Philip Grylls

Philip graduated from the University College of Wales in 1980 with a 2:1 degree in law. He completed his finals course in 1981 and following completion of his articles (training contract) in London was admitted as a solicitor in 1983. He joined Gullands in 1987 and became a Partner in 1990. Philip is Head of their established Civil Litigation Department and is responsible for supervising a number of staff members. Most of Philip’s work is on behalf of private individuals, SMEs and Charities and is referred to him as a result of recommendation. In addition the firm is on the panel of a substantial legal expense Insurer from which instructions are regularly received.

Philip has a wide range of experience in dealing with claims and resolving disputes in the following areas:

  • Property disputes
  • Will, Intestacy and Contentious probate disputes
  •  Landlord & Tenant (both residential and business tenancies)
  • Professional negligence
  • Contract disputes and business disputes, including substantial claims arising out of Share Sale and Purchase Agreements.
  • Debt claims
  • Residents of Almshouse Charities
  • Accident claims
  • Clinical negligence

Philip’s key skill is to assimilate facts and identify critical issues in a dispute at an early stage. This enables  focus to be placed on achieving the client’s key objectives whether that be by settlement or pursuing the matter through court proceedings in as cost effective and efficient a manner as possible.

Current Professional Activities 

  • Member of the Law Society
  • Kent Law Society
  • Contributor to the Almshouse Association’s Standards of Almshouse Management.

Professional Experience

The following are examples of cases undertaken:

  • An Almshouse Charity instructed Philip to set aside the appointment of an unsatisfactory resident. These cases always need to be handled firmly but sensitively. The resident defended the proceedings on numerous grounds including alleged breaches of the Human Rights Act. The case proceeded to the Court of Appeal and is the most recent and highest court binding authority on the status of Almshouse Residents. The Trustees of the Charity were successful in their claim.
  • A motorcyclist suffered serious injuries in a road traffic accident. Liability was initially disputed. The case was settled for substantial damages.
  • A client underwent breast surgery which it was established with expert medical evidence was performed negligently leading to a substantial payment of damages.
  • The client company owned a substantial industrial estate. One of its tenants issued Court proceedings applying for a new business tenancy as was its entitlement. The application was heavily contested on various grounds as the client objected to granting a new tenancy to a tenant they regarded as unsatisfactory. The tenant’s application for a new lease was successfully opposed on various grounds and vacant possession of the premises was recovered for the client to re-let to new tenants.
  • A baby died unexpectedly during childbirth. Liability was denied but the claim was settled by the Healthcare Trust making a payment of damages.
  • Other solicitors negligently settled a claim for damages for personal injuries for too low a sum. The client was unhappy with the settlement and advised to consult other solicitors. Philip secured an additional payment on the settlement and (by pursuing a claim for professional negligence) the balance of the proper damages to which the client was entitled from the former solicitors.
  • The client was the executor and one of the beneficiaries under his late father’s will. A claim was made by the client’s siblings alleging that their late father’s will was not valid on the grounds of intestacy and alleged undue influence. Both claims were successfully resisted and effect given to the father’s wishes as expressed in his will.
  • The client’s long term partner and cohabitee died having changed his will at the instigation of his children a few weeks before he died. The new will did not make reasonable financial provision for the client and a claim was made on this basis.
  • The clients sold their shareholdings in a very substantial private company. The purchasers sought rectification of the Sale and Purchase Agreements and included the clients in proceedings they brought in the High Court of Justice in which they also alleged some of the other shareholders were in breach of the warranties they had given. Repeated submissions were made by Philip to the Claimants’ solicitors that the clients ought not to have been included in the proceedings. The Claimants eventually accepted this discontinuing the proceedings against the clients the month before the start of a long trial which proceeded against the other Defendants. The Claimants were ordered to pay the client’s costs.
  • A son, who had been promised his father’s farm on his death, was not included as a beneficiary under his will on the basis that his mother was to make provision for him but failed to do so. A claim was pursued for proprietary estoppel on the basis his father and mother had made promises to the client that the farm would be the client’s and that he relied on those promises to his detriment