For full information in relation to our response to COVID-19, please click here.

Call +44 207 306 0102 or contact us

Emer Murphy

Call: 2009   

+44 (0)20 7306 0102emurphy@wilberforce.co.uk

Practice Overview

“A fantastic junior.” – Chambers and Partners 2021

Emer’s practice focuses on property, commercial and trust disputes. She also advises on related professional liability matters.

Emer offers intelligent, thorough and practical assistance. She prides herself on being user-friendly and approachable, and she enjoys working as part of the team.

As an advocate, Emer is both engaging and tenacious. Emer regularly appears in the High Court, the County Court and before a variety of tribunals, both on her own account and as a junior.

She is highly skilled in drafting and advisory work, and has worked on a significant number of high-profile, complex pieces of litigation.

What the directories say

Emer is ranked as a Leading Junior in Chambers Global 2021 (Dispute Resolution: Commercial Chancery), Chambers & Partners 2021 (in the Chancery: Commercial and Real Estate Litigation fields) and The Legal 500 2021 (Property Litigation and Professional Negligence fields). Those publications describe her in the following terms:

  • ‘Emer is super smart, always focused on strategic outcomes and is willing to go the extra mile for her clients. Her advice is clear, direct and well thought out, and she works fast and hard. She is also friendly, approachable and a real pleasure to work with.’
  • ‘A fantastic junior – her attention to detail is unmatched and clients are impressed by the quantity and quality of her work.’
  • ‘Very hard-working and diligent and has the ability to take complex issues and break them down into manageable components.’
  • ‘Her advice is clear, direct and well thought out.’
  • ‘She is decisive and critically analytical in her work.’
  • ‘Emer is extremely robust and analytical in providing advice and it is clear that she has strong attention to detail. She is also a very good client-facing barrister.’

Emer has been ranked in the legal directories for several years.  In previous years, she has been described as: ‘simply the best junior we have used. Her attention to detail and knowledge of the papers was frankly astounding’; ‘Very bright, hard-working and user-friendly – a future star of the Bar’;  ‘a bright, sparky junior who’s like a dog with a bone; she will argue with great tenacity’; ‘unflappable’; ‘ feisty and clever – a rising star’; ‘commercially minded’ and ‘one of the top juniors at the Chancery Bar’.

Notable cases include the following:

11-13 Randolph Crescent Limited v Dr Duval [2020] UKSC 18

  • The Estate Gazette’s top case of 2020.
  • The case concerned a landlord’s covenant in a lease of a flat in a mansion block, by which the landlord promised to enforce (on request) the covenants in the other leaseholders’ leases.  The Supreme Court decided that this covenant meant that the landlord could not permit works prohibited by an absolute covenant against structural alterations.
  • Emer was led by Joanne Wicks QC.

Canary Wharf (BP4) T1 Limited & Others v The European Medicines Agency [2019] EWHC 921 (Ch)

  • The Estate Gazette’s top property case of 2019.
  • Can Brexit frustrate a lease?
  • Emer represented the European Medicines Agency, led by Jonathan Seitler QC and working alongside Tom de la Mare QC and James Segan QC of Blackstone Chambers.

Clutterbuck v Cleghorn [2015] EWHC 2558 (Ch), [2017] EWCA Civ 137, [2018] EWHC 2125 (Ch)

  • Long-running multi-million pound saga relating to property joint ventures in London.
  • Followed the explosive Clutterbuck v Al Amoudi, in which similar allegations against Sarah Al Amoudi (dubbed ‘the Vamp in the Veil’ by the Daily Mail) were successfully defended by Emer Murphy and Jonathan Seitler QC in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
  • In this case, the defendant’s legal team (including Emer and Jonathan Seitler QC) had the majority of the claim struck out as an abuse of process relying on the principle in Aldi Stores [2008] 1 WLR 748 in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.  The remainder of the claim was dismissed following a three-week trial.