Edwin Prince
Edwin was educated at Exeter College, Oxford. He was called to the Bar in 1955, by the Inner Temple. He was elected bencher of the Inner Temple in 1991.
He initially practiced from 11 King’s Bench Walk. When that set split into what are now Keating Chambers and Falcon Chambers, Edwin initially went with Donald Keating QC to his construction law set. However, (according to the Short History of Keating Chambers), he “remained a landlord and tenant specialist” and finally returned to the “correct” half of 11 King’s Bench Walk, Falcon Chambers, in 1994. He retired from practice in 2005. He was listed as a leading junior in the Legal 500 until his retirement. He continued to attend the annual Chambers dinner, and maintained contact with Chambers, after his retirement.
Edwin’s list of reported cases is a long one. Two stand out. He was the junior on the winning side in National Carriers Ltd v Panalpina (Northern) Ltd [1981] AC 675, the leading authority on frustration of leases (and a leading case on the doctrine of frustration generally). Lord Hailsham’s speech memorably relies on the “never/hardly ever” distinction in HMS Pinafore in elucidating the doctrine; possibly the only time the development of landlord and tenant has been influenced directly by musical theatre. He also appeared for the winning tenant in Burman v Mount Cook [2002] Ch. 256, an important decision about the validity of counter-notices under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.
Edwin’s early practice ranged a little further, however. In R v Smith (Martin) [1974] 2 W.L.R. 495, he appeared in the Court of Appeal before Lord Denning MR, Megaw LJ and Sir Eric Sachs. A criminal trial had been adjourned because a key defence witness had not appeared. The defence applied for an adjournment to allow that witness to attend. The headnote records tersely: “The judge, granting the application, asked counsel if he had anything to say if his instructing solicitors were ordered personally to pay the costs thrown away by the adjournment. Counsel replied that he had not, and the order was made”. Lord Denning’s judgment gives a more vivid account: “It should be noticed that the judge, in taking this course, acted on his own initiative. Counsel for the prosecution did not ask the judge to make this order. It may be that counsel would have asked. He did start murmuring something about the costs, but the judge did not wait for an application to be made. He did it on his own initiative.” Edwin was instructed for the aggrieved solicitor, and Gordon Slynn (later Lord Slynn of Hadley) appeared as amicus. The case turned on whether there was a route of appeal available to the solicitors against the costs order of the Judge. After careful consideration of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, Lord Denning decided that there was none. However, he concluded with a classic example of Denning reasoning:
“On the evidence before us I do not think the solicitors were at fault. They ought not to have been ordered to pay the costs or any of them personally. No one appeared before us to support the order of the judge. The prosecuting authority did not support it. Nor did the Home Office. We are told that the solicitors placed their affidavit before counsel engaged in the case, and they made no comment. In the circumstances, I cannot think that anyone will attempt to enforce the order made by the judge. Indirectly, therefore, we are able to put the position right. No one suffering an injustice will be left without a remedy in this court if we can help it.”
Edwin was a much-valued member of Chambers, and an experienced explorer of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and the Rent Act 1977. He was described at his well-attended funeral as “the perfect gentleman and a well-rounded man”.
Back to news listing
