Born in Shropshire in 1924, Robert Alexander Gatehouse was the only son of Major-General Alexander Gatehouse, invariably known as “Alec” and his wife, Helen. Alec commanded an armoured division at Second El Alamein, before falling out with his commanding officer, Bernard Montgomery, amidst recriminations about the relative performances of Eighth Army's tank and infantry units during the Battle. After finishing school at Wellington College in 1942, Robert also joined the Armoured Corps, as a junior officer in the Royal Dragoons, which had been part of his father's division in the Western Desert. He fought in Normandy, where he was wounded, and in the subsequent campaign in North Western Europe. After the War, he studied law at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, graduating with a first class degree. He was called to the Bar by Lincoln's Inn in 1950.
Robert Gatehouse’s father in Egypt in 1942, wrapped up against the cold of the desert night.
It was a difficult time to make a start at the Bar. Commercial work in particular was in a slump, and although Gatehouse would eventually establish a profile as a commercial practitioner, he began his career in a general common law and personal injuries chambers. His name was first mentioned in the law reports in a landlord and tenant action, and he appears to have spent his early years largely in the county courts, with very few appearances in reported cases. But he obviously showed promise. He managed to establish a niche practice in Australian appeals to the Privy Council, and, after a few years, was invited to become a tenant at 1 Brick Court, a more prestigious set and the former the professional home of Commercial Judge Patrick Devlin.
Brick Court's range of work was broad. During the 1960's and 1970's, Gatehouse was instructed in areas as diverse as employment, health and safety, land law, social security, and wills, as well as in more Australian appeals. He also added Malaysian cases to his Privy Council repertoire, and was regularly retained by the General Medical Council in disciplinary proceedings against misbehaving doctors. In British Railways v Herrington [1972] AC 877, a prominent tort case, he sought to persuade the House of Lords that the Board owed no obligation to fence-off a live electric rail which ran past a children's play area. The Lords were unconvinced by Gatehouse's argument that the six year old victim did not merit the protection of the law because he had trespassed on the line.
In R v Falconer-Atlee (1974) 58 Cr App Rep 348, Gatehouse even appeared in a criminal case, in an appeal against a conviction for theft arising from a mix-up in a sale poodle puppies. (This was not Gatehouse's only canine case. In 1978, the Kennel Club retained him to defend its rule that only men could become members. The Club decided to change its constitution and admit women before the litigation reached a conclusion.)
However, as the volume of commercial litigation began to increase during the later 'sixties, Brick Court began to build on the reputation for commercial work which had been established by Devlin, and, before him, by his mentor, William Jowitt. Gatehouse started making reported appearances in the Commercial Court towards the end of the decade, and became more prominent in commercial cases after his appointment as Queen's Counsel in 1969. He had an unfortunate knack for being instructed in losing causes in his more high-profile cases. In Schuler v Wickman [1974] AC 235, a much-cited authority on contractual construction, he and Brick Court colleague (and fellow future Commercial Judge) David Hirst QC failed to persuade the House of Lords that the word "condition" in a commercial agency agreement meant "condition". He also came off worst in Tai Hing v Kamsing [1979] AC 91, a Hong Kong appeal (Privy Council cases remained a significant part of his practice as QC) which remains an important authority on damages in sale of goods, and in Mahesan v Malaysia Housing Association [1979] AC 374, a bribery case in the days before fraud and corruption were a major component of commercial practice. In Bekhor v Bilton [1981] QB 923, Gatehouse could not convince the Court of Appeal that the recently-invented Mareva Injunction jurisdiction did not extend to orders for disclosure of assets, although, by way of consolation, he did persuade the Court not to order disclosure on the facts of the case.
But commercial work remained for Gatehouse only one element of a more broadly-based practice. His career as a QC included appearances in cases about copyright, land law, professional negligence, tax, and tort, as well as more cases for the railways. Undemonstrative, Gatehouse was not an eye-catching advocate. But he was a hard-working one, with an eye for detail and sound judgment. He knew how to construct a clear and forceful argument, and was an effective cross-examiner.
In 1978, Gatehouse was appointed leading counsel to a Tribunal of Inquiry which had been established to investigate financial mismanagement by the Crown Agents. Founded in the 18th Century to administer funds allocated to British colonies, the Crown Agents had gradually evolved into an overseas development agency, responsible for making UK-government-funded grants and loans around the world. In the mid-1970's, it emerged that they had lost more than £200 million in speculative loans and property investments, and the Inquiry was the second investigation into what had gone wrong. The publication of the final report in May 1982 was pushed out of the main headlines by the Falklands War. (The Tribunal concluded that the Agents' chief lender "was a gambler at heart", who had been inadequately supervised.) But perhaps Gatehouse's hard work on the Inquiry was a factor in his appointment to the Queen's Bench three years later, at the relatively advanced age of sixty-one.
The diversity of Gatehouse's practice at the Bar was good preparation for a range of Queen's Bench judicial work. He presided over cases involving building contracts, judicial review, local government, personal injuries, and tort. He was a success in criminal cases, and regularly sat as a member of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal. The 'Times' thought that "all his excellent qualities proved to make him a natural as a Judge". Legal practitioners appreciated his patience and courtesy, and he had a good sense for finding where the truth lay when the facts were bitterly disputed.
Getehouse in his judicial robes, wearing decorations from his own time as a tank commander in the Second World War.
As during his time at the Bar, commercial litigation was just one part, although a significant one, of a varied caseload, rather than the main focus of his judicial work. He spent some time in the Commercial Court in most of the years of his career, but delivered only about 25 reported Commercial Court judgments overall (although this represented a greater proportion of his reported cases than any area other than crime). In The 'Niobe' [1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep 52, he resolved a doubtful point about the meaning of a standard-form contract for the sale of second-hand ships, and had the gratification of seeing his judgment restored by the House of Lords after he had been overruled in the Court of Appeal. In The 'Pamela' [1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep 249, a charterparty case, he gave important guidance on when contractual notices take effect. From 1990 to 1993, he was heavily engaged in British & Commonwealth v Quadrex, largescale litigation arising from the collapse of a corporate takeover in the financial services industry. The liability trial lasted 64 days. After Gatehouse found in favour of the plaintiffs, the trial on quantum took another 83 days. (Back in 1989, Gatehouse's Commercial Court colleague and fellow-counsel from Schuler v Wickman had dealt with liability altogether more efficiently, ruling that the plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment. Not for the last time in Commercial Court history, the higher courts ruled that the Commercial Judge had been too hasty and that there must be a full trial, with the unfortunate consequence that the parties expended massive time, effort, and costs in order ultimately to arrive at the same result.) Gatehouse also tried several of the Lloyd's cases which kept the Commercial Court busy in the early 1990's. These included Ashmore v Corporation of Lloyd's [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep 620, in which he held that Names who had made enormous underwriting losses in the 1980's did not have a claim against Lloyd's itself.
Gatehouse was not an outstanding jurist. But he had sound judgment, and was a dependable decision maker. Perhaps his age marred his prospects of career advancement. At all events, he remained at first-instance until he retired in 1996. He tried a couple of Commercial Court cases in retirement, helping out when the Court was busy, but did not sit after 1998.
Robert Gatehouse was married twice, and had one son. He retained a lifelong devotion to his school. He was a governor for two decades, president of the Old Wellingtonian Society for 15 years, and a founder member of the Old Wellingtonians Cricket Club. Gatehouse did not acquire such a strong affection for the traditions and institutions of the law. Sharing Clement Bailhache's attitude to the social aspects of the legal profession, he showed little enthusiasm for mixing with Bar and Bench in the Inns of Court. A private man, he did not talk about his wartime exploits, which were rumoured to have included securing the surrender of a German tank when armed with only a pistol and force of character. His pastimes were largely solitary: he was an accomplished jazz pianist (but did not appreciate an audience) and cartoonist, and he took up woodworking in retirement. (In contrast to fellow enthusiast John Donaldson, he favoured figurative sculpture, rather than furniture and fittings.) He also enjoyed fine wines.
Robert Gatehouse died from cancer in 2002.