Emer Murphy

Property

Emer has a broad property practice encompassing real property disputes, landlord and tenant matters and cases arising out of the Electronic Communications Code. Much of Emer’s property work is undertaken on her own account and she has considerable experience of acting as part of a large team on complex, long-running matters. Emer appeared in the Supreme Court in the landmark case of 11-13 Randolph Crescent Limited v Dr Duval [2020] UKSC 18, led by Joanne Wicks KC.

Emer is currently ranked as a Leading Junior in the Property Litigation field by Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500.

Landlord and Tenant

Emer acts in the full range of landlord and tenant matters. Many of Emer’s instructions arise out of business tenancies and matters relating to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. She also has considerable experience advising on covenant disputes and issues relating to alienation, disrepair, dilapidations and forfeiture. Notable cases include the following:

Fantasio Limited v Curzon Cinemas Limited (2025)

• One of the Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases for 2025, concerning the original Curzon cinema in Mayfair.
• The claimant landlord sought to terminate the defendant tenant’s leases under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954, relying on ground (g) (own occupation).
• The landlord said it intended to amalgamate the cinema and an adjoining restaurant to create a larger mixed-use premises which the landlord would run.
• Emer was led by Joanne Wicks KC in representing the Curzon.

Tera Westend Ltd v Edgware Road (2015) Limited (2024)

• Acting on her own account, Emer represented a tenant of restaurant premises in its claim for unlawful forfeiture and relief against forfeiture.
• An eight-day trial took place in February 2024.
• The Landlord’s High Court appeal against a finding of unlawful forfeiture took place in February 2026.

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 KC.

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 KC and working alongside Tom de la Mare KC and James Segan KC of Blackstone Chambers.

 Confidential: Various

• Emer has advised and acted in relation to various disputes arising out of Part II the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, both for landlords and tenants.
• These cases have raised various issues including questions of validity of s. 25 notices, whether a lease is protected by the 1954 Act, whether a new lease can be resisted on the various statutory grounds, statutory compensation and estoppel.

Development disputes and joint ventures

Emer has considerable experience advising on and acting in disputes concerning development contracts, overage, conditional contracts, options, rights of pre-emption and property joint ventures. Some notable cases are listed below:

Romal Capital (C02) Limited v Peel L&P (Ports) Limited [2025] EWHC 3016 (Ch)

• Emer represented property development company Romal in its successful claim for more than £10 million in damages arising out of multiple breaches of an agreement for lease by Peel, relating to premises in the ambitious Liverpool Waters redevelopment.
• Romal’s victory followed what The Times described as a ‘David and Goliath’ three-week court battle before Mr Justice Fancourt.
• The issues raised included the scope and content of ‘reasonable endeavours’ obligations and the valuation of ‘loss of a chance’ damages.
• Emer acted as sole junior to Joanne Wicks KC and Lord Banner KC.

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

• Long-running multimillion-pound saga relating to property joint ventures in London.
• The Defendant (represented by Emer and Jonathan Seitler KC) 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 High Court trial, which raised issues of fraudulent misrepresentation, contractual interpretation, estoppel by convention and proof of loss.

Confidential (2018)

• Dispute concerning a repeatedly-varied joint venture-style agreement between a landowner and a developer, relating to a prominent development site in London (sold for £100m with the benefit of planning permission).
• The parties disagreed as to how the complex profit-sharing provisions should be interpreted and applied.
• The case settled following a successful mediation. Emer acted a junior to Jonathan Seitler KC.

Real property

Emer has advised in numerous disputes relating to easements, restrictive covenants, contracts of sale, mortgages and the registration of land. She also has considerable experience of disputes relating to the ownership of land and raising issues of constructive trust, proprietary estoppel and unjust enrichment. Notable cases include the following:

Cayman Shores v Registrar of Lands [2021 (2) CILR 1], [2023 (1) CILR 252]

• This dispute related to the Registered Land Act in the Cayman Islands.
• The key issue was whether various ‘resort type’ rights were binding upon the new owners of the site of the former Cayman Hotel, as restrictive agreements and/or easements.
• The matter was appealed to the Privy Council by over 180 owners of residential properties in Grand Cayman.
• Emer and Jonathan Seitler KC acted for Cayman Shores.

Dinglis Properties Limited (‘DPL’) v Dinglis (2025)

• Emer acted for property company DPL in its claim for possession of a substantial London House.
• The house had been occupied for more than a decade by a former shareholder and son of DPL’s ultimate beneficial owner, along with his family, who claimed that he was entitled to stay indefinitely in line with long-standing family arrangements.
• Emer successfully resisted an application to strike out DPL’s claim as an abuse of process and an attempt by the son to fundamentally change his case in the proceedings.
• The matter then settled in the summer of 2025.

Confidential (2024)

• Acting as a junior to Tiffany Scott KC, Emer represented a bank sued in relation to the financing of a major residential development project.
• The borrower alleged that the bank acted in breach of various duties it owed as mortgagee and claimed damages of over £15m.
• The matter settled following a successful mediation.

Willmott v Kimchi (2021)

• Emer successfully represented a couple seeking possession of their substantial former home from a family friend.
• The four-day trial raised issues of forgery, constructive trust and proprietary estoppel.

Telecoms

Emer frequently acts for a number of major operators and infrastructure providers in relation to matters arising out of the Electronic Communications Code. Emer has advised on numerous technical aspects of the Code and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 as it applies in the telecoms sector and has particular experience in relation to applications for:

• The imposition of Code agreements (paragraph 20);
• Interim rights (paragraph 26);
• The termination of Code agreements (paragraph 31);
• Code agreement renewals (paragraph 33); and
• 1954-Act agreement renewals; and
• The removal of telecoms equipment pursuant (paragraph 40).

Recent cases of particular interest include the following:

Vodafone Limited v (1) Icon Tower Infrastructure Limited (2) AP Wireless II (UK) Limited (‘Steps/Steppes Hill’ and ‘Pound Hill’) [2025] UKUT 28 (LC)

• Acting with Oliver Radley-Gardner KC, Emer represented Vodafone in these conjoined proceedings in which Icon and APW sought to terminate Code and 1954 Act agreements.
• Icon argued that its Code Agreement should be terminated as Vodafone had substantially breached the alienation provisions, as a result of Cornerstone’s involvement at the site.
• Icon also argued that it intended to redevelop a nearby mast site and could not reasonably do so unless the Vodafone agreement was terminated, and that the public benefit test was no longer satisfied.
• APW argued that Cornerstone’s involvement at its site meant that Vodafone was not in business occupation.
• Vodafone was successful on all grounds.

Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited v AP Wireless II (UK) Limited (‘Redmarsh’, ‘Lower Eaves’) (2026)

•  Acting on her own account, Emer represented Cornerstone at a number of trials addressing the terms to be imposed and the rent to be paid on new leases of telecoms sites granted pursuant to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
• The cases raise important legal and valuation issues including the appropriate sharing clause, the terms of the rent review provisions and the implications on rent of a limitation on title, preventing APW’s land from being used for purposes other than telecommunications.

Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Limited v AP Wireless (UK) Limited (2025)

• Emer acted for Cornerstone in this matter, where six applications for renewal leases under the 1954 Act (in relation to six different sites) were joined together.
• APW disputed the court’s jurisdiction, on the grounds that Cornerstone had not proven it was in business occupation of the relevant sites, because of the involvement of Cornerstone’s customers (Vodafone and Telefonica) with the sites.
• The matter was listed for a one-day hearing and the jurisdictional challenge was withdrawn on terms shortly beforehand.

On Tower UK Limited v AP Wireless II (UK) Limited [2022] UKUT 152 (LC) (‘Audley House’)

• The main issue in this Code renewal case was the health and safety obligations on owners and occupiers of land in relation to telecoms equipment on their sites.
• The Upper Tribunal also addressed numerous disputed terms and the appropriate approach to consideration.
• Emer acted as a junior to Jonathan Seitler KC.

Download Property CV