Oliver Ingham

Oliver Ingham

Year of Call: 2015
Email Address: [email protected]
Telephone: 020 7583 8055

Download Full CV Add to Shortlist Link In With Me

How to use the Shortlist tool?

Clerk Details

  • Clerk Name: David Fielder
  • Clerk Telephone: 020 7583 8055
  • Clerk Email: [email protected]

Overview

Oliver Ingham is an experienced trial advocate in both the Chancery and Family Division of the High Court, and specialises in the broad range of traditional and commercial Chancery work. In particular, Oliver regularly appears in both divisions representing parties to claims brought under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 “The 1975 Act”. 

Oliver is one of four barristers nominated by Chambers & Partners High Net Worth for the "Star Junior" award of 2024, with the winner being announced on 11 July 2024 at the National Gallery. Oliver is also nominated for Chancery Junior of the Year 2024 by Legal 500, to be announced in September.

Oliver is widely recognised for his expertise and is highly regarded as a leading junior/leading individual in the three main Directories/League Tables and Rankings as recommended counsel for matters that include Chancery (particularly claims brought under the Inheritance Act 1975 and estate-related litigation under CPR 64), Tax, Probate and Private Client work.

  • Legal 500 (London Bar) - Private Client - Trusts and Probate - Tier 1), Oliver was named a “Rising Star”.
  • Legal 500 (Midlands Bar) - Chancery, Tax and Probate, Oliver is likewise ranked highly (Tier 1) and again was also named as a “Rising Star” by them.
  • Chambers and Partners, High Net Worth Guide (Chancery: Traditional - London Bar), Oliver is ranked/recommended as “up and coming” by them.
  • Chambers and Partners, UK Bar, London (Chancery: Traditional) - Oliver is recommended as “up and coming" in this field.

Other than his involvement in the Hirachand v Hirachand case currently before the UKSC, recent highlights include successfully arguing for the Respondent in Nilsson v Cynberg [2024] EWHC 2164 Ch, which commentators have noted "could have far-reaching implications for future property disputes involving constructive and express trusts". This case provides clarity on a point arising out of Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, in which Baroness Hale stated that ‘an express declaration of trust is conclusive unless varied by subsequent agreement or affected by proprietary estoppel’. Oliver successfully argued that ‘subsequent agreement’ can include an informal common intention constructive trust, and need not comply with the provisions of s.2 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.

Oliver also recently represented the successful appellant in  Jassal v Shah [2024] EWHC 2214 (Ch) regarding the treatment of costs in 1975 Act cases. In overturning the first instance decision, it was confirmed that the correct approach is to ignore the question of litigation costs while considering what substantive relief to grant under the Act.

Oliver also successfully acted for the claimant in the widely covered Kaur v Estate of Karnail Singh & Ors [2023] EWHC 304,  and as junior counsel in the widely reported/significant appeal in the Supreme Court Hirachand [2022] 1 WLR 1162.

In Kaur v Singh [2023] EWHC 304 Mr Justice Peel said of Oliver that he presented the case with "impeccable efficiency, enabling the court to get to grips swiftly with the factual background, issues, legal principles and suggested outcome", and described his conduct of the case "exemplary". In Baxter v Todd [2019] EWHC 1959 the Court noted that “[His] performance was first class…really first class” and that “[He] argued [his] case with very considerable skill”.

Oliver predominantly practices in London, as well as the Midlands (particularly from our Birmingham Centre) insofar as his Probate/Islamic Finance practice is concerned and has appeared in the Business and Property Courts in Bristol, Birmingham and Manchester. Oliver is therefore also used to appearing in the Chancery Division in District Registries other than London. Oliver specialises particularly in representing Sikh and Muslim communities in probate disputes, and many of his cases have a strong cultural/ religious component to them.

Oliver has a keen interest in the Muslim and Sikh faiths, which inform his work. Most recently, Oliver studied Shari'a Law at the University of Edinburgh and is increasingly instructed on matters concerning Islamic finance (particularly as it pertains to Inheritance) and can represent claimants and defendants at the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal and at Court on a wide variety of matters related to Shari'a Law.

Oliver is an affiliate of the Society of Trusts and Estates Practitioners and can advise on non-contentious probate matters, including in relation to estate planning.

Oliver also undertakes a wide variety of commercial chancery work, including commercial disputes where there is a strong emphasis on equitable relief/ breach of trust.

Oliver also has an interest in costs-only probate, insolvency and commercial proceedings, (particularly detailed assessment proceedings in the Senior Courts costs office).

Reported cases

Nilsson v Cynberg [2024] EWHC 2164 Ch

Oliver successfully argued at first instance and on appeal that the applicant had indeed acquired the beneficial interest of her former husband pursuant to an agreement that did not satisfy the statutory requirements but did give rise to a common intention constructive trust.

Jassal v Shah [2024] EWHC 2214 (Ch)

Oliver successfully argued that base costs cannot be included as part of an award made under section 2 of the 1975 Act, and that the Court of Appeal judgment in Hirachand (on which Oliver is also instructed) did not go as far as to permit base costs to be recovered by analogy with CFA Uplifts.

Kaur v Estate of Karnail Singh & Ors [2023] EWHC 304; [2023] 2 WLUK 214 

Oliver acted for the successful Claimant in the case Kaur v Estate of Karnail Singh & Ors [2023] EWHC 304 (Fam) where the Mrs Kaur was excluded from her husband’s Will notwithstanding a marriage of 66 years. The Deceased excluded his wife and four daughters because the he wished to leave his estate solely down the male line. The Judgment secured is worth nearly £1,000,000.

Riaz v Riaz and Ors (Insolvent Administration Order) [2022] EWHC Ch 229

Oliver successfully obtained an Insolvent Administration Order on behalf of the petitioning creditor/beneficiary of an Estate. The proceedings were contentious, and involved five Counsel. Clarification was given on the legal principles, including when the lower or higher burden of proof viz Insolvency applies.

Hirachand v Hirachd [2021] EWCA Civ 1498; [2022] 1 W.L.R. 1162; {2022] 1 F.C.R. 757;[2022] W.T.L.R. 185

This case found for the first time that a Court could order an estate to pay for a CFA uplift as part of an award under the Inheritance Act 1975. Further, an award was made by video link in circumstances where the defendant (who was unrepresented) a profoundly deaf and disabled 87 year old woman who could not hear or see what was going on. The defendant had been debarred from defending the claim.

Since this decision was handed down, it has become commonplace for claimants to now claim entitlement to be paid a CFA uplift in most 1975 Act claims that come before the chancery or family division of the High Court. Oliver was instructed to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found that CFA uplifts were recoverable from an estate.

Gitto Estates Ltd (t/a Horizon Properties) v Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC (QB) 1997; WLUK 175

Oliver acted for the successful application for an injunction restraining interference with the proprietary rights of the claimant.

Hanger Holdings v Perlake Corporation SA & Anor [2021] EWHC 81 (Ch)

Oliver represented the defendant pre-trial (including settling the pleadings) in relation to the allegation that a website domain name (blackjack.com) was held on trust by the defendant. The case confirmed for the first time that a domain name is intangible property which can be subject to equitable interests/held on trust.

Williams v Nu Design and Build [2021] EWHC 197; [2021] 1 WLUK 148

Oliver successfully defeated an application for summary judgment in circumstances where the claimant sought to persuade the court that a clause of a contract was unreasonable pursuant to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. The court held that it was generally inappropriate to summarily determine reasonableness before liability had been established, because the court would necessarily need to know what liability was sought to be excluded under the term.

Re H [2020] EWHC 1134 (Fam) ;[2020] 2 F.L.R. 561; [2020] W.T.L.R. 479 [2020] C.L.Y. 1773

Oliver is instructed in the appeal of this decision to the Court of Appeal on behalf of the appellant/beneficiary. The Court of Appeal will consider whether the High Court erred in law when awarding the claimant her CFA uplift.

HCQ Sarl v Terre Primitive Limited [2019] EWHC 2556 (Ch); [2019] WLUK 385 (before Norris J)

Oliver successfully represented the claimant in obtaining an injunction restraining the holding of a meeting/placement of the company into members voluntary liquidation (MVL). The case set out the principles to be applied when one seeks to injunct a company's members from placing the company into MVL.

Premiair Areospace v Foley [2019] EWHC 1805 (QB) (before Whipple J)

This case concerned the extent to which summary judgment should be available in cases involving dishonest assistance/knowing receipt when breach of trust is alleged.

Baxter v Todd [2019] All ER 194 (Jul); [2019] EWHC 1959 (Ch)

Oliver successfully represented the defendant in the trial of a will claim involving undue influence, the illegality defence and constrictive trusts.

Trustees of Haie Estate v Maass [2019] All ER 175 (Jan); [2019] EWHC 95 (Ch)

Oliver successfully represented the defendant trustees in a claim based in acquiescence estoppel.

Pantiles Investments v Winckler [2019] All ER 134 (Mar); [2019] 2 BCLC 295

Oliver acted for the defendant in a fraudulent trading/breach of trust claim.

Popely v Drukkers Solicitors [2019] EWHC 187 (QB); [2019] 2 WLUK 224

Oliver acted for the claimant in a claim for breach of confidence (and application for injunction) against solicitors who intended to use e-mails allegedly stolen from the claimant in a trial of a separate action commencing in the Chancery Division.

Unreported/ Other High Court cases

Re K [2021] EWHC (Ch)

Oliver is acting for the Defendants to a Claim brought against an alleged Islamic Wife of the Deceased who claims to have a void marriage, and is therefore entitled to Claim against the Estate of the Deceased as if she were a spouse. The primary dispute concerns whether the Claimant had a "non-marriage" or whether the Claimant had a "void marriage". Again, this case forms part of Oliver's general Islamic Finance caseload given his specific interest in the overlap between Sharia Law and Probate. Oliver is likely to act as sole Counsel in respect of both a preliminary issue trial regarding eligibility, as well as any substantive trial which come before the High Court should the Claimant be found to have a "void Marriage".

Re T [2021] EWHC (Fam)

Oliver is acting as sole Counsel instructed by Adamas and Remer LLP for the Claimant minor children in a Claim brought under section 10 of the Inheritance Act 1975 to set aside transfers made by the Deceased to his Father deliberately before death (with a view, it is said, to putting his assets beyond reach of the Claimants). Oliver will represent the Claimants in a preliminary issue trial in respect of the application under section 10, and any Judgment is likely to be of interest given that it will be the first time the power under section 10 of the 1975 Act is specifically considered along-side the remedies provided by the Insolvency Act.

Premiair v Privaero [2019] EWHC 197 (QB) (Queen’s Bench Division, led by Lord Marks KC)

Oliver acted as junior counsel for the claimant in a fraud/dishonest assistance/knowing receipt claim.

Vitillo v Riddiough [2020] EWHC 187 (Ch)

Oliver acted for the successful spousal claimant in respect of a claim brought against a £1,400,000 estate (in which the claimant obtained nearly all the assets in the estate).

A v I and Ors [2020] (Chancery Division)

Oliver represented a defendant beneficiary in a claim brought against a £2,000,000 estate by cohabitant claimants.

J v P [2020] (Chancery Division)

Oliver represented the claimant in a will challenge (capacity) brought against a £800,000 Estate.

Corona v Corona [2019] (Family Division)

Oliver acted for the successful spousal claimant in respect of a claim brought against a £750,000 estate.

Deutsche Leasing Limited v Zaskin College [2018] EWHC 110 (QBD)

Oliver acted for the defendant in respect of a claim for breach of contract concerning the supply of CNC machines.

Wilson v Lassman (No 2) [2017] EWHC 957 (Ch)

Oliver acted for the adult child claimant in a claim bought out of time under section 4.

Kapadia v Falayie [2017] EWHC 2030 (Ch)

Oliver acted for the successful defendant in a claim regarding relief from forfeiture (which also contained allegations that the claim was an abuse of process).

W v F [2017] EWHC 291 (Fam)

Oliver acted as sole counsel on behalf of the claimant in an adult-child claim under the 1975 Act brought in respect of a £1,700,000 estate.

Gao v Atwal [2017] EWHC 2011 (Ch)

Oliver represented the successful defendant in a claim concerning prescription/rights of way.

Hume v Jackson [2017] (Chancery Division, Manchester)

Oliver represented the sole beneficiary of a £1,300,000 estate in his defence of a claim brought by a co-habitant under the 1975 Act.

Ball v Jackson and ors [2016] EWHC 88 (Ch)

Oliver represented the successful claimant in a Part 64 claim concerning the construction of a will, as well as a dispute over the propriety of a prospective costs order.

Work as a Junior:

Oliver has regularly worked as junior counsel being led by a variety of King's Counsel. Oliver was recently led by Brie Stephens-Hoare KC in Hirachand (Court of Appeal) and in a dispute in the Chancery Division regarding a claim worth £7,000,000 brought by one estate against another estate.

Oliver is also currently being led by Geoffrey Cox KC in a high value property matter.

Oliver has previously been led by Geraint Jones KC in a Chancery Division claim regarding allegations of tortious conspiracy by a chain of gentleman’s clubs. Oliver has previously also been led by David Berkeley KC in a partnership dispute, and by Lord Jonathan Marks KC in a high-value Breach of Trust Claim.

Expertise

  • Property and Estates
    Add this expertise to your shortlist

    Probate

    Oliver is an experienced trial advocate insofar as litigation under the Inheritance Act 1975 is concerned (the core focus of his practice) both in the Chancery and Family Division". Oliver has been described as a "go-to" junior Counsel in respect of Claims litigated under the Inheritance Act 1975, and was named as Junior Equity and Trusts Lawyer of the Year in the ACQ5 Legal Awards (UK) 2020. Oliver is also recognised and highly ranked in traditional Chancery/Property and Estates by the Legal 500 (Tier 1), Chambers and Partners and C&P High Net Worth, as well as being named a 'Rising Star" in London and Midlands (Chancery Tax and Probate).

    Recent representative examples include:

    Hirachand v Hirachand ("Re H") [2020] EWHC (Fam) 1134

    This case found for the first time that a Court could order an estate to pay for a CFA uplift as part of an award under the Inheritance Act 1975. Further, an award was made by video link in circumstances where the defendant (who was unrepresented) a profoundly deaf and disabled 87 year old woman who could not hear or see what was going on. The defendant had been debarred from defending the claim.

    Since this decision was handed down, it has become commonplace for claimants to now claim entitlement to be paid a CFA uplift in most 1975 Act claims that come before the chancery or family division of the High Court. Oliver was instructed to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal. Oliver is acting for the Appellant who obtained permission to appeal on all grounds raised. Oliver is led by Brie Stevens-Hoare KC.

    SL v JL (Family Division, Ongoing) - Spousal 1975 Act claim in circumstances were will only provided for life interest in FMH.

    Re A (Inheritance Act Claim)(Family Division, Ongoing) - Defending a 1975 Act claim by a spouse on behalf of an adult child sole beneficiary.

    H v H (Family Division (Leeds)) Ongoing - Adult Child 1975 Act Claim where claimant has severe mental health difficulties.

    CA v BD (Chancery Division, Ongoing)

    Derivative claim brought by beneficiaries of one estate against the executor of another. claimants are adopting the Vanderpitt procedure. Also concerns S50 application to remove executor.

    Trustees of Haie Estate v Christian Maass [2019] EWHC (Ch) 1129

    Successfully represented the trustees in a four day trial before Mr Richard Meade KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) concerning a claim brought on the basis of acquiescence estoppel. The judgment resolved some uncertainty regarding the circumstances that such a claim might be made out, and clarified the exceptionality of this nature of relief.

    Washington v Downie [2018] EWHC 2210 (Ch) (Falk J)

    The judgment concerned the extent to which estate accounts should be disclosed to third parties who are not beneficiaries under the will, but who claim to be under other rival wills. It was held that estate accounts need not disclosable in this circumstance. A person who wishes to prove a different will and revoke a grant of probate can do so without sight of estate accounts.

    Wilson v Lassman (No 2) EWCH Ch 85 (Master Bowles) (Adult Child/Section 4 application)

    Abbasi v Abassi [2017] EWCH Ch (s50 application to remove an executor)

    Ball v Jackson [2016] EWCH Ch (Pelling J) (Detailed assessment of executor-solicitor’s costs)

    Green v Green [2017] EWCH Ch (Application under Section 50 to remove executor)

    P v S (Ongoing) (Chancery Division) (Application under s116 to pass over/Beddoes Relief/third party breach of trust claim arising out of an alleged abuse of lasting power of attorney)

    Salmon v Green [2017] (Non-family dependent (Carer) 1975 Act claim)

    Hulme v Estate of Anthony Ball [2016] EWCH (Fam) (Defending beneficiaries against a co-habitant 1975 Act claim against a £1.3mil estate)

    F v A (Ongoing) (High Court, Chancery Division) (Co-habitant 1975 Act claim against a £2,000,000 estate)

    V v A (Ongoing) (High Court, Chancery Division) (Spousal 1975 Act claim against a £1,500,000 estate)

    Smith v A (Ongoing) (Chancery Division) (Adult Child 1975 Act claim involving section 4 and 9 application)

    W v Y (Ongoing) (High Court, Family Division) (Adult Child 1975 Act claim, 4 day trial before MacDonald J)

    A v B (Ongoing) (Central London CC) (Adult Child 1975 Act claim, 5 day trial before HHJ Madge)

    C v C (Ongoing) (Central London CC) (Defending Minor Child 1975 Act claim against £500,000 estate)

    Re M (Ongoing) (Central London CC) (Adult Child 1975 Act claim, section 4 application)

    Re G (Ongoing) (Central London CC) (Co-habitant 1975 Act claim against £700,000 estate)

    RE H (Ongoing) (Manchester CC) (Defending Co-habitant 1975 Act claim against £1,200,000 estate)

    RE A (Ongoing) (Winchester CC) (Adult Child 1975 Act claim against a small estate (£400,000)

    Re PNG Trust (Ongoing) (High Court, Chancery Division) (Part 64 claim/construction claim)

    Re X Estate (Ongoing) (High Court, Chancery Division)(Part 64 claim/account and inquiry)

    Kaur v Dhaliwal [2014] EWCA 1991 Ch; [2014] All ER (D) 164 (Jun) (Co-habitant 1975 Act appeal concerning the interpretation of “2 years” (as Martin Young’s Pupil assisting post-appeal)

    Personal Representative of the Estate of ED v Personal Representative of the Estate of JF [2018] EWHC (Ch)

    Acting for a personal representative in a claim to set aside a loan agreement, along with various claims under the Solicitors Act 1974

    RC v BC [2018] EWHC (Fam)

    Acting as sole counsel for a spousal claimant against a will which disposed of her husband’s entire estate (including the matrimonial home) without making any provision for his wife

    Re T, Central London County Court (ongoing)

    Acting for a co-habitant claimant in an application under Section 9 (to sever a joint tenancy of the quasi-matrimonial home) and 10 (to set aside transfers intended to defeat her claim)

    Re C, High Court, Family Division (ongoing): Acting for a severely disabled adult child claimant in a claim for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance Act 1975

    Re O, Central London County Court (ongoing)

    Acting for a co-habitant claimant under the Inheritance Act 1975, where a preliminary issue concerns the claimant’s eligibility to make a claim under section 1(1A) due to allegations that the relationship was “polyamorous” and therefore not akin to marriage

    Estate of A v Estate of S, High Court, Chancery Division (ongoing)

    Acting for the claimant in a constructive trust/estoppel claim/ claim to remove an executor, where it alleged that a trust existed over property owned by two deceased persons. The claim is by beneficiaries of the estate of A, who bring a derivative (or “Vanderpitt”) claim against the estate of S, on the basis that the two estates share the same personal representative.

    Oliver also has a keen interest in costs-only probate work. In particular he has acted in relation to the detailed assessment of executor-solicitor costs in the Senior Courts Costs Office and enjoys advising about the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs of estate administration. In particular, Oliver has an interest in the assessment of third party costs by way of account and inquiry (using the procedure in Tim Morris Interiors v Akin Gump) and in the application of  the "one fifth" rule to SCCO proceedings.

    Oliver occasionally acts on a CFA basis (usually in 1975 Act Claims involving Spouses or Co-habitants) and is always pleased to discuss options.

  • Commercial
    Add this expertise to your shortlist

    Oliver’s primary commercial interest is in financial services and banking. Prior to coming to the bar Oliver worked as a Risk Analyst with a particular focus on AIM and secondary markets.

    Oliver is currently instructed on two commercial court matters in his own right:

    • A £1,000,000 commercial fraud claim against a former de facto director relating to the illicit diversion of business away from the company to a competitor
    • A £1,200,000 claim (brought under FSMA 2000) in relation to a dispute over unsecured bond agreements (more particularly a civil action for breach of the COBS rules)

    Oliver is also currently acting on a number of matters in the Chancery Division, including:

    • Defending a £1,000,000 claim relating to a secured finance agreement on the basis of illegality and FSMA 2000
    • A claim against a private share market for damages exceeding £1,000,000 relating to a refusal to list shares.

    Oliver occasionally appears in the Queen’s Bench Division, most recently in relation to a claim involving breach of confidence/privacy/libel (in a commercial context). Oliver has also appeared in the Technology and Construction Court in disputes where there is a “chancery” element to the case.

    The following cases are examples of Oliver’s recent/on-going commercial work:

    Hangar Holdings v Perlake [2021]

    Oliver represented the defendant pre-trial (including settling the pleadings) in relation to the allegation that a website domain name (blackjack.com) was held on trust by the defendant. The case confirmed for the first time that a domain name is intangible property which can be subject to equitable interests/held on trust.

    Toucan Energy Holdings Limited Toucan Gen Co Limited v Wirsol Energy Limited [2021] EWHC 895 (Comm); [2021] 4 WLUK 35

    Oliver acted in a junior capacity assisting in relation to the litigation of a dispute worth £7,000,000 within the context of the telecoms industry.

    Avonwick v Azito Holdings [2020] EWHC 1844 (Comm) | [2020] 7 WLUK 188

    Oliver was instructed by Quinn Emanuel LLP to assist in a junior capacity in relation to litigation arising over a multi-billion pound deal in which fraud and misrepresentation/and unjust enrichment were relied upon. This case was described by The Lawyer as "one of the top cases litigated in 2020" as part of their annual publication of "Top 20 Cases of the Year".

    Premiair Areospace v Foley [2019] EWHC 1805 (QB) (before Whipple J)

    This case concerned the extent to which summary judgment should be available in cases involving dishonest assistance/knowing receipt when breach of trust is alleged.

    HCQ Sarl v Terre Primitive Limited [2019] EWHC 2556 (Ch); [2019] WLUK 385 (before Norris J)

    Oliver successfully represented the claimant in obtaining an injunction restraining the holding of a meeting/placement of the company into members voluntary liquidation (MVL). The case set out the principles to be applied when one seeks to injunct a company's members from placing the company into MVL.

    ROVOP v Install Sarl [2017] (Mercantile Court) (Moulder J)

    Proceedings relating to the interpretation of a settlement agreement in a £700,000 claim over international supply agreements

    Greenland Mining Management and ors v Persons Unknown [2017] EWHC (QB) 18 (King J)

    Injunction in the context of financial services

    X Market Technologies v Davies [2016] (Chancery Division)

    Abuse of process/dispute as to enforceability of contractual/liquidated damages clause

    Along with the cases listed above, Oliver is being lead by David Berkley KC on a solicitor/partnership dispute and assisting as one of many juniors in a large international litigation regarding the oil and gas sector.

  • Insolvency and bankruptcy
    Add this expertise to your shortlist

    Oliver is instructed in the upcoming trial of two Companies Court actions relating to preferences, director misfeasance and alleged fraud. More generally:

    • Oliver regularly attends Winding-Up Court (including the trial of disputed debt petitions) and attends the Interim Applications Court to obtain injunctions restraining presentation of a petition
    • Public examinations
    • Bankruptcy petitions (including the trial of whether offers have been unreasonably refused, and petitions with an international element)
    • Insolvency claims in the context of probate

    Oliver has a keen interest in costs-only insolvency work. Recently Oliver has advised in relation to an application to set aside default costs certificates issued in insolvency proceedings and has advised on the subsequent detailed assessment proceedings (inter-parties and trustee costs) before the SCCO. Oliver is happy to advise on the drafting and preparation of costs proceedings (points of objection/precedent A/R etc).

  • Recommendations

    Oliver Ingham of 3PB Barristers is an expert in probate litigation and often acts for clients in Inheritance Act claims.
    "A very good, measured advocate, who is commercially minded and very switched on."
    Chambers UK 2025/Chancery: Traditional/London Bar

    Strengths: “The tribunal finds him to be very engaging.”
    “He is passionate and tenacious without losing sight of the big picture.”
    “Oliver is very responsive, user friendly, driven and enthusiastic.”
    Chambers UK 2024/Chancery: Traditional/London Bar

    Oliver Ingham is an expert in probate litigation and often acts for clients in Inheritance Act claims. He has also developed a niche in representing Islamic clients and adopting relevant principles when framing a civil claim.
    Strengths: "Oliver is extremely tenacious; you want him in your corner."
    Chambers UK 2023/Chancery: Traditional/London Bar

    Oliver Ingham of 3PB Barristers is an expert in probate litigation and often acts for clients in Inheritance Act claims. A source asserts: "Oliver is extremely tenacious. You want him in your corner." Ingham has also developed a niche in Islamic finance matters and Shari'a inheritance.
    Chambers and Partners 2022 High Net Worth/Chancery: Traditional - London (Bar)

    ‘Oliver's commitment to his clients is second to none. He is a determined and clear advocate and a creative thinker.’

    Legal 500 2025/Private Client: Trusts and Probate/Leading Junior/London Bar

    ‘Oliver is quick to identify the essential nature of the case and is adept at conveying that to the client. He is also very client-friendly.’
    Legal 500 2024/Private Client: Trusts and Probate/Leading Junior/London Bar

    Rising star Oliver Ingham specialises in traditional Chancery litigation at all levels of the court system and is part of a team handling a high-profile Inheritance Act-related case, Hirachand v Hirachand, in the Supreme Court.

    'Oliver is quick to grasp the key issues. He is superb in mediation, holding his own against very experienced counsel on the other side and with the mediator.'
    Legal 500 2024/Chancery, Probate and Tax/Rising Star/Midlands Circuit - Ranked: Tier 1

    ‘Oliver Ingham is very hard-working and conscientious in his approach. He really cares for the client and does his utmost to achieve the best for the client. He is also really quick to respond and helpful in his hands-on approach.’ 
    Legal 500 2023/Private Client: Trusts and Probate/Rising Star/London Bar - Ranked: Tier 1

    "Rising star Oliver Ingham is praised for his ‘good judgment and the ability to argue difficult cases’ and successfully acted for a disabled adult child concerning an estate worth £1m."

    ‘Oliver Ingham is hard-working, diligent, and thorough as well as being sympathetic to clients in difficult circumstances. He is responsive and approachable.’
    Legal 500 2023/Chancery, Probate and Tax/Rising Star/Midlands Circuit - Ranked: Tier 1

    ''Oliver is very conscientious; he knows his subject area backwards. He always makes himself available when you need him. We have a lot of trust for him and he operates at a far higher level than his relatively modest number of years call would indicate.''
    Legal 500 2022/Chancery, Probate and Tax/Rising Star/Midlands Circuit - Ranked: Tier 1

    • Expand recommendations
<< /span> >