Pete Gardner

Pete Gardner
Associate - Defended Commercial Recoveries Manager
  • Banbury
01295 204038
  • Defended Debt Recovery
  • Debt Recovery
Pete Gardner is an Associate in Defended debt recoveries at Spratt Endicott. Pete has particular expertise in Debt litigation, Letters before claim, Insolvency, Particulars of claim, Defences, replies to defences, Civil procedure rules, Court advocacy, mediation, Settlement and Civil litigation. Next Generation 2019
Recommended 2019


Pete graduated from University pf Bedfordshire with a 1st Class BA (Hons) in Media Performance in 2001, after a brief stint in radio, Pete started his career as a Debt Collector in 2003.

Pete joined Spratt Endicott in 2004 and successfully qualified as a Fellow of the Charted Institute of Legal Executives in 2010. In May 2014, Pete was promoted to the level of Associate.

Pete client’s often comment on his responsiveness and ability to quickly grasp the issue. Pete provides his clients with quality advice and approaches cases in a practical manner to ensure the best outcome for his clients.

Work Highlights:

  • Pete specialises in Debt Recovery matters that are subject to Court Action. This can involve matters on the Small Claims Track and the Fast Track as a Claimant or Defendant.
  • Pete excels in the drafting of legal documents including letter before claim, particulars of claim, defence, reply to defence, defence to counterclaim, witness statement, case summary, schedule of issues and chronologies.
  • He is also adept at various Applications including those to set aside Judgment, Summary Judgment and matters involving insolvency and bankruptcy.
  • Pete is experienced at attending the local Court for various types of hearing.
  • Pete’s key clients include manufacturers of animal feed, international facilities companies, telecommunications companies, leading recruitment agencies, estate agents, factoring and invoice discounting firms, insolvency practitioners, suppliers of trade goods and security companies.
  • Pete has obtained Judgments on an extremely large number of cases, including those where the Client had all but given up hope of recovery.

Professional memberships, publications and interests:

  • Pete is a director of the Banbury Chamber of Commerce.
  • Pete is a keen legal blog writer with articles published in the local press and legal journals.
  • Fellow of CILEX.
  • Pete enjoys spending time with young family, watching films with a critical eye and playing tabletop games.
  • Watching and playing various sports.
  • Pete also has the general misfortune of following Oxford United around the country on a regular basis.
  • Pete is a Next Generation Lawyer and Recommended Lawyer in The Legal 500 UK 2018-19



Case Studies

  • Successful bankruptcy against nefarious debtor

    Pete’s Client wanted to make the debtor bankrupt as he had borrowed a large sum of money from them and, despite many promises and reassurances, had never paid more than a very small percentage back.

    The debtor was a nefarious character who spent a great deal of time making this matter problematical and trying to scare the Client from pursuing him. Using his experience of debtors, Pete advised the Client against stopping the proceedings simply on a promise of payment.

    The debtor was served with a Statutory Demand but applied to have this set aside. At the hearing of this application, Pete was successful in having the debtor’s application dismissed. The debtor then appealed against this decision and Pete was again successful in having this dismissed. 

    A Bankruptcy Petition was issued against the debtor and despite further applications to adjourn and appeal, the debtor was made bankrupt at the first attempt.

    Pete used his bankruptcy expertise to guide the Client through the process and file all the necessary documentation at Court which ultimately resulted in the debtor being made bankrupt. Pete used his application and appeals expertise to deal with the various applications the debtor made to Court and each one of these was defeated before a Judge.

  • Settlement on difficult Claim

    Pete was passed this file following the filing of the Defendant’s Defence and immediately spotted and advised the Client that their Claim had difficulties due to problems with proving that the Defendant was indeed the correct Defendant and serious billing errors had been made.  Pete advised that settlement was the way forward.

    Pete used his negotiations expertise to correspond with the Defendant’s Solicitor to try to get the best deal possible for the Client.

    Whilst negotiations were ongoing, Pete used his legal and drafting expertise to go through the Court process.  Pete advised the Client throughout all of the procedures and drafted all the documents, including the Reply to Defence and Witness Statement, by himself.

    The Defendant had been bullish throughout the proceedings in that they only wanted to pay a very small settlement sum.  Pete advised the Client that, despite the shortcomings in their Claim, they should seek a higher amount and, if necessary, take their chances in Court.  Eventually, under the weight of Pete’s arguments, the Defendant gave in and paid the Client what they wanted.  The Client was very happy with the result.

  • Fending off bullish opponents

    Judgment had been obtained against the Defendant and the Defendant had paid the Judgment debt in full to the High Court Enforcement Officer (“HCEO”). The Defendant had subsequently instructed a Solicitor to try to obtain repayment of the monies.

    The Defendant’s Solicitor tried to make the argument that the Defendant was not the correct debtor because it was a dormant company and should not have been pursued for the money. Pete used his investigations expertise to check Companies House records which showed that the Defendant had recently filed dormant accounts.  However, the HCEO had discovered that the Defendant had at least one ​vehicle in its possession that was subject to a finance repayment deal.

    Pete used his advocacy expertise to put this to the Defendant’s Solicitor and suggested that the Defendant should be declaring all financial transactions rather than filing dormant accounts. Pete also pointed out that the Defendant had not acted promptly in seeking to set aside the Judgment which had been entered 12 months previously. The Defendant’s Solicitor advised that they were likely to make the application to set aside immediately.

    Pete advised the Client that they should sit tight because Pete thought it unlikely that the Defendant would actually make an application to set aside the Judgment. The Defendant’s Solicitor made further threats to make the application but Pete felt that the Defendant’s Solicitor was bluffing and once again advised the Client to sit tight. 

    The Client took Pete’s advice which turned out to be correct as no application was made by the Defendant and therefore the Client was able to make full recovery of the debt plus full costs and interest.


Our People