Mr Dominic Bright

Barrister and CMC Registered Mediator

  • Mediator
  • Public Access


Dominic’s commercial and residential property practice includes possession, disrepair and dilapidations, breach of covenant / forfeiture, and management and service disputes.  He regularly represents private landlords, housing associations, and local authorities.

Dominic has written a leading article in the New Law Journal on the repeal of “no-fault” evictions: ‘Section 21 Sent Packing’.  He has also assisted Simon Brilliant to update ‘Trespass to Land’ in volume 40(1) of Atkin’s Court Forms (Practice and Forms).  Dominic is an Associate Member of the Property Bar Association.

Dominic is an associate member of the Property Bar Association.

He is also a member of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs), the Civil Mediation Council, the Commercial Bar Association and the Technology and Construction Bar Association.


Recent instructions


B v F & Two Ors – successfully submitted that more than £10,750 should be awarded against the first defendant, about £13,000 against the second defendant, and the latter pay the claimant’s costs (July 2021).

Advice in a potential claim of more than £75,000, where the issues include assignment, ownership of goods left behind, voluntary and involuntary bailees, and abandonment, and possible causes of action include conversion of goods, trespass to goods, negligence as far as it results in damage to goods or loss to or of an interest in goods, and unjust enrichment (July 2021).

A v M – represented a bank seeking possession and a money judgment of more than £135,000 pursuant to alleged mortgage arrears (June 2018).

C v Q – successfully resisted an oral application for relief from sanctions, so that the defendant was debarred from defending the claim or bringing a counterclaim, submitted that the sum claimed with more than £620 interest should be awarded, and that the claimant had a contractual right to costs, so that more than £4,300 costs was awarded (June 2021).

C v A – successfully applied for outright possession forthwith, arrears of over £12,000, £150 interest, and costs of over £1,500.

N v R – successfully applied for an injunction to inspect, service and carry out remedial works on the landlord’s property, remaining in force for about a year with an attached penal notice, and costs as claimed (October 2020).

Advised leaseholders renting out a property to tenants on prospects of successfully defending a claim for service charges, internal and external building costs; whether the incoming leaseholder is responsible for the unrecovered service charge of the outgoing leaseholder; how to challenge the service charge on the basis of reasonableness; and whether the landlord has a contractual right to costs on the indemnity basis (September 2020).

Advised commercial tenant on prospects of successfully applying for relief from forfeiture, the impact of the new legal protections for business tenants in the Coronavirus Act 2020, and the form and substance of a ‘Reactivation Notice’ requesting a hearing (September 2020).

M & Anor v L – successfully applied for an acquisition order, enabling the claimant leaseholders to acquire the freehold title, on grounds including that their landlord could not be found, plus full costs of about £6,000 (following a successful application for relief from sanctions after the claim was struck out).  Letter from professional client, dated 6 July 2020: ‘I refer to the successful Order obtained by Counsel in respect of the above hearing and am most grateful to Counsel for the work undertaken by him … which clearly contributed to the successful outcome. I have heard from both clients and they are very pleased with the outcome.

L v K – successfully applied for an injunction to inspect, service and carry out remedial works on the landlord’s property, remaining in force for 18 months with an attached penal notice, and costs of about £1,700 (April 2020).

 C v M – successfully applied for possession on two discretionary grounds, judgment for arrears of about £6,000, daily occupation charges up to the date of possession, use of the tenancy deposit in part-payment, and full costs of about £1,000 (March 2020).

K v K – successfully applied for possession on mandatory grounds, judgment for arrears of about £7,000, interest, daily occupation charges up to the date of possession, use of the tenancy deposit in part-payment, and permission to appeal on the issue of costs for two reasons, namely that there is a contractual right to costs in law pursuant to two judgments of the Court of Appeal, and that there was a contractual right to costs on the facts pursuant to the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement (March 2020).

H v H – successfully applied for possession and costs of over £1,000. Email from professional client, dated 22 January 2020: ‘The client will be very happy.

H v S & Three Ors – successfully applied to dispense with service of a section 8 notice, and successfully secured an order for possession on the basis that there was a breach of the tenancy agreement, namely subletting via Airbnb, Expedia and, and successfully applied for costs of about £2,500 (December 2019).

Advice following grant of an overriding lease on how to regain possession, claim rent in the sum of over £30,000 and costs paid to the landlord under the terms of an authorised guarantee agreement (November 2019).

S v A & Anor – successfully settled an appeal on the day of that appeal, so that the defendants agreed to give the claimant possession forthwith (November 2019).

G & Anor v F & Anor – successfully applied for possession, and both defendants to pay about £5,000 costs pursuant to a contractual agreement (November 2019).

H & Anor v F – successfully applied for possession, a contractual rate of interest on outstanding rent arrears, and full costs on the basis of a contractual agreement (October 2019).

W v R – successfully applied to strike out the defence and counterclaim, alleging disability discrimination, sex discrimination, harassment, breach of the right to quiet enjoyment, injury to feelings, psychological damage, aggravated health, and seeking awards for aggravated damages, exemplary damages, and restitutionary damages. The judge concluded in these terms: “Mr Bright’s skeleton argument runs to over 13 pages, I read this earlier today. … For reasons which have been set out in Mr Bright’s skeleton argument, I have concluded that there is no merit in the defence and no merit in the counterclaim.” The claimant was awarded possession, and all of his costs in the sum of about £4,300. Email from lay client, dated 18 September 2019: ‘Dominic Bright, performed a comprehensive and sterling defence at both Hearings and the, Judge, also commented how impressed he was with him.’

A v K & Anor – successfully applied to set aside judgment in a commercial property case, and successfully invited the court to include a recital in the order in the following terms: ‘UPON noting that the application was necessary due to an administrative error of the court AND UPON noting that the defendants may write to the court, requesting the costs of the application’ (September 2019).

O v T – successfully applied for possession on a discretionary ground (August 2019).

P v A & Anor – successfully applied for possession and costs pursuant to a contractual agreement of about £1,300. Email from professional client, dated 21 August 2019: ‘Dear Dominic, Thank you for your call and the update. I am pleased with the outcome. Thank you once again for your assistance in this matter.

Advice following a tenant complaining of water damage to her garden, allegedly caused by a damaged pipe on her neighbour’s property. Email from professional client, dated 15 August 2019: ‘Thank you for your e-mail of 11th August, attaching your comprehensive Opinion on merits in respect of the above matter. I am most grateful to you for the detailed nature of your Opinion and your very helpful advice, which will be of great assistance to my clients.’

Advice, letters before claim, and particulars of claim for breach of contract or alternatively money had and received in the sum of £100,000 plus simple interest or alternatively compound interest pursuant to the court’s equitable jurisdiction (February 2020).

U v E – Successfully made an oral application on the day of trial for summary judgment in the sum of about £10,000. (January 2020).

H v O-B – successfully applied for relief from sanctions, and that the claim be reinstated, despite findings of a serious and significant breach of a court order, for which there was no good reason, and that the application was not made promptly (November 2019).

S v F & Anor – successfully made an oral application for judgment against both defendants for around £40,000, and costs of about £11,000 in a directions hearing (September 2019).

Advice and particulars of claim for the owner of a property, let to a tenant, who complains of water damage to her garden, allegedly caused by a damaged pipe on her neighbour’s property (August 2019).

S v A & Anor – resisting appeal against an order of possession (August 2019).

E v M – successfully facilitated settlement for a five-figure sum, following nine-and-a-half-hour mediation, after proceedings were issued, alleging personal injury and disrepair to property (April 2019).

Advised in commercial property dispute, following alleged breach of contract for services to become station operator of a petrol filling station (February 2019).

P v I – commercial property dispute, relief from forfeiture granted to the claimant by the court, with costs awarded on my application to the defendant on the indemnity basis (January 2019).

G v M – commercial property dispute, successfully securing permission to apply for relief from forfeiture out of time, file an Amended Defence, bring a Counterclaim out of time, and order that the claimant disclose bank statements (January 2019).

S & Anor v L – commercial property dispute, application for pre-action disclosure.  District Judge Grant: “I commend Mr Bright for his application” (January 2019).

T v I – successfully applied for an injunction re nuisance (December 2018).

M & Anor v L – successfully applied for relief from sanctions, and acquisition order.  Email from professional client, dated 21 December 2019: ‘I was very impressed with Mr Dominic Bright of Counsel who represented my clients.  He had clearly prepared the matter very well and he secured a successful Order on their behalf, which was very much appreciated by not only myself but also my 3 clients who were in attendance at Court for the hearing.’

G v L – successfully resisted application to suspend warrant (November 2018).


Dominic is a registered Civil and Commercial Mediator with the Civil Mediation Council, and offers online and telephone mediation services at  He also acts as Counsel in mediations. Dominic attended the ‘Civil Mediation Council Annual Conference 2020’.


What is mediation?


Mediation is a confidential process. Participants have control. Whether or not to mediate?  The procedure of the mediation? Whether or not there is a result?  If so, what are the terms of that result?

A mediator is neutral and has no interest in the result. A result cannot be imposed by a mediator. Participants can exchange offers, confident in the knowledge that this will have no bearing on how a judge would decide the dispute, if it was later referred to court.

Participants can safely attempt to settle without compromising their positions. If the participants agree on a result, reduce it to writing and sign it, it is binding like any other contract. If court proceedings have started, the participants may invite the court to make an order by agreement that reflects the result.


Recent instructions as Counsel


E v M – successfully facilitated settlement for a five-figure sum, following nine-and-a-half-hour mediation, after proceedings were issued, alleging personal injury and disrepair to property (April 2019). 


A v A – successfully facilitated settlement for a five-figure sum, after a ten-hour mediation on behalf of the claimant, who was alleging disrepair to property (April 2018).


European Code of Conduct for Mediators


The European Code of Conduct for Mediators (“the code of conduct”) sets out a number of principles to which Dominic has voluntarily decided to commit himself, under his own responsibility.  It is applicable in all kinds of mediation in civil and commercial matters.


For the purposes of the code of conduct, mediation means any structured process, however named or referred to, whereby two or more parties to a dispute attempt by themselves, on a voluntary basis, to reach an agreement on the settlement of their dispute with the assistance of a third person – hereinafter “the mediator”.


Adherence to the code of conduct is without prejudice to national legislation, or rules regulating individual professions.



1.1. Competence

Mediators must be competent and knowledgeable in the process of mediation.  Relevant factors include proper training and continuous updating of their education and practice in mediation skills, having regard to any relevant standards or accreditation schemes.

1.2. Appointment

Mediators must confer with the parties regarding suitable dates on which the mediation may take place.  Mediators must verify that they have the appropriate background and competence to conduct mediation in a given case before accepting the appointment.  Upon request, they must disclose information concerning their background and experience to the parties.

1.3. Fees

Where not already provided, mediators must always supply the parties with complete information as to the mode of remuneration which they intend to apply.  They must not agree to act in a mediation before the principles of their remuneration have been accepted by all parties concerned.

1.4. Promotion of mediators’ services

Mediators may promote their practice provided that they do so in a professional, truthful and dignified way.


2.1. Independence

If there are any circumstances that may, or may be seen to, affect a mediator’s independence or give rise to a conflict of interests, the mediator must disclose those circumstances to the parties before acting or continuing to act.

Such circumstances include:

any personal or business relationship with one or more of the parties;

any financial or other interest, direct or indirect, in the outcome of the mediation;

the mediator, or a member of his firm, having acted in any capacity other than mediator for one or more of the parties.

In such cases the mediator may only agree to act or continue to act if he is certain of being able to carry out the mediation in full independence in order to ensure complete impartiality and the parties explicitly consent.

The duty to disclose is a continuing obligation throughout the process of mediation.

2.2. Impartiality

Mediators must at all times act, and endeavour to be seen to act, with impartiality towards the parties and be committed to serve all parties equally with respect to the process of mediation.


3.1. Procedure

The mediator must ensure that the parties to the mediation understand the characteristics of the mediation process and the role of the mediator and the parties in it.

The mediator must in particular ensure that prior to commencement of the mediation the parties have understood and expressly agreed the terms and conditions of the mediation agreement including any applicable provisions relating to obligations of confidentiality on the mediator and on the parties.

The mediation agreement may, upon request of the parties, be drawn up in writing.

The mediator must conduct the proceedings in an appropriate manner, taking into account the circumstances of the case, including possible imbalances of power and any wishes the parties may express, the rule of law and the need for a prompt settlement of the dispute. The parties may agree with the mediator on the manner in which the mediation is to be conducted, by reference to a set of rules or otherwise.

The mediator may hear the parties separately, if he deems it useful.

3.2. Fairness of the process

The mediator must ensure that all parties have adequate opportunities to be involved in the process.

The mediator must inform the parties, and may terminate the mediation, if:

a settlement is being reached that for the mediator appears unenforceable or illegal, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the competence of the mediator for making such an assessment, or

the mediator considers that continuing the mediation is unlikely to result in a settlement.

3.3. The end of the process

The mediator must take all appropriate measures to ensure that any agreement is reached by all parties through knowing and informed consent, and that all parties understand the terms of the agreement.

The parties may withdraw from the mediation at any time without giving any justification.

The mediator must, upon request of the parties and within the limits of his competence, inform the parties as to how they may formalise the agreement and the possibilities for making the agreement enforceable.


The mediator must keep confidential all information arising out of or in connection with the mediation, including the fact that the mediation is to take place or has taken place, unless compelled by law or grounds of public policy to disclose it.  Any information disclosed in confidence to mediators by one of the parties must not be disclosed to the other parties without permission, unless compelled by law.


Complaints procedure


All complaints will be acknowledged in writing within five working days of receipt.

All complaints will be investigated and responded to within 21 working days of receipt.

On occasions, further time may be required, in which case the complainant will be notified in writing.

If the response is not accepted, the complainant can appeal to the Civil Mediation Council on certain grounds.


‘A Practical Guide to the Small Claims Track’ (Second Edition, Law Brief Publishing, December 2020) available at


'COVID-19, International Commercial Contracts & “Breathing Space”: Further Encouraging ADR; Developing Common Law Doctrines; & An Implied Term of Good Faith' (Jus Cogens, August 2020) available at


'UK Autonomous Sanctions System: Substantial Increase in the Costs of Compliance?' (Jus Cogens, March 2020) available at


'Staying on Track: Ten Key Points that Personal Injury Lawyers Should Know About the Small Claims Track' (Personal Injury Focus, March 2020) available at 


'Climate Change & the Judiciary: Europe; the United States; & the Indian Subcontinent' (Jus Cogens, February 2020) available at


'The CICC and the Rule of Law: Fair, Transparent and Convenient? What You Need to Know About China’s New International Commercial Court' (Counsel Magazine, September 2019) available at


'Technology and Construction Court: Global Hub of Legal Expertise?' (Lamb Chambers, June 2019) available at


‘Section 21 Sent Packing’ (New Law Journal, Issue 7838, May 2019) available at


'Drones, Airprox, and the Regulatory Environment: Cause for Concern?' (Lamb Chambers, January 2019) available at


'Brexit, the Draft Withdrawal Agreement, and the Construction Industry: Three Areas for Concern' (Lamb Chambers, December 2018) available at