News

£900 fine for hedge fund lawyer who ‘lost his temper’ and punched opera-goer in row over seat

By on
32

Attack occurred at Royal Opera House

London’s Roya Opera House

An opera-loving lawyer has been fined £900 after attacking at top designer during a performance of Wagner at the Royal Opera House in London.

Matthew Feargrieve, 43, an investment funds lawyer, was found guilty of punching Ulrich Engler at least once during a row over an empty seat at the Covent Garden venue on October 7, 2018.

City of London Magistrates’ Court previously heard how Feargrieve “lost his temper” when Engler, whose fashion conscious clients reportedly include the Countess of Wessex and Princess Alexandra, moved from his seat in row B to an empty seat in row A, shortly before the third performance of the Ring Cycle by Wagner started.

Giving evidence last year, the fashion designer said he had asked Feargrieve’s partner, Catherine Chandler, whether he could sit in the vacant seat next to her. When she objected, Engler asked her if she had paid for the seat, to which she responded no. He then picked up her coat and placed it on her lap before sitting in the seat.

The 2020 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

“By then the conductor was up and the music started and I received blows to my left shoulder,” Engler told the court. “I only then turned around and saw Mr Feargrieve standing up an assaulting me. They were a constant flow of blows. They were very hard.”

But Feargrieve, a former partner at London law firm Withers, said it was Engler who had started the row, claiming the fashion designer had thrown his partner’s coat on the floor and pushed her as she bent down to pick it up.

Feargrieve denied assault but was found guilty at City of London Magistrates’ Court last December.

Appearing before Westminster Magistrates’ Court earlier today, the Oxford-educated lawyer was ordered to pay a fine of £900, costs of £775 and £500 in compensation.

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Newsletter

32 Comments

Legal Cheek’s First Cybernat #SNP #ImWithNicola #CheNicola #IndyRef2020 #VoteYes2020 #FreeScotland #ImSoExcited #AndIJustCannieHideIt

Wow. Imagine getting that angry over a theatre seat. Typical city boy lawyer thinking he’s so much better than everyone else.

(14)(10)

Dan Tisinferno

Out of interest, where in this or any of the media reports about this incident, does it say the defendant thought he was ‘so much better than everyone else’ ?

(3)(5)

Anon

Yes, all of them. Please check your facts before posting in future.

(2)(0)

Legal Cheek’s First Cybernat #SNP #ImWithNicola #CheNicola #IndyRef2020 #VoteYes2020 #FreeScotland #ImSoExcited #AndIJustCannieHideIt #StopOppressingMe

If you bothered to read the transcript of proceedings, if clearly said that the Defendant confirmed under cross-examination that he believed himself “to be so much better than everyone else”.

(3)(1)

KSF

where did you get the transcript?

(0)(0)

An

From his ass, that’s why it reeks of shit

Anon

Oh Jesus some people are incapable of reading sarcasm

Dan Tisinferno

Where, exactly? You’re making this up.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Christ, are people this literalist? Can you imagine how dull Dan T must be?

CyberNat’s Be Gone!

You aren’t getting another referendum so shut up. Scotland belongs to England and that’s that so just shut up and stop posting ridiculous attention seeking nonsense. You should have resisted harder back int he day shouldn’t you.

Jesus it’s so tiresome it’s all they talk about on BBC/ITV and then I come here and it’s on here too just fuck off no one fucking cares

(4)(1)

Anon

Withers is hardly city boys’ law

(0)(0)

Juul boi

“shortly before the third performance of the Ring Cycle by Wagner started.”

Not surprised at all. Imagine the prospect of another 8 hours of Wagnerian opera ahead of you, I’d start cracking skulls too.

(37)(1)

Anonymous

Lame! I would expect a more fearsome reaction from a person with the surname Feargrieve.

(9)(1)

Anonymous

Yawn. Do you cut and paste this every day or are you so dull witted as to type the same point out every time?

(7)(11)

Grow up

He’s right, though, isn’t he? Why not engage with the point? Or are you to dim to do so?

(12)(1)

Anon

What is one meant to say when all that happens is one case gets parroted out? One case shows nothing in terms of general approach to discipline. And the case in question has divided many commentators as to what was or was not proved and what was or was not relevant in a regulatory context. Just cutting and pasting variants on “but what about Lord Lester” is banal and reductive.

(5)(20)

Anon

You obviously don’t know how to use the words “banal” and “reductive” appropriately. Back to your exams! The Lester case is a seminal one for the approach of the BSB to these matters. You might as well say that reference to Donoghue v Stevenson is banal or reductive in the context of establishing a duty of care. When you come to study Donoghue v Stevenson, you will see what I mean.

And instead of referring to what others think of the Lester case, why not express your own view?

(0)(0)

1st Year

Citing Donoghue makes you sound like a student. What next, Tuberville v Savage? Carbolic Smoke ball Company?

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Bless, 5:47pm thinks people cite Donoghue. When he grows up to be a lawyer he will understand how funny his comment was. His A level law is very useful for convincing the ladies he is a lawyer, if the ladies in question are very dim.

(0)(0)

Anon

Hey, kids. Go to Lawtel (you might not have a login for this at university) and type in Donoghue v Stevenson: you will get multiple recent hits of its citation, including in the Court of Appeal. That’s what tends to happen with seminal cases.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

You try to rely on Donoghue to establish a novel category of duty of care. It is just a footnote in history.

(0)(0)

Anon

Tell that to the Court of Appeal or anyone who is actually in practice. You are embarrassing yourself. Back to your exams.

(0)(0)

Wellmeadow

This little spat was quite an amusing discovery. As someone who has argued duty of care in the CoA, I must say 1st Year and Anonymous are spot and sound like practitioners. Anon sounds like a student with access to Westlaw, Nutshells and not much else. As point out above, McAlister v Stevenson is “a footnote in history”. If you are citing that for your main argument you are going to look pretty desperate.

(0)(0)

Anon

I also have argued a duty of care point in the court of appeal and cited Donoghue v Stevenson, along with Caparo v Dickman. It is certainly not a mere footnote, no more than is Furniss v Dawson in relation to tax evasion.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

And what did the citation add, other than bundle to the bulk?

(0)(0)

Anon

You wouldn’t understand, as you are still at university, but the case was required to show that the physical danger principle is narrower than the neighbour principle laid down by Lord Atkin.

(0)(0)

Joker

Is that it? Money really does talk. Well thats why you should work hard or smarter kids.

(2)(0)

Anon

The starting point on the Magistrates Guidelines for a common assault with no injury and no use of a weapon is a fine and the sentence was a fine.

(0)(0)

A

Let’s hope the “right to be forgotten” disappears with Brexit such that forever people will know what a pompous twat this chap is.

(7)(0)

A non-knee mousse

”blows to my left shoulder”. Only a scrawny middle aged lawyer would punch somebody in the shoulder lmao.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Bet the “fight” was tragically funny to watch. Nerd fights at school were sometimes the most entertaining.

(8)(0)

Fly on wall

Such a middle class episode.

We shall await the story about how this chap has been suspended from practice for 12 months

(1)(0)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories