Team of solicitors in London office Team of solicitors in London office

Our People

Richard Doman

Richard Doman

Richard was called to the bar in 2003 (Lincoln’s Inn).

Qualifications: LL.B. (Hons.), M.A. BVC at ICSL

Richard undertakes a wide range of Commercial, Employment and Property work.


Instructed in a full range of commercial disputes. Experienced in advising and acting in a number commercial actions, including civil fraud, partnership and franchise disputes, construction claims and employment. Significant contractual disputes include: Maple Leaf v Hands & Global – three-day trial concerning breach of contract for food packaging services; Amber Select v Armada Cars – acted for defendant at trial and successfully established that a credit purchase agreement was flawed; Dukesdale v J & J Transport – successfully established oral variation in £45,000 contract for services; Benson School of Driving v Barnes – persuaded court that franchise agreement was not breached and damages due for loss of reputation; Direct Telecommunications Ltd v Daisy Group plc – acted for claimant in case where defendant failed to pay the full purchase price for telecommunications contracts held by the claimant, substantial damages awarded. Construction cases include: FFE Fire & Safety v Jarrards – acting for the defendant in a dispute regarding the defective installation of fire and security alarm systems at Christie’s warehouse, the defendant being the main contractor to Christie’s; Carr v Sibley & Burgess – acting for the claimant in a dispute regarding quality of the installation of electrics in £120,000 domestic renovation project; BES Phoenix Commissioning v Glowstar Entertainment – acted for claimant where defendant unsuccessfully withheld payment for the installation of air conditioning units at an underground bar. Case involved substantial and complex expert evidence regarding air conditioning and licensing regulations.


Regularly instructed for both claimant and respondent in employment disputes. Clients, including M & L Ambulances, are often keen to instruct early in proceedings in order to receive commercially realistic advice upon the merits of the claim in addition to the expert advocacy experience that comes with that advice. Notable employment instructions have included: Cohen v Bailey Nicholson Greyson – five-day tribunal hearing in which client was a solicitor who was unfairly dismissed. Extensive cross-examination of partners in the firm as well as mathematical analysis of the complicated redundancy matrix; Williams v Cater Link – acted for claimant and advised in settlement of significant damages in race discrimination case; Mothe v Channel Commercials – acted for the claimant in a case where I established unfair dismissal despite evidence that the claimant had attempted to direct the respondent’s clients to rival business run by his wife; Raja v Bank of Tokyo – acted for claimant in dispute arising out of respondent not honouring a severance agreement.


Experienced in assisting clients who are vulnerable or elderly who have become involved in long-running property disputes. Regularly instructed in cases involving familial disputes resulting in trusts and application of provisions within the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act. Significant cases include: London Borough of Lambeth v Oswusu – acting for tenant who was elderly and had learning difficulties, successful in establishing a common tenancy; Haldane v Brennan – instructed to advise over a number of years in regards to possession before finally acting on behalf of landlord; Shanghani and others v Dreamworld developments – instructed for claimant in Chancery Division cases involving dispute in regards to the construction of holiday homes in Morocco. TOLATA cases in the Chancery Division have included: Patel v Parmar & Parmar – acting for a defendant in familial dispute regarding significant property portfolio; Kundhi v Kundhi – acting for claimant who wishes for a beneficial interest to be declared in a significant family property. In the county court: Sobey v Sobey – acting for the defendant where parties formerly married, settled to the advantage of the defendant subject to costs; Bedford v Theodorou – acting for the claimant in case where defendant alleging that he did not have capacity to sign declarations of trusts when he did so.


South-Eastern Circuit, Criminal Bar Association, Employment Law Bar Association, Public Access Bar Association, and Human Rights Lawyers Association.

Request a callback

Please complete your details below and
one of our team will be in contact shortly