Ashley Neville


Gateley Legal

  • Leeds
  • t: 0113 261 6785


Ashley advises on a variety of contentious litigation matters including: enforcement of security; possession claims; complex title and security rectification; professional negligence claims; fraud; third-party disclosure issues including Norwich Pharmacal orders; freezing injunctions; and defending allegations of misrepresentation, breach of duty and mis-selling against financial institutions. 


  1. Advising on Clydesdale Bank Plc v Stoke Place Hotel Limited & Ors [2017] EWHC 181 (Ch) (07 February 2017) and [2015] All ER (D) 21 (Feb). Acting for the successful claimant, Clydesdale Bank Plc, in a substantial action against company directors and a former bank official involving allegations of deceit and conspiracy. Summary judgment obtained for £17m against the former bank employee in 2015 and judgment for £14m obtained at trial against a company director in 2017.
  2. Successfully advising a defendant bank on a claim made by four connected claimants (individual and corporate). The claims were for breach of an alleged contract to provide long term finance, alleged statutory misrepresentations, and unfair relationship under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
  3. Advising on a series of cases concerning authorised push payment frauds where either the paying party or the intended recipient of funds are pursuing claims against the financial institution holding the initial recipient accounts where the funds were diverted in the frauds. 
  4. Obtaining a Norwich Pharmacal disclosure order in respect of an approx. £1.6m fraud against a financial institution client, which enabled the recovery of substantial sums towards the monies fraudulently obtained.
  5. Successfully applying to discharge an injunction order obtained against two financial institution clients, which they were not given notice of, and were only informed of by a third party. The application required expeditious fact finding, an ability to accurately communicate a complex set of facts, and to effectively explain why the injunction order was made incorrectly and should be discharged.

Forward thinking insight

Direct to your email inbox

Subscribe now