Daniel is an experienced commercial real estate solicitor with a strong track record in commercial property sales and purchases and all aspects of non-contentious landlord and tenant work. He also advises on portfolio, asset and estate management and the property aspects of corporate transactions.
He has particular expertise in the property aspects of insolvency cases and has advised many insolvency practitioners over many years on distressed disposals.
Daniel is a practical and personable lawyer who gets to know his clients well and has a loyal following, acting as a key adviser, attending board meetings and generally providing more than legal advice.
He is also a company secretary to a substantial privately owned property trading and investment group, and a director of another property investment company
Experience
Purchasing a 20-acre site in Cambridge for Logistics hub Advising a subsidiary of one of the UK’s largest independent trade distributors of timber on the acquisition of land with a simultaneous agreement for the development and funding of a 300,000 square foot warehouse and logistics centre.
Advising a private property investment company on the acquisition of former Travis Perkins site in Peterborough, let to a national plumbing supplies wholesaler.
Advising a privately held investment company on an off market acquisition of a multi let mixed use estate in Stevenage, successfully carrying out due diligence and exchanging contracts within a short timescale
Acting for an investment company on the purchase of a mixed use estate in Cambridgeshire, with 70+ tenants – managing a team carrying out rapid due diligence, and exchanging contacts within a short timescale.
Multiple sales of commercial properties for insolvency office holders, properties ranging from part finished developments, office buildings, industrial estates and mixed use buildings and with values up to £35million.
Daniel's insights
Insights
Sep 30, 2025
Grosvenor Property Developers Ltd v Portner Law Ltd
The solicitors accepted that the firm was vicariously liable for Mr Broughton’s actions. It also accepted that, if Mr Broughton had a dishonest state of mind, the steps taken in providing the legal services it had provided amounted to dishonestly