overreaching
- Advised and appeared on a costs application, arising out of a (settled) unfair prejudice petition. During the proceedings the Respondents had made a purported Part 36 Offer offering to pay an amount to be calculated by reference to a future expert’s report. The Respondents claimed to be entitled to their costs as from the date of expiry of that offer. It was held that it was not a valid Part 36 Offer because it did not provide for payment within 14 days after acceptance