Landmark Chambers

Aaron Walder

Aaron has significant experience in appellate jurisdictions including appearing un-led in several groundbreaking and high profile cases in the Court of Appeal. Aaron is acknowledged and recommended in Chambers and Partners as a leading junior in Real Estate Litigation and is also consistently recommended by Legal 500 as a leading junior in Property Litigation, where he has been described as “a fantastic advocate”, “clearly highly intelligent and has a thoughtful approach to work”, and “very bright and knowledgeable and doesn’t go down without a fight”. His practice can be broken down into five key areas. Commercial Landlord and Tenant; Agricultural Land; Residential Landlord & Tenant; Real Property; and the interpretation of documents, and clauses within them, generally. He regularly gives talks and presentations on new and interesting developments within those fields. His specialist knowledge is recognised by his current appointment as the consultant editor of all volumes of Halsbury’s Laws: Landlord and Tenant. He has been involved in a number of high profile matters including acting for many well known developers and house builders, local authorities, and large infrastructure providers including HS2, Transport for London, Network Rail, the Highways Authority, the Environment Agency, as well as various departments of His Majesty’s Government. In many of his recent cases he has been instructed as sole counsel with silks appearing against him. Outside of the law, Aaron is a keen sportsman. He is a member of the MCC, Middlesex CCC, and a season ticket holder at Harlequins RFU. He also retains a season pass at the French ski resort of Les Deux Alpes, and tries to get there for as many weekends as work will allow during the winter.

Admas Habteslasie

Admas has a busy practice spanning public law (acting for claimants and interveners) and property law. Admas has extensive advocacy experience in the County Court, Tribunals and High Court, and regularly acts in high-profile and complex cases across his areas of specialism, including appellate litigation in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Prior to joining Chambers, Admas spent a year as the judicial assistant to Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court and worked in Syria and Jordan for the UN Refugee Agency. Admas speaks fluent Arabic.

Alex Goodman KC

He frequently appears in the higher courts and recently led the successful appeal about open space in the Supreme Court in Day v Shropshire. He was awarded the Legal Aid Lawyer of the Year Outstanding Achievement award in 2021. He was appointed to the EHRC’s ‘A’ Panel in 2019. He is the Joint Head of Landmark Chambers’ Public Law Group. Alex acts for any client: developers, individuals, local authorities, central government, NGOs. He is particularly known for public interest litigation. His broad practice includes: planning, environment, public law, public Interest litigation, human rights and civil liberties, immigration, discrimination and equality, Local Government, climate change, habitats and public inquiries. Alex wrote the Atkins Court Forms edition on Common Land and Village Greens. Alex helped set up Medical Justice, a charity working with immigration detainees (of which he was chair for five years) and a human rights NGO Kindred which he helped establish initially to organise advice to migrants in Northern France during a career break 2015-2018. Alex is a former councillor at the London Borough of Camden. International work As a fellow of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law Alex has worked on the constitutions of Myanmar, Palestine and The Gambia. He is currently instructed on climate change cases in South America and East Africa.

Alex Shattock

Alex is a public, planning and environmental law practitioner. His practice is broad and includes matters involving human rights, equality, education, community care, immigration, housing, pollution, climate change and information law. On the public law side his clients include individuals (including vulnerable children, destitute asylum seekers, migrants, homeless persons, and persons with disabilities), and public bodies such as state schools. Alex is ranked in the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners for environmental law. His clients include include NGOs and campaigners such as ClientEarth, the Environmental Law Foundation, Extinction Rebellion activists, Fossil Free London, the Good Law Project, Friends of the Earth, Rights: Community: Action, the RSPB, WWF-UK, and Urban Squirrels. On the planning side his clients include individuals, community groups, local authorities, consultants and developers. He is one of Planning Magazine’s top-rated junior barristers under 35. Notable work includes: Acting for the claimant in the challenge to the controversial Bibby Stockholm asylum barge. With Fiona Petersen and led by Alex Goodman KC. Reported in many media outlets. Acting for the successful claimant in R (Hough) v SSHD [2022] EWHC 1635, a planning and consultation challenge to the controversial continued use of Napier Barracks as asylum seeker accommodation. Reported in The Guardian and on the front page of the Sunday Mirror. With Charles Bishop and led by Alex Goodman KC. Acting for the claimant in R (Rights: Community: Action) v SSHCLG [2021] EWCA Civ 1954, an environmental and equalities challenge to the government’s “slum housing” permitted development reforms and Class E planning deregulation (Alex appeared in both the Court of Appeal and Divisional Court), reported in the media here, here and here. Led by Paul Brown KC. During the course of the claim, the government announced minimum space standards for permitted development homes in England. Acting for the claimant in XXX v Camden Borough Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1468, the leading Court of Appeal case on applications for anonymity orders under CPR 39.2. Led by Justin Bates. Alex accepts direct access and pro bono instructions where appropriate. He is a legal reviewer for the charity Freedom From Torture. Alex has a doctorate in public international law from Cambridge, as well as law degrees from Oxford and LSE. During his doctorate he researched the legality of military intervention in civil wars. His previous work experience includes teaching economics, working in a secure prison, and working at the Law Commission on its driverless cars project. In his spare time he enjoys films, video games, and Scandinavian heavy metal music.

Alistair Mills

Alistair was called to the bar in 2011 and his areas of practice are planning, environmental, and public law. He is the author of Interpreting the NPPF: the New National Planning Policy Framework (Bath Publishing, 2018). In 2019 and 2020 he was ranked by Planning Magazine in the list of the top-rated planning juniors under 35. He has appeared in leading cases in the Court of Appeal. He has been a member of the Attorney General’s Panel of Civil Counsel (C Panel) since 2017 (moving up to the ‘B’ panel on 1 September 2021). The Legal 500 said of Alistair in 2020: “Alistair is a highly skilled advocate, he is very thorough with both submissions and advice, is very responsive to queries and is able to quickly digest complicated issues and pull out key points.” European Union Law Alistair’s practice raises matters of European Union law. In the context of planning and environmental law, the decision of the Court of Appeal in R (Shirley) v SSHCLG [2019] EWCA Civ 22 included arguments on the interpretation of the Air Quality Directive. The social security cases SSWP v MC [2019] UKUT 84 (AAC) and IG v SSWP [2016] UKUT 176 (AAC) concerned the EU harmonisation regime for social security benefits.

Andrew Parkinson

Andrew specialises in planning and environmental law focussing on housing, commercial and energy-related schemes. He frequently appears at Inquiries and has appeared in Court at all levels up to the Supreme Court. Practice Summary Andrew is a specialist planning barrister with particular expertise in housing, commercial and energy development. The directories describe him as “a superb advocate, with excellent cross-examination skills” providing “written advice of the highest order” (Chambers and Partners), having “a complete mastery of the details of a case” and being “extremely popular with clients”(Legal 500). Andrew’s planning practice includes both Inquiry and Court-based work. He has an extensive client-base, including some of the UK’s leading developers and housebuilders, land promotors, landowners, Central Government and a number of local authorities. He is a member of the Attorney General’s “B” Panel of Counsel. Some of the schemes Andrew has acted on recently include: Leverhulme Vision: Seven co-joined appeals for 788 new homes in the Green Belt. Appeared for the developer (with Christopher Boyle KC) at the Inquiry which spanned over seven weeks. Chiswell Green: Co-joined Green Belt appeal for 721 new homes, recovered by the Secretary of State. Appeared for the local planning authority at the Inquiry. Holborn Studios: Acting for the developer (with Sasha White KC) for this commercial-led development in London. Many greenfield planning appeals: Regularly acts and appears at Inquiry for both developers and local planning authorities in edge of settlement planning appeals, particularly in the Green Belt, settlement gaps, and those raising landscape/heritage/highways issues. High Street West Regeneration: Advising and appearing for the local planning authority in various challenges relating to this major mixed-use regeneration scheme (including almost 3,000 new homes). As well as this Inquiry work, Andrew also has a busy Court practice including numerous un-led appearances in the High Court and Court of Appeal. Notably, this has included: Compton Parish Council v Guildford Borough Council [2019] EWHC 3242 (Admin) the leading case on “exceptional circumstances” for Green Belt release (for Martin Grant Homes). Barton Park Estates v SSHCLG [2022] PTSR 169: Court of Appeal decision clarifying the I’m Your Man principle and the proper approach to determining whether there has been a material change of use (for the Secretary of State). R. (Juden) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2021] EWHC 1368 (Admin): the leading case on the correct interpretation of NPPF policies protecting veteran trees (for the Claimant). R. (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] UKSC 52: Supreme Court challenge to a third runway at Heathrow Airport (for Friends of the Earth). Davison v Elmbridge Borough Council [2019] EWHC 1409 Admin: the leading case on the materiality of quashed planning decisions (for the Claimant).

Andrew Byass

Andrew has a broad inquiry, court and advisory practice, which spans all areas of his expertise and includes experience at every level of court and tribunal. Having qualified as a barrister and solicitor in Australia in 1997, Andrew returned to the Bar in 2010. He has worked in various legal roles in both the private and public sector in Australia, the United States and the UK. Immediately prior to returning to the bar, Andrew worked as a senior solicitor in central government undertaking public law litigation. Andrew has a wide client base, which includes major developers and landowners, central government, NHS trusts and CCGs, local authorities, NGOs, and individuals. He is consistently ranked as one of the top junior planning barristers in the country. Recent case highlights include: Appearing in Parliament for a group of Manchester authorities, in respect of their petition for the HS2 station at Manchester Piccadilly to be underground, rather than at the surface as proposed in the Phase 2b Bill. Acting for Lendlease in respect of an application for planning permission for a major regeneration scheme in Tottenham, including the proposed provision of over 2,600 new homes, including in respect of the challenge to the grant of planning permission by Tottenham Hotspurs Football Club. Acting for HS2 in respect of a large compensation claim for land acquired for the new high-speed railway, involving claims for both land acquisition and injurious affection and disturbance. Acting for a developer promoting a 15 storey tall building in Camden, and successfully obtaining planning permission following a public inquiry. Acting for a developer promoting a waste recycling facility on a site on the outskirts of Winchester, and successfully obtaining planning permission following a public inquiry. Appearing in the Supreme Court in a highly significant case concerning conflict of laws, and in particular what applicable law should apply to a claim alleging involvement by the Government in the detention and mistreatment abroad of a foreign national.

Andy Creer

The primary areas of Andy’s practice are real property, commercial L&T and the Electronic Communications Code. She works for institutional landlords like the BA Pension Trustees, Lunar SARL, U&I and BNP Paribas, and for many high-profile tenants including Leon Restaurants, Hermes, Ted Baker and for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. She has trial experience of opposed and unopposed lease renewals under the 1954 Act. She has advised on expert evidence and merits on dilapidations claims on office, industrial and warehousing, and mediated a £3.5m dilapidations claim involving Ford Castle. Many of Andy’s cases involve site development whether it be specific issues like the enforceability of restrictive covenants, rights to lights claims or site aggregation strategies. She has conducted expert determinations (both as a party and as an expert) in cases involving the interpretation of lease provisions and disputed overage clauses and has acted as a legal assessor in an arbitration. She has advised the National Trust, Her work on property damage has included sinkholes and landslips. She ran the first trial in England & Wales involving Japanese knotweed and her subsequent articles on liability have been cited by DEFRA (Risk & Policy Analysts Report, September 2020) and in the latest RICS Guidance “Japanese Knotweed & Residential Property” (1st edition Jan 2022). Recommended as a leading property junior by both Chambers UK and Legal 500, Andy is noted for her excellent forensic analysis skills and incisive witness handling. One expert building surveyor compared the experience to being “cross-examined by a smiling Doberman”. Andy came to the Bar after a successful career in industry, latterly as the director of an international manufacturing company. This experience, allied with her first degree in business and finance, means she provides clients with commercially-focused advice. In her spare time her creative outlet is writing quizzes and compiling puzzles. Her ‘dingbats’ have become a popular Christmas tradition. Reported Cases: Panton & Ors v Brophy & Ors [2019] EWHC 1534 (Ch) – obtained a vesting order for new trustees of the Thames Tradesmen Rowing Club London Borough of Camden v Morath & Ors [2019] UKUT 0193 (LC) – instructed via Advocate (BPBU) on behalf of a leaseholder seeking to resist a variation of her lease under s.35 of LTA 1987. Evolution (Shinfield) LLP & Ors v BT PLC [2019] UKUT 0127 (LC) – first trial of a claim to determine an agreement under Part 6 of the New Code (led by Brie Stevens-Hoare QC) Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council v Punj Lloyd Ltd [2018] EWHC 3776 (Admin) – successful respondent to an appeal by way of case stated in respect of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 where the Council relied on a landlord’s specifically enforceable obligation against a guarantor to take an overriding lease to claim £1.2m in rates. Red & White Services Ltd v Phil Anslow Ltd [2018] EWHC 1699 (Ch) – endorsement of a costs cap for future incurred costs. Williams v Network Rail Infrastructure Limited [2017] UK CC Cardiff (02.02.17) – on proximate nuisance caused by Japanese knotweed. Farrar v Leongreen Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 2211 – on whether a claim for mesne profits and a claim for possession against a trespasser are based on the same cause of action (‘claims in trespass’). Spielplatz Ltd v Pearson [2015] EWCA Civ 804 – consideration of annexation of structures following the House of Lords decision in Elitestone v Morris [1977] 1 WLR 687. Thandi v Sands [2014] EWHC 2378 (Ch) – dispute over beneficial interest in portfolio of 16 properties following bankruptcy. Swan Housing Association Ltd v Gill [2012] EWHC 3129 (QB) - on the county court’s jurisdiction in cases involving adverse possession in light of the Land Registration Act 2002. Aksu v LB Enfield [2012] EWCA Civ 60 – renewal tenancy opposed on ground (b). Murphy v Wyatt [2011] EWCA Civ 408 – whether the Mobile Homes Act 1983 provided security of tenure retrospectively to a tenancy which did not preclude the siting of a caravan on a 1.7 acre site. Chelsea Building Society v Nash [2010] EWCA Civ 1247 – effect of a lender’s settlement with one debtor on their joint liability.

Anjoli Foster

Anjoli's practice focuses on all aspects of planning and environmental law, including housing, commercial and retail, infrastructure, energy, compulsory purchase and enforcement work. She frequently appears in planning appeals and in the Planning Court. Her clients include a range of national and regional housebuilders and land promoters, central government, local planning authorities, and environmental groups. Anjoli is consistently rated as one of the top junior planning barristers in the country. She is ranked by Planning Magazine as the 2nd ‘Top-Rated Junior Under 35’ and the 11th ‘Top Rated Junior’. She was also selected by a panel of judges as one of The Planner’s Women of Influence. Her practice focuses on all aspects of planning law, including housing, commercial and retail development, infrastructure, energy and compulsory purchase. She frequently appears in planning appeals, local plan examinations and hearings in the High Court and Court of Appeal. Her clients include a range of national and regional housebuilders and land promoters, central government, and local planning authorities.   Some of the notable high-profile cases Anjoli has been instructed on include: Use Class E and new permitted development rights: instructed by the government in the High Court and Court of Appeal to defend the widely-discussed legal challenge to the amendments to the General Permitted Development Order and the Use Classes Order, which introduced new permitted development rights to build upwards and the new Use Class E. Brighton Marina: acted in the significant public inquiry into the proposed development of 1,000 residential units at the Brighton Marina, consisting of nine buildings ranging from 8 storeys to 28 storeys in height. The decision was called-in by the Secretary of State and was one of the first appeal decisions by the Secretary of State on the approach to the updated NPPF on design matters. Newcastle Quayside: appeared in the public inquiry, and subsequently the High Court and Court of Appeal, concerning a dispute over proposals for 289 apartments in a 14 storey building on the iconic Newcastle Quayside. The contentious matters particularly included quality of design, impact on heritage assets and living conditions. Holocaust Memorial, Westminster: represented the Government in a legal challenge to the decision-making on the “called in” planning application for the UK Holocaust Memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens. Barnet House: a public inquiry into proposals for mixed residential and commercial development in Whetstone town centre, London, consisting of several buildings, including a 14 storey tower. Tenterden, Kent: promoted a scheme for 145 houses, country park and sports pitches on greenfield land. Successfully represented the developer at the three-week planning inquiry, the legal challenge to the grant of permission, and the associated public rights of way inquiry. Surge of Power (Jen Reid) statue, Bristol: represented the appellant in an appeal into the installation of a statue of a black female protestor, following the toppling of the statue of slave-trader Edward Colston. The appeal raised highly topical issues of contested heritage and diversity and inclusivity in public spaces. Great Wolf Water Park, Bicester: acted in this substantial three-week public inquiry concerning proposals for the country’s largest water park. Due to public interest this inquiry was streamed live on YouTube, receiving over 1,000 viewers per day. Kennington, Lambeth: promoted over 250 residential units, including a 29-storey tower, in central London, on behalf of the developer at a planning inquiry. Mornings Mill Farm, Wealden: represented the developer in an inquiry promoting proposals for comprehensive development including 700 houses, 8,600 sqm of employment floorspace, a medical centre and a school. In her spare time, Anjoli is an active tennis player, representing her county of Warwickshire, as well as the All England Lawn Tennis Club and Cumberland Lawn Tennis Club. Prior to joining Landmark Chambers, Anjoli was a Law Scholar at Keble College, Oxford University. She graduated with a first-class degree and went on to obtain a distinction in the Bachelor of Civil Law also at Keble College, Oxford. She also spent a year working at the Law Commission.

Ben Fullbrook

Ben is frequently instructed to appear in the High Court and at planning and infrastructure inquiries. Ben has also appeared both led and unled in the Court of Appeal and has also acted on cases in the Supreme Court. His clients have included individual claimants and defendants, developers, environmental groups, local authorities and government departments. Ben is appointed to the Attorney General’s C Panel of Junior Counsel. Ben’s notable recent cases include: R (Widdington Parish Council) v Uttlesford District Council [2023] EWHC 1709 (Admin) - a claim relating to inter alia the treatment of “fall back” development as a material consideration in planning decisions. Ben acted for the successful claimant. R (Cabinet Office) v Chair of UK Covid-19 Inquiry [2023] EWHC 1702 (Admin) - a high profile challenge by the Cabinet Office to the decision of the Covid-19 Inquiry to require the former Prime Minister and others to provide unreacted WhatsApp messages to the Inquiry. R (FMA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 1579 (Admin) - a challenge raising issues of importance relating to Home Office immigration guidance and Article 6 ECHR. R (Friends of West Oxfordshire Cotswolds) v West Oxfordshire District Council [2023] EWHC 901 (Admin) - A claim relating to the discharge of conditions attached to a planning permission. Ben acted for the successful claimant. R (Humane League UK) v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs [2023] EWHC 1243 (Admin) - a challenge relating to the keeping of meat chickens in the UK. Ben acted as junior counsel to the successful Defendant. R (Ibrar) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities [2022] EWHC 3425 (Admin) - a leading case on the procedure for challenging planning enforcement appeal decisions. R (ALO) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] ACD 120 - a claim relating to the refusal of entry clearance for an Afghan translator on national security grounds. Warwick DC v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities [2022] EWHC 3425 (Admin) - a leading case on the interpretation of NPPF Green Belt Policy. R (Swire) v Canterbury City Council [2022] JPL 1026 (Admin) a one of the most significant Planning Court cases of 2022 relating to the meaning of the words “in accordance with”in planning permissions. Ben was led by Dan Kolinsky KC. R (Elan-Cane) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] 2 WLR 133 (SC) - Ben was instructed by Fair Play for Women to apply to intervene in the Supreme Court’s hearing SSHD’s refusal to include a non-gendered marker on a passport, as an alternative to male and female. R (Cross) v Cornwall Council [2021] EWHC 1323 (Admin) - a high profile challenge to the grant of planning permission for a large dwelling in the Cornwall AONB on the grounds of failure to give reasons. Ben acted on behalf of the successful claimant. R (Fraser) v Shropshire Council [2021] EWHC 31 (Admin) - a challenge to a grant of planning permission for Extra Care accommodation. The claim raised issues relating to age and disability discrimination and the application of the public sector equality duty. Finney v Welsh Ministers [2020] 1 All ER 1034 (CA) - a challenge to the interpretation of s.73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and one of the most significant planning judgments of 2019. Ben successfully represented the Appellant as sole counsel. Ben also successfully resisted an application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. Dulgheriu v Ealing LBC [2020] 1 WLR 609 (CA) - a challenge to an order by the local council excluding protestors from the vicinity of an abortion clinic. Ben acted for the Claimant (led by Philip Havers KC). The claim raised significant issues in relation to Articles 9, 10 and 11 ECHR. R (Langton) v SSEFRA [2019] 4 WLR 151 (CA) - a challenge to the Secretary of State’s policy on badger culling, raising important points about the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations (led by Richard Turney). Ben also has extensive experience in public inquiries having acted as junior counsel to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) in 2018-2022 and for individuals involved with the COVID-19 Inquiry. Prior to joining Landmark, Ben worked for five years as a civil service fast streamer at the Ministry of Defence. His work spanned various aspects of defence and security policy and included liaison with foreign governments, dealing with public law challenges, and the application of international human rights law. Ben was also involved with the government’s effort to plan for the 2012 London Olympics.

Brooke Lyne

Brooke is a specialist property barrister with a successful practice covering real estate matters and commercial and residential landlord and tenant disputes. Brooke recently appeared (being led) for the successful landlord in the Supreme Court in Aviva Investors Ground Rent GP Limited v Williams & ors [2023] UKSC 6. Brooke was recently described in the legal directories as "razor sharp in her legal analysis and advice, Brooke’s advocacy style is pragmatic, attentive and highly effective." She is frequently called upon to advise or act in complex matters often involving esoteric areas of property law. For example, Brooke has advised on security of tenure under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 and the Rent Act 1977; and she advised and acted in a claim for possession of freehold land arising from non-payment of a rent charge. Brooke is also often called upon to advise on complex issues relating to the proper construction of leases or other documents. In recent years, Brooke has worked on a number of cases involving trespass to the roofs and external parts of iconic buildings by urban explorers looking to obtain social media content and notoriety. In 2022 Brooke successfully obtained an interim injunction in the High Court to protect the Centre Point Tower in Central London from urban explorers. The matter is expected to proceed to a final hearing in 2023. Brooke is regularly instructed in a wide range of commercial landlord and tenant disputes. Brooke has acted in numerous commercial rent arrears cases; lease renewals and dilapidations claims. Brooke is currently involved in several complex forfeiture claims involving high-value commercial premises. Brooke has extensive experience of leasehold disputes in the First-tier Tribunal, particularly those involving cladding and remediation works. Brooke has been instructed to advise various clients on the implications of the Building Safety Act 2022 and is involved in some of the first applications for remediation orders to reach the tribunal in 2023. Brooke recently appeared (being led by Simon Allison) for the successful landlord in the Supreme Court in Aviva Investors Ground Rent GP Limited v Williams & ors [2023] UKSC 6; a case concerning the scope of the tribunal’s jurisdiction in leasehold service charge disputes about the apportionment of service charges. In 2020, Brooke acted for the successful landlord in Trecarrell House Limited v Rouncefield[2020] EWCA Civ 760 (being led by Justin Bates); a case about whether a landlord’s failure to provide a tenant with a gas safety certificate prior to occupation was fatal to the landlord’s ability to ever serve a s.21 notice. Brooke regularly films webinars, gives lectures and writes about property law issues. In the past year she has covered a range of topics including forfeiture, interim possession orders, orders for sale and possession and lease renewals of business tenancies. Brooke is the co-author of On Your Feet: A Practical Guide to Civil Advocacy.

Camilla Lamont

Camilla has been consistently recognised as a leading junior in real estate litigation by Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners, and as a national and global leader by WWL UK Bar and WWL Global Real Estate. She has twice been named Real Estate Junior of the Year at the Chambers UK Bar Awards, in both 2017 and 2021, and is currently ranked as a Tier 1 senior junior in real estate litigation. Camilla has a well established reputation in the field as a user friendly adviser and advocate who combines intellectual acumen with an understanding of the commercial realities facing clients. Her clients include developers, institutional landlords and national retailers as well as individuals. She has appeared in high profile property cases in both the High Court and Court of Appeal. Her practice covers all aspects of real property including conveyancing and title disputes.  She regularly acts for clients in relation to development agreements as well as options, restrictive covenants, easements and rights to light that affect property development. She also handles property related environmental and professional negligence claims. Her landlord and tenant practice encompasses, amongst other things, dilapidations, tenant default and insolvency, forfeiture, break clauses, rent review, service charges, ESG and 1954 Act renewals. Camilla also has considerable experience in disputes relating to the management of both residential and commercial premises. Camilla has previously held posts as a tutor and lecturer of land law, equity & trusts and commercial leases at Oxford University. In 2019 she was appointed a fellow of the Society for Advanced Legal Studies (University of London) and is a member of its advisory board. She has published widely in her field and has been an editor of Hill & Redman on Landlord and Tenantsince 2002. Appointments As the former Chair of both Landmark Chambers’ Equality and Diversity and Wellbeing Committee and Retention of Women Working Group, and a current member of Chambers’ Management Committee, she takes a keen interest in diversity, inclusion and wellbeing at the Bar. Camilla is also committed to pro bono work which she accepts through Advocate (formerly the Bar Pro Bono Unit). She has been one of Advocate’s Senior Reviewers for property and landlord and tenant cases for a number of years. She has previously sat on the Independent Decision making Body (IDB) of the Bar Standards Board and served as Vice Chair of its Qualifications Committee Camilla has been a qualified mediator since 2009 and accepts instructions to act as a mediator in relation to property disputes.  She is on the Chancery Bar Association’s panel of pro bono mediators.

Charles Bishop

Charles practises across all areas of public, planning, infrastructure and environmental law. He has appeared in a number of high-profile cases. His notable work includes: COVID-19 care homes challenge – Acting for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Public Health England in R (Gardner) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] PTSR 1338, [2022] EWHC 967 (Admin), a policy challenge relating to certain decisions around care homes at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic (in a team led by Sir James Eadie KC). The case was listed as one of The Lawyer’s top 20 cases of 2020. There were two interlocutory hearings concerning applications for specific disclosure (including of WhatsApp messages) and cross-examination ([2021] EWHC 2422 (Admin)), and the use of expert evidence and parliamentary materials ([2021] EWHC 2946 (Admin)). The case was widely reported in the press, including by the BBC, Sky News, the Telegraph, the Guardian, and the Daily Mirror. Brexit – Acting for the proposed intervener, the3million, in a judicial review claim brought by the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements (led by Galina Ward KC and instructed by the Public Law Project) against the Secretary of State for the Home Department in respect of her implementation of the EU Settlement Scheme. Napier Barracks – Acting for the claimant in a successful challenge to the Town and Country Planning (Napier Barracks) Special Development Order 2021 which grants planning permission for use of an army barracks in Kent as asylum accommodation (led by Alex Goodman with Alex Shattock) in R (Hough) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 1635 (Admin). Lieven J held that the Secretary of State had breached the public sector equality duty in making the Order. The case was reported on the front page of the Sunday Mirror, in the Guardian and Planning Magazine. An appeal has been lodged in respect of other matters. Rent repayment orders – Acting for the intervener, Safer Renting, in Rakusen v Jepsen [2022] 1 WLR 324, the leading case on rent repayment orders under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (led by Justin Bates). Permission to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court in May 2022. East Anglia ONE North offshore windfarm – Acting as junior counsel for the claimant SASES (led by Richard Turney) in a judicial review of the grant of development consent for the East Anglia ONE North and East Anglia Two offshore windfarms (reported in the East Anglian Daily Times). Permission has been granted on all grounds. Charles is a trustee and the Secretary of Rainbow Migration, a charity that supports LGBTQI+ people through the asylum and immigration system. Immediately prior to starting at Landmark, Charles provided research assistance in relation to a wide variety of public law cases, including R (Miller) v College of Policing [2020] 4 All ER 31. He was also the Legal and Parliamentary Officer at the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (ILPA) from 2019-2020 where he provided analysis on all areas of immigration, asylum and nationality law. He regularly advocated on behalf of ILPA members in high-level meetings with politicians, the civil service, the judiciary and other NGOs. In particular, he led on ILPA’s work relating to the ending of free movement following Brexit, including with Parliamentary lobbying on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 and various pieces of secondary legislation. Charles regularly assisted with ILPA’s Strategic Legal Fund. He is well-placed to advise NGOs and charities on strategic legal challenges. Before the Bar course, Charles worked as a paralegal at Wesley Gryk Solicitors, a leading immigration firm, where he assisted with cases spanning the full range of immigration, asylum and nationality law. He previously volunteered with the Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit (ATLEU), Stonewall Housing, the Communities Empowerment Network and Citizens Advice. During his studies, he spent a year abroad at the Université Panthéon-Assas (Paris II) and undertook an internship at the Académie Diplomatique Internationale.

Christopher Boyle

Christopher was called to the Bar (Lincoln's Inn) in November 1994 and he was appointed King's Counsel in March 2013. He joined Landmark Chambers in 2007. Christopher is a qualified mediator. For over 25 years, he has specialised in Town and Country Planning, Compulsory Purchase, Environmental and Infrastructure Law, acting principally for developers, landowners and scheme promoters. For over 20 years, Christopher's practice been dominated by the promotion of major housing schemes across the country, at section 78, local plan and now neighbourhood plan levels. These include past and present promotion of 2,500-8,500 houses at Braintree, 4,500 in the wirral and 400 at Newmarket Hatchfield farm and many schemes of around 100-500 units taking advantage of para’s 11 of the NPPF. Christopher has a recognised expertise in the issues of housing, 5-year land supply and neighbourhood plan matters. At Dawlish he defeated the first ever neighbourhood plan to reach examination. His case Woodcock Holdings v SSCLG represents a milestone case in the approach to the then para. 14 of the NPPF. His clients include many of the Country’s largest house-builders: Berkeley Homes, Barratt/David Wilson, Crest Nicholson, Persimmon, Gleeson Developments, Croudace, Wates and Rydon Homes among others. He also regularly acts for landpromoters landed estate and landowners directly promoting their own sites. His work with the Prince’s foundation and the Build Better Build Beautiful commission gives him an insight into the government’s ‘beauty agenda’. Town centre regeneration CPOs and retail work has encompassed protecting and extending retail landownership for major investor/owners at Northleigh Park, Wigan, Telford Town Centre, Skelmersdale Town Centre, Eastbourne Town Centre and schemes for Lidl in East London as well as representing Tescos at Wigan Town Centre CPO, Scarborough Building Society at Leeds Town Centre CPO, John Lewis Partnership at Sheffield Town Centre CPO, Victoria Palace Theatre at Victoria Station LUL CPO, the landowner’s bank at Margate Dreamland CPO. Christopher was a founder member of the Compulsory Purchase Association, wrote the PEBA Consultation response to the IPC/DCO process in the 2008 Act and has been involved throughout his practice in significant infrastructure promotion. This has included hybrid bill (Central Railways), TWA (eg the Second Tyne Tunnel; the £500m Mersey Gateway Bridge), and conventional planning and highways CPO.

Christopher Lewsley

Christopher Lewsley is a contributor and editor of leading publications on non-domestic rating and compensation for the use of statutory powers, including Rating and Valuation Reporter, Rating Appeals and Sweet and Maxwell’s Encyclopedia of Rating and Local Taxation. He has appeared in many rating and compensation cases at all levels of the court and tribunal system and has considerable experience of advisory work, case preparation and advocacy, and as case reporter, author and speaker on those topics. His experience now fuels his interest in current and future developments in rating and compensation, and informs his appreciation, analysis, commentary and articles on those topics. Christopher is a graduate of Leeds University with a PhD from Warwick University. He was called to the bar in 1976. His practice at Landmark embraced property law, planning, highways and other engineering and development schemes, compensation for compulsory purchase, and local taxation. He is a chartered engineer, a life member of the Institution of Structural Engineers, and an honorary member of the Rating Surveyors Association.

Christopher Jacobs

Christopher advises and represents clients at all levels from the Supreme Court to the First-tier Tribunal. Christopher has particular expertise in judicial review actions and public inquiries in the field of public law. In property law, Christopher has acted in a number of cases involving water courses and riparian rights and specialises in this area. In planning law matters, Christopher has acted in a number of significant public inquiries dealing with compulsory purchase orders and urban regeneration schemes. He acted for the objectors to a regeneration scheme in the Aylesbury Estate CPO Public Inquiry.  He also acts in relation to judicial and statutory review of planning decisions.

Dan Kolinsky

Dan is an experienced advocate at all levels of the Court system, tribunals, and inquiries. His clients include central government, local government, developers, interest groups, ratepayers, commercial organisations, individuals, and NGOs. He has appeared in leading cases on affordable housing, planning contributions, green belt and the interpretation of planning policy including two planning Supreme Court cases. He has appeared in six Supreme Court rating cases. Planning: Dan is an experienced planning inquiry advocate. He has extensive experience in High Court planning cases for claimants, developers, local and central government. He has particular expertise in regeneration projects in London, for example the regeneration of the Elephant and Castle (Southwark) and High Road West Masterplan (Haringey) and affordable housing viability, for example representing LB Islington in the Parkhurst Road case. He accepts instructions on behalf of developers, local planning authorities, statutory bodies, local groups or any other participant in the planning process. He has appeared as advocate in the Supreme Court in two recent cases; Lambeth v Secretary of State, and R (Samuel Smith Old Brewery) v North Yorkshire County Council. He was advocate for the successful local planning authority in the leading case on NHS planning contributions R (University Hospitals of Leicester NHS) v Harborough District Council. He advises planning authorities in respect of local plans and infrastructure projects. Rating: Dan frequently appears in non-domestic rating cases acting for ratepayer, valuation officers and billing authorities. He has considerable experience in cases relating to whether the rating list entries are correct, exemption issues, completion notices, unoccupied rates disputes, valuation issues and collection/enforcement. He has appeared in six recent Supreme Court cases (Nuffield Health, Cardtronics, Iceland, Monk, Woolway and UKI Kingsway). He was made an honorary member of the Rating Surveyors’ Association in 2017. He has recorded a series of rating podcasts linked below: The Supreme Court’s decision in the ATM cases – key points Completion Notices Using judicial review to bring rating challenges Preparing expert evidence in rating cases Collection and enforcement of non-domestic rates Home offices and non-domestic rates Rating law history. Environment: Dan has extensive experience of High Court challenges to complex environmental projects (including waste facilities) – acting for and against the decision making bodies Public Law (including Local Government): Dan is a versatile public lawyer who has acted in a wide range of areas across all aspects of judicial review, local government, regulatory law, welfare benefits and funding challenges. He is a suitable choice for a case which needs an experienced advocate who is willing to work as part of a team and bring clarity and focus to the oral presentation of a case. He advised the Airports Commission throughout his process. Before he took silk, he served on the Attorney General’s Panel of Junior Counsel (A, B and C panels) for 12 years. Advocacy before Tribunals: Dan has extensive experience appearing in before the Upper Tribunal and First-tier Tribunals across a full range of areas including education, care standards and all aspects of social security law. Mediation and Other Projects: Dan is interested in mediation (participating or acting as mediator) and is willing to be considered for specific projects which required an experienced KC with his skill set and experience Approach to Work: Dan’s style is collaborative and unstuffy. He wants to understand what his clients are seeking to achieve and establish clear parameters about what is realistic. He manages his time to deliver the best service possible for his clients. Life outside of Chambers: Dan is a keen cyclist and enjoys walking. He has been involved in school governance for 18 years and was the Chair of the Board of Directors of BMAT Education, an 11 school multi-academy trust based in Essex and East London.

David Nicholls

He specialises in disputes relating to: • land ownership (adverse possession, boundary disputes, trusts of land, and land registration and conveyancing issues). • land rights (restrictive covenants, easements, profits, highways, and party wall matters). • landlord and tenant (commercial and residential) • commercial property (including property development, insolvency, mortgages, charging orders and securitisation). David’s busy practice focuses on commercial property litigation.  He is frequently instructed as a trial advocate in relation to a wide range of property disputes. David is particularly interested in competing land rights and the resolution of disputes relating to the development and use of land, acting for developers and other landowners in the strategic planning and successful implementation of the potential development of land, using the tools of litigation where necessary. Such cases typically involve rights such as easements and restrictive covenants and may require obtaining necessary the consents. In one recent High Court case (2022), David successfully acted for the commercial leaseholder of a development site who sought a declaration that the freeholder had unreasonably refused consent for the proposed development. David is frequently instructed in the context of neighbour disputes, whether residential or commercial. Typical cases may concern land ownership, such as boundary disputes and adverse possession claims; or they may involve building work, such as party wall cases. David is a co-author of ‘Party Walls:  Law and Practice’ (4th ed.) and has significant expertise in party wall matters, including appealing awards and obtaining urgent injunctive relief. In one case, David successfully obtained a mandatory injunction after a four-day trial requiring the removal of the offending structure (Ormiston-Kilsby v Fattahi (2019) (Oxford County Court). David’s expertise extends to all aspects of real estate law and landlord and tenant law, including insolvency and professional negligence disputes. David has many years’ experience in dealing with land securities such as mortgages and charging orders, and he is fluent in relation to the application of insolvency law to property disputes.  He acts for companies and individuals, bank and office-holders. David is frequently instructed on landlord and tenant matters, whether commercial or residential. Typical instructions include: Acting for a landlord in a three-day trial opposing a commercial tenant’s claim that the landlord had unreasonably refused consent for change of use (2022). No Curfew Limited v Feiges Limited [2018] EWHC 744 (Ch) (High Court):  David acted for the successful Defendant in this challenge by the landlord to a rent-review arbitration on the ground of mistake. David is particularly adept at responding quickly to urgent instructions, including last minute applications for injunctive relief, or even last minute instructions as trial counsel. For instance: June 2023, David was instructed to obtain an urgent injunction to restrain a sale of land with less than 24 hours’ notice. In September 2022, David was instructed to take over a right of way case four days before a three-day trial when the previous barrister was taken ill.  The case involved nearly a dozen witnesses and half a dozen experts, plus documentation exceeding 20 lever arch files.  David was able to achieve a successful outcome for his clients in their claim which concerned the weight and width of vehicles that could use a 200m track providing access to a Welsh sheep farm (Lamport v Jones (2022) (Cardiff County Court). David is regularly instructed in the Tribunals and Courts in relation to claims for rights of way and on land registration issues, such as adverse possession. David is the consultant editor of two volumes of Halsbury’s Laws: Auction (vol. 4 (2020)) and Mortgage (vol. 77 (2021)).

David Holland

The core of David's practice is all forms of property litigation. He also practises in the areas of professional negligence and costs. David is one of the best known practitioners in his field. He has immense experience of litigation and advocacy in front of all types of court and tribunal all the way up to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. He acts for all types of clients in all types of disputes within his specialist areas. His clients range from individual householders to the largest property developers and landowners. He has represented local authorities, firms of solicitors and representative bodies. David can accept instructions under the Bar Council’s Public Access scheme. David has been ranked in the legal guidebooks as a leading practitioner in his fields for many years and is currently ranked in the highest band/tier in both Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 for property litigation. He was previously named the Real Estate Silk of the Year at the Chambers and Partners Bar Awards. In the Chambers and Partners Guide 2024 for Real Estate Litigation, David is described as “A superb advocate and lovely to deal with." and as “the barrister that you want by your side for highly complex matters. He is an excellent advocate and brilliant when dealing with cross-examination”. In the Costs Litigation section of the Chambers and Partners Guide he is described as “a master in the courtroom - he's an incredible advocate” and as having “a great ability to cut through masses of detail and find a way to the heart of the case. He is fantastic both in his paperwork and on his feet in court." David sits as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Chancery Division. He is also a Recorder and sits as a part-time Judge of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). He also acts as an arbitrator and expert. David is a member of both the MCC and Surrey CCC. He is also an Arsenal season ticket holder.

David Smith

David's practice has developed from a specialism in both landlord and tenant and planning. His planning inquiry work embraces both shorter and longer public inquiries. For the longer inquiries this tends to involve multi-disciplinary teams of consultants ranging from the technical to the creative. His inquiry and advisory work covers a wide range of topics and has embraced a considerable number of mineral proposals (both deep mine and opencast), many road proposals, a number of deep sea ports, several major airport inquiries, and a proposal for a large intermodal freight exchange. David’s inquiry work also features many aspects regularly found in complex Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) cases, such as air quality and emissions/depositions, noise, blasting, ecology and habitats, waste, flooding and water quality.

David Elvin

David Elvin QC was called to the Bar in 1983 and took silk in 2000 and is called to the Bar of Northern Ireland. He is a bencher and member of the Middle Temple and a member of the Inn of Court of Northern Ireland. He was awarded the Bar Prize for Finance, Commerce & Industry in 1982. He was named as the Silk of the Year 2008 in Environment and Planning at the Chambers & Partners Bar Awards and has been nominated on several other occasions. He specialises in planning, environmental and public law (including most aspects of local government, highways, compulsory purchase & compensation) as well as property related matters and the human rights and European Union law aspects of those areas of practice. David appears frequently in court and at inquiries at all levels and before many different tribunals. During his time as Treasury counsel, he appeared in many planning and public law cases and acted for a wide range of government departments and bodies. Since taking silk he has appeared in the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, European Court of Human Rights and European Court of Justice. He has also appeared on judicial reviews in the High Court and Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland and is acting in the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong. He is regularly listed as a leading specialist in a number of fields in the main directories including the Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners (where he is named as a leader in 6 practice areas and in 2016 as a star individual in Planning). Recent work has including a wide variety of significant planning, environmental and compulsory purchase cases. Recent CPO work has included town centre regeneration schemes most recently promoting the Croydon Whitgift Centre CPO (confirmed in September 2015) and the Mayor of London’s first CPO at Ealing Southall (to facilitate a large housing development). His work in that context includes issues concerning best value, EU state aid and procurement: see R. (Gottlieb) v Winchester City Council [2015] EWHC 231 (Admin). Earlier regeneration work has included promoting the Liverpool One Scheme and the Winchester Silver Hill CPO Scheme 2012 as well as successfully opposing Manchester’s CPO of the former London Road Fire Station. Major infrastructure work has included promoting the Crossrail Bill in Parliament for DfT as well as opposing the HS2 scheme (both in the Courts and in Select Committee), acting and advising on DCO matters (including Covanta’s Brig y Cwm scheme, Hinckley Point C, the Thames Tideway Tunnel, the M4), advising on the Mayor’s proposed Thames Estuary Airport, Gatwick and at the recent George Best Belfast City Airport inquiry into noise restrictions. He is also experienced in waste issues having acted in a number of waste and energy from waste projects including the successful defence of the Calvert EfW plant for Bucks County Council in 2013 (Prideaux [2013] Env. L.R. 32) and of the South London facility at Beddington (R. (Khan) v Sutton LBC[2014] EWHC 3663 (Admin)). In addition to CPO and regeneration work, David also undertakes compensation work including in respect of electricity wayleaves: see Arnold White Estates Ltd v National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc [2014] Ch. 385 and Stynes v. Western Power [2014] R.V.R. 15. He is due to appear in the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong in CLP Power Hong Kong Ltd. v. Commissioner of Rating and Valuation in January 2016. David has also continued to advise and act frequently on other environmental issues including EIA, SEA and habitats in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: For example, in 2013 he acted for the NI DOE in relation to proposals near the Giant’s Causeway (JR by the National Trust) and for the NI Department of Regional Development in the Alternative A5 Action Alliance’s Application for Judicial Review [2013] NIQB 30 and, most recently, in successfully defending DOE’s decision on habitats and EIA grounds in Newry Chamber of Commerce and Trade’s Application for Judicial Review [2015] NIQB 65. He is currently advising on the enforcement action and judicial review concerning habitats issues arising from sand dredging at Lough Neagh. He continues to act for the horse racing industry in opposing housing development in Newmarket (most recent inquiry in 2015) following the quashing of the local housing policies in Save Historic Newmarket [2011] J.P.L. 1233. In the Court of Appeal David has recently appeared in Ashdown Forest Economic Development LLP [2015] EWCA Civ 681 where be obtained the quashing of part of the authority’s core strategy for breach of SEA requirements and in R. (Larkfleet Homes Ltd) v Rutland CC [2015] EWCA Civ 597 where the Court considered the relationship of neighbourhood plans to the general development plan statutory framework and SEA. In Savage v. Mansfield DC [2015] EWCA Civ 4 David successfully defended on appeal the dismissal of a judicial review relating the effect of a draft proposal to extend the Sherwood Forest SPA. He is also advising on the interaction of CIL, habitats issues and biodiversity offsetting. David’s current work also includes acting for the City of London Corporation and LB of Southwark with regard to their disputes with TfL over the transfer of London highways at arbitration and at an appeal hearing in the Chancery Division (October 2015), for the City of London concerning the proposals to undertake safety works to the ponds on Hampstead Heath (R. (Heath & Hampstead Society) v City of London [2015] P.T.S.R. 987) and for TfL on Crichel Down issues. David is also Chairman of the St Paul’s Covent Garden Millennium Trust.

David Blundell

David regularly appears in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. He frequently acts as sole counsel on behalf of the United Kingdom Government in proceedings before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and has represented the United Kingdom in proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights. David is ranked as a leading barrister in six different areas in the main legal directories: Administrative Law, Environment, EU Law, Immigration Law, Local Government Law and Planning Law. The 2015 Planning Magazine survey ranked him as a top-rated planning junior. The 2009 Planning Magazine survey ranked him in the top 10 planning barristers in the country under 35. David was named the Immigration ‘Silk of the Year’ at The Legal 500 UK Bar Awards 2023. David was shortlisted for the Chambers and Partners Human Rights and Public Law Junior of the Year award in both 2018 and 2016, and for the Legal 500 Public Law Junior of the Year award in 2018. In 2015, he was appointed to the Attorney General’s A Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown, after 5 years on the B Panel and 3 years on the C Panel before that. He was also on the Treasury Solicitor’s former list of counsel specialising in Freedom of Information issues until its incorporation into the main Attorney General’s Panels. He regularly works on national security cases. David began practice in 2004, after spending a year working as a Judicial Assistant to the Law Lords (Lord Nicholls and Lord Rodger). He is the Joint Editor of the leading public law journal Judicial Review and was a Visiting Lecturer in European Community law at City University. David is fluent in French, and has good German, basic Czech and Slovak and is learning Farsi.

David Forsdick

David was appointed King’s Counsel in 2014 and specialises in environmental and planning law, local authority law and associated public law.  His practice is approximately evenly split between cases in the High Court and above, inquiries and advisory work and his clients include major players in his area of expertise including numerous central government departments, large local authorities, a number of the main environmental NGOs and commercial landowners and developers. To give a flavour of his practice, recent work includes acting for the RSPB in a challenge concerning protection of a rare species on grouse moors in SPAs; for the government in judicial reviews concerning withdrawal of funding from failed waste PFIs; for owners of tall buildings in securing injunctions and contempt findings in respect of urban exploring; for a London borough in securing £multi-million unpaid affordable housing contributions; for landowner in £multi-million compensation claims following CPO; a major developer in a dispute on affordable housing and viability; for the government in securing permission for a new school in Gloucester, for a County in resisting permission for a huge and controversial  mineral site  and for a local authority successfully restricting the spread of airport related car-parking across its area. Consistently highly rated in the key directories, recent recommendations have described him as “hugely impressive”; “a fantastic talent”; “thorough, detailed, bright and pleasant to deal with”; “really frighteningly astute”; and “so focussed, intelligent, sharp and responsive and very practical”. A Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown – appointed 2005 (B Panel – 2002 and C Panel – 1999) Appointed as Secretary of State decision maker in statutory appeals – 2008/9 Appointed as legal assessor by Secretary of State and by mediators in various contexts Chair of the Free Representation Unit 1993-94 Chair of Governors of Federation of Primary Schools in Islington (since 2001)

David Lock

David Lock was called to the Bar in 1985 and made a KC in 2011.   He is a public law specialist and was judged by a panel of leading lawyers to be the Legal 500 Public Law QC of the Year for 2020.  He sits as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Queen’s Bench and Family Divisions. David has appeared in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal on many occasions, the High Court, the County Court, the Court of Protection, has drafted Parliamentary Bills and has advised individuals, companies and government bodies in a variety of international jurisdictions. He has vast trial experience, including cross-examining expert and lay witnesses, but also has a wide-ranging public law and appellate practice. He is exceptionally knowledgeable and gains the confidence of vulnerable clients.’ Legal 500 2018 David took silk in 2011 and since then has appeared in a series of high profile administrative and public law cases, acting for public bodies and against them.  David is joint editor (with Hannah Gibbs) of the leading practitioner’s book, “NHS Law and Practice” and his technical expertise as a public lawyer has been recognised by his appointment as one of the joint editors (along with David Blundell) of the leading journal “Judicial Review”. David has a particular expertise in public sector pension schemes, particularly in cases involving medical retirement or pension rights associated with injuries suffered by public servants in the course of their work. He is the author of the Landmark Guide to the Law on Police Pensions. He was on the panel of Treasury counsel before taking silk.  David has also appeared in leading cases concerning local government, immigration, police, prisoners’ rights and procurement law.  David was appointed as a member of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s ‘A’ panel in May 2019. This panel of counsel plays an important role in helping the Commission to achieve its objectives which include reducing inequality, eliminating discrimination and protecting human rights.

Eian Caws

Eian Caws was called to the Bar in 1974 and, following pupillage in 2 Paper Buildings and Francis Taylor Buildings, he returned to Paper Buildings to take up tenancy there in 1975. From there and subsequently, following the Chambers move to 4 Breams Buildings, he has specialised in planning, environmental, compulsory purchase and highway law. This work has involved his appearance in a large number of public inquiries and in the courts, acting for a wide cross-section of corporate, public sector and private clients. He has also been appointed to sit as an Inspector, to chair an Examination in Public of a Structure Plan and has assisted in the Planning Inspectorate’s internal training programmes. Eian Caws is a committee member of the Planning and Environment Bar Association.

Evie Barden

Evie is ranked as up and coming in Chambers and Partners 2023 edition. She has a diverse property practice. In 2022, she was: junior counsel for the successful Claimant in the, now leading, constructive trusts and unjust enrichment decision in Fattal v Fattal [2022] EWHC 950 (Ch); sole counsel in Kirby v Electricity North West Ltd [2023] EWHC 75 (TCC), a case regarding the valuation of loss following damage to agricultural land; and junior counsel in the High Court challenge to an expert determination of service charges in Pearson plc v Shell International Trading & Shipping Co Ltd. She has a broad advisory practice. Recent highlights include: the interplay of ground (f) in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and rights under trusts; potential action and liability by a landlord for pollution of watercourse by an insolvent tenant; whether receivers of multi-million pound residential property were bound by certain tenancies; the impact of the sanctions regime on a tenant’s leasehold obligations; a co-ownership dispute arising following the breakdown of an alleged business partnership; and, the valuation approach to mooring rights under a licence. Evie has considerable trial experience, particularly in cases under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and cases involving security interests. In 2022 and 2023, she was instructed at trial: on a claim involving undue influence in the grant of a mortgage; on a claim where borrowers alleged mutual mistake in the grant of a mortgage; on a ground (g) case for a tenant under the 1954 Act; on a rent and interim rent under the 1954 Act regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic; on a constructive and resulting trust claim; on a claim regarding the existence of an agricultural tenancy and the quantification of the tenant’s lost crops; and on a From an insolvency and company law perspective, in recent years she has advised on a number of cases regarding the impact of the insolvency of developers, particularly for off-plan purchasers and she regularly acts on cases involving dissolved companies, such as in connection with the Scarborough Group litigation against Bank of Scotland, where she (along with James Ayliffe KC) obtained orders appointing receivers over causes of action so that proceedings could be commenced prior to the restoration of the prospective claimants. She also routinely advises administrators and landlords on claims for permission to forfeit in administration and claims to pay rent and other sums as expenses of the administration. Evie is a contributor to the third edition of Gough on Companies Charges. Her notable experience includes: Advising on a number of COVID-19 related cases, including those relating to the enforceability of covenants during the period, frustration of leases, and recovery of rent and other arrears in light of various moratoria. Acting for the Chief Land Registrar in Longe v Chief Land Registrar [2020] EWHC 1517 (Ch), a successful application for summary judgment against a claim for Norwich Pharmacal relief and/or that the Land Registry had been involved in an unlawful means conspiracy and collusion. Acting for the successful respondent in Dao v Falmouth House Ltd [2020] EWHC 609 (Ch), an appeal against a master’s decision striking out a claim under the Arbitration Act 1996 on the basis that the claim form had been served out of time and the test in CPR r.7.6(3) had not been met. Representing the freeholder of a central London block of flats on a number of claims including in a three day trial in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and on an appeal to the Upper Tribunal. Advising and drafting proceedings for the landlord of a shopping centre against a supermarket regarding the construction of service charge provisions in the lease of the supermarket’s unit. Acting for a bank in relation to a number of mortgage possession proceedings, including in respect of a number of forthcoming claims involving undue influence allegations and issues about subrogation and equitable charges. Along with Zia Bhaloo KC, acting as junior counsel for the claimant in a claim for declarations and an account into the sums due to the claimant in respect of rent, estimated to be between £9 million and £11 million, arising out of several hundred residential properties which the claimant supplied to a local housing authority pursuant to oral agreements. Along with Zia Bhaloo KC, acting as junior counsel for a tenant in a claim for declarations and an injunction restraining construction works at a shopping centre being carried out in derogation from grant and/or in breach of lease which the tenant estimated would cause multi-million pound losses as well as reputational damage. Acting for a landlord at all stages, including successfully at trial, in a claim for possession of a Kensington mews house following forfeiture, in which the tenant alleged fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit. Acting for a foreign state in respect of an application for relief from forfeiture of a commercial property in central London. Advising and drafting proceedings for injunctive relief in respect of trespass and breaches of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. Acting for a number of property development companies in obtaining various orders for possession of development properties in London occupied by trespassers. Drafting proceedings and appearing at trial for a licensee of agricultural premises in relation to a claim that the license had been frustrated. Evie is a contributor to the forthcoming edition of Gough on Company Charges. She is an expert on the dissolution of companies, regularly advising on issues and appearing in applications relating to dissolution and restoration of companies. Her recent experience includes: Regularly appearing on applications to suspend the dissolution of companies following the release of the liquidator in CVL, including in relation to putative group action proceedings in the High Court arising out of solicitors’ negligence relating to property fraud. Regularly advising and appearing on applications arising out of the registration of company charges. Advising on the obligations of company directors for the purposes of proceedings in the Beth Din. Advising on a prospective unfair prejudice petition where a director in a quasi-partnership was accused of stealing the company’s confidential information. Advising a company director on the consequences of potential breaches of permission from the court to act as a director while disqualified.

Fiona Scolding

Fiona has expertise in issues relating to safeguarding, protection of children and vulnerable adults, education, healthcare, community care and equalities legislation in a variety of contexts. Fiona has a particular interest and understanding of concerns and complaints relating to governance, standards and organisational culture, monitoring and inspection. She is interested in policy development as a tool for cultural change and improved outcomes for individuals. She is used to undertaking work with significant media and public interest on sensitive topics. She has spent much of her time in silk involved in public inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005 or undertaking investigations and reviews in sectors where she is an expert. She was lead counsel to three different investigations at the Independent Inquiry for Child Sexual Abuse – relating to the Church of England and Church in Wales, schools in England and Wales and a plethora of other religious institutions resulting in four investigation reports: The residential schools investigation report – March 2022 Child protection in religious organisations and settings investigation report – September 2021 The Anglican Church Investigation Report – October 2020 Anglican Church Case Studies: Chichester/Peter Ball Investigation Report – May 2019. Fiona then represented 297 individuals and the Hepatitis C trust in the Infected Blood Inquiry, which involved understanding and analysing all aspects of the provision of healthcare, including the role that central government plays in its management and operation of the NHS as well as a number of quangos. She has also undertaken high profile reviews for a leading public school in respect of sexual harassment and misogyny between pupils (published March 2022 on the Westminister website) and for an NHS Trust about governance of maternity care (Published on Shrewsbury and Telford NHS Trust website). She has undertaken several internal reviews concerning complaints linked to governance, oversight, appointment, standards and equalities in a number of different organisations in the public sector. Fiona has been recommended for her work in education law for over 20 years in the directories and is also recommended in the following areas: administrative and public law, civil liberties and human rights, Court of Protection and local government. Fiona has been on the EHRC Panel of Counsel since its inception and was appointed to the Attorney General's B Panel of Junior Counsel from 2013 to 2017, before taking silk. Fiona is a Deputy District Judge and Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals) Chamber. Fiona is joint head of the 54-strong public law group at Landmark Chambers. Fiona is on the advisory board of SACPA (a safeguarding advisory group providing training and advice to organisations) and is involved in a number of initiatives relating to improving safeguarding in various organisations in the United Kingdom. Fiona Scolding KC sits on the panel of strategic legal advisors. She undertakes work for the Bar Pro Bono Unit and other organisations. Languages French: working knowledge Spanish:  conversational.

Galina Ward

Galina acts for a wide range of individuals, corporate and public bodies, and charitable and professional organisations, from tribunals up to the highest courts. She has appeared in numerous high profile cases concerning issues as diverse as the availability of relief from forfeiture of a licence, the rateability of ATM sites and the alleged discriminatory impact of welfare reform measures. Galina’s practice encompasses the full spectrum of public and property law. Prior to taking silk, she was a member of the Attorney General’s “A” Panel of junior counsel and was described in Legal 500 as “one of the very best juniors at the Administrative Bar” and in Chambers and Partners as “always a very impressive opponent”. In silk, Galina continues to act regularly both for and against central and local government and other public bodies. Her recent public law work has focussed on healthcare and community care, including disputes between public bodies about which is responsible for funding care in various situations. She has also appeared in a number of the leading cases on the interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement and citizens’ rights post-Brexit. Her property law work has a strong cross-over with her public law expertise, and includes a number of cases in which the use of land by public bodies is subject to human rights or other statutory restrictions. Galina has been recognised for many years as a leading practitioner in education law, and has extensive experience of judicial review claims in education matters, ranging from exclusion and admissions to school organisation and university funding issues. Her work also includes acting on behalf of public bodies tasked with regulating those who work in education, as well as representing those subject to that regulation. She has represented the Department for Education in a number of strands of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and more recently in the Covid-19 Inquiry.

Georgina Fenton

Georgie's practice focuses on public, planning and environmental law. Her public law work includes matters concerning human rights, education, community care, court of protection and immigration. Georgie has extensive experience appearing in SEND hearings and is developing a strong practice in Claimant immigration and asylum matters. Her notable work includes: Junior Counsel alongside Miranda Butler and Hannah Gibbs to Fiona Scolding KC instructed by Leigh Day representing 300 core participants in the Infected Blood Inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal of the 1970s and 1980s. Georgie drafted a substantial section of the final submissions on behalf of the Leigh Day core participants. Acting as sole counsel for the AIRE Centre to successfully win an appeal in the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal against a decision taken by the SSWP to refuse a Slovakian national and victim of modern slavery universal credit on the grounds that he did not have a qualifying right to reside. Representing a local authority in Court of Protection proceedings regarding the ongoing care arrangements for a service user Acting as sole counsel in a number of planning inquiry appeals on grounds A, C, D and F concerning applications for CLEU and enforcement notices. Representing both Claimants and local authorities in a number of Special Educational Needs and Disability hearings in the First-tier Tribunal regarding sections B, F and I of a child’s Education Healthcare Plan. Drafting judicial review grounds for the Environmental Law Foundation to challenge the revocation of an Environmental Traffic Regulation Order. The grounds were later successful in the High Court (R. (Keyhole Bridge User Safety Group) v Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council [2021] EWHC 3082 (Admin)). Georgie regularly contributes to Landmark’s Health and Social Care blog and has had an article published in Judicial Review concerning Fratila and another v SSWP [2021] UKSC 53. Georgie has also delivered training to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants on Asylum Law and Practice. Prior to starting pupillage, Georgie was a judicial assistant in the Court of Appeal to Lord Justice Lindblom and assisted on a variety of planning cases. Most notably, Georgie assisted with the writing of the judgment for the Heathrow Airport expansion case, which was the first significant ruling in the world on the Paris Climate Agreement (R. (on the application of Plan B Earth) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWCA Civ 214). Prior to and during her legal studies, Georgie volunteered with Communities Empowerment Network, Reprieve and Citizens Advice. In her spare time, Georgie plays netball and volunteers with Refugee Community Kitchen and West London Welcome.

Graeme Keen

Graeme's clients include developers, landowners, local planning authorities and individuals and he is instructed by solicitors and planning consultants. His practice covers advocacy and advisory work and he frequently appears at Public Inquiries, Hearings and Examinations. Graeme is currently instructed on a range of matters including: the promotion at appeal of several housing developments in England, including in the Green Belt and AoNB, the promotion of a c.1,300 home development on MoD land in Kent, several logistics and industrial developments and two Local Plan Examinations. Graeme is listed in Planning Magazine’s Top Rated Planning Silks 2023. Graeme is a graduate of King’s College London where he read Law. After graduation he attended the Inns of Court School of Law, Bar Vocational Course, and worked as a part-time lecturer in Constitutional Law at King’s College London. Graeme regularly gives papers at Landmark seminars and has conducted seminars on Planning Law at University College London, on the M.Phil. Town and Country Planning Course, lectured for the Local Government Group, Central Law Training, the RTPI, PINS training week and various other organisations. He also provides training for council members and officers.

Guy Williams KC

Guy Williams won the award for Planning and Land Use Junior of the Year at the 2022 Legal 500 UK Bar Awards. Guy appears very regularly at planning inquiries in relation to all kinds of development. He acts for developers, local authorities, public bodies and interest groups and has a wide experience of appeals, called-in applications, enforcement matters and compulsory purchase inquiries. He has a particular caseload at inquiries for housing schemes, including where housing land supply is in issue. He acted for the Government on a number of cases on the proper interpretation of the NPPF (e.g. Paul Newman New Homes Limited on the triggers for the tilted balance; City and Country Bramshill on the approach to less than substantial heritage harm, and isolated hew homes in the countryside; Chichester DC relating to the NPPF and neighborhood plans). He has a real interest in cases raising heritage issues, and appeared in the Court of Appeal in the leading case on heritage matters City and Country Bramshill Ltd v SSHCLG [2021] 1 WLR 5761. He also specialises in judicial review and statutory challenges relating to planning and local government in the higher courts. Guy has an extensive practice in all matters relating to compulsory purchase, from advising acquiring authorities and developers on strategy and promoting CPOs, to all matters of compensation arising from compulsory acquisition. Guy promoted the Brent Cross, Cricklewood CPOs for the London Borough of Barnet delivering a new mixed use town centre, a new Thameslink station and 7,500 homes. He is also advising HS2 limited in relation to a number of claims for compensation arising out of the first stage of the HS2 rail link from London to Birmingham, including those the subject of recent argument before the Supreme Court in Secretary of State for Transport v Curzon Park Limited and others. He has appeared in several high profile compensation cases (such as Bishop v TfL). Guy Williams won the award for Planning and Land Use Junior of the Year at the 2022 Legal 500 UK Bar Awards. Rating and Valuation He also has an active rating practice, including the litigation relating to the rating of ATMs that went to the Supreme Court in 2020, and the recent clarification by the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) of the scope of the mode or category of occupation in SSE Plc v Moore (Valuation Officer) [2023] UKUT 24 (LC). For many years Guy has been identified as a leading junior in Chambers and Partners, the Legal 500 and Planning magazine’s Legal Survey (ranked in tier 1 in Chambers and Partners for at least the past three years). Cases Guy regularly appears in the Higher Courts in claims for judicial review and statutory challenges focused on planning and was on the Attorney-General’s A panel for 5 years prior to taking silk. As such he defended numerous challenges under sections 288 and 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and under section 23 of the Acquisition of Land Act. Recent cases include: Manchester Ship Canal Company v SSEFRA [2022] EWHC Admin: a challenge to the Secretary of State’s confirmation of a CPO authorizing the discharge of water from a sewage treatment facility into the Manchester Ship Canal raising issues of the scope of the protections afforded to the Ship Canal Company, and human rights and proportionality issues. Secretary of State for Transport v Curzon Park Ltd – in the Court of Appeal (2022) and Supreme Court (2023): a preliminary issue as to the proper approach to the determination of applications for certificates of appropriate alternative development relating to the planning potential of land in Birmingham acquired to deliver HS2. Abbotskerswell PC v SSHCLG [2021] Env LR 28: a s288 challenge to the grant of permission for a major mixed-use development raising issues of climate change and green house gases, and the interpretation and application of the Habitats Regulations and Appropriate Assessment including mitigation. City and Country Bramshill Ltd v SSHCLG [2022] 2 P&CR 5: Court of Appeal case on a s288 challenge where the key issues were the meaning of ‘isolated housing in the countryside’ and the proper approach to the heritage balance in cases of less than substantial harm in light of the statutory duties for listed buildings and conservation areas. Keep Bourne End Green v Buckinghamshire Council [2021] JPL 181: a High Court statutory review of the decision of the Council to adopt the Wycombe Local Plan focusing on the decision within the Plan to remove land from the Green Belt for housing purposes and whether there were exceptional circumstances for doing so based on housing need. Paul Newman Homes Ltd v SSCHLG [2021] PTSR 1054 Court of Appeal decision on a s288 challenge where the critical issue was the meaning of the phrase “where there are no relevant development plan policies or the policies most important for determining the application are out of date” in the NPPF for the purposes of triggering the tilted balance. Dill v SSHCLG [2020] PTSR 907 Supreme Court decision on the ability for an appellant to raise on an appeal against the refusal of listed building consent and/or a listed building enforcement notice the question of whether the item was a listed building or not a building at all; and what the correct approach was to determining whether something was a building in that context. R (on the application of BACI Bedfordshire Ltd v Environment Agency [2020] Env LR 16: Court of Appeal decision on a judicial review of the issue of an environmental permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations for a waste incinerator raising issues of mistake of fact and/or irrationality based on scientific error. Chichester DC v SSHCLG [2020] 1 P&CR 9. Court of Appeal decision on a s288 challenge on the proper interpretation of Neighbourhood Plan policies seeking to limited development outside of the settlement boundaries and whether or not a development may be contrary to the underlying purpose of the plan but not contrary to its policies in a way that weighs in the planning balance. Norman v SSHCLG [2019] Env LR 14: High Court decision on a s288 challenge relating to the correct policy approach to the assessment of the odour impacts of an intensive poultry farm.

Gwion Lewis

Gwion Lewis was called to the Bar in 2005 and specialises in public, planning, environmental, EU and public international law. He is a member of the Attorney General’s ‘A’ Panel of Junior Counsel, which means that he regularly acts for the UK Government in its most complex cases. Gwion is also a member of the Welsh Government’s ‘A’ Panel of Junior Counsel. He acts regularly for both private and public sector clients at inquiries and has extensive experience of judicial review proceedings and appeals in the higher courts. To date, he has appeared in over 150 inquiries and over 200 substantive judicial reviews. Gwion has been recommended as a leading junior in all the main independent legal directories for several years. The 2020 versions of these directories describe him as “very punchy and incredibly effective” (Chambers and Partners), “excellent on his feet” and that he “always produces silk-quality work” (Legal 500). He is also said to be “very personable and easy to work with” (Legal 500). Gwion is based in London but welcomes instructions from all areas of the UK and from international clients. He has experience of advising clients in island jurisdictions, including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.Gwion is the editor of the ‘Wales’ section of the Planning Encyclopedia and appears regularly on television and radio programmes in Wales to analyse legal affairs.

Hafsah Masood

Hafsah has a thriving civil practice covering private law claims against public authorities, professional negligence claims, and commercial and employment disputes. Hafsah’s practice has a strong international element. She has experience of appeals in the Privy Council, and also undertakes work in a number of overseas jurisdictions, including the Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago and Gibraltar. She has been admitted to the Bar of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in the British Virgin Islands. Hafsah speaks Urdu and Punjabi.

Hannah Gibbs

Hannah specialises in public law, planning and environmental law, local government law and human rights. Her broad experience in public law makes her a strong choice for any judicial review or statutory challenge. Hannah has acted as sole or junior counsel in litigation in the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court, County Court and various tribunals, including the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). She regularly acts for clients in planning appeal hearings and inquiries, some of which have concerned major residential, regeneration and infrastructure projects. Her recent inquiries (as junior counsel) include the Howbury Park Strategic Rail Freight Interchange, the Whitechapel Estate, and the Sainsbury’s Foodstore in Whitechapel. Hannah’s public law practice has a particular emphasis on medical law and law of the NHS. She is currently instructed as junior counsel to David Lock KC to represent a large group of core participants in the upcoming Infected Blood Inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal of the 1970s and 80s. She is the author and editor, along with David Lock KC, of NHS Law and Practice, published by Legal Action Group. It is the first comprehensive guide to the structures and frameworks of the NHS and has been described by Sir James Munby as “truly a ground-breaking book” which “no one who needs to understand NHS law could afford to be without”. NHS Law and Practice explains the legal relationships between NHS commissioners and primary care, community and acute providers of NHS services, as well as explaining the structure of NHS regulation. It provides a detailed guide to enforcing patients’ legal rights around NHS continuing healthcare, patient choice and personal budgets. Hannah also teaches medical law to undergraduates at the London School of Economics, dealing with various legal and ethical matters such as medical malpractice, health resource allocation, mental capacity, mental health, informed consent, organ donation, abortion, assisted dying, fertility treatment and genome editing.

Harriet Wakeman

Harriet is recognised as a leading junior (Chambers and Partners, 2024) and a ‘Tier 1 Rising Star’ (Legal 500, 2024). She has been appointed to the Attorney General’s Panel of Counsel (C panel). Harriet is described in the leading legal directories as a “talented advocate” and an “extremely strong practitioner” who is “exceptional in mastering large volumes of material (including complex technical evidence)” and whose work is “of the highest quality”. Her submissions are “superb – detailed and compelling” and “watertight”. She has an “immense work ethic, and is confident and conscientious” and “her attention to detail and recall of facts is incredible”. In 2020, Harriet was nominated for Advocate’s Young Pro Bono Barrister of the Year. Harriet has experience acting for an array of clients, including individuals, charities, large corporations, district councils, and government. Harriet acts for both claimants and government in her public law work. In her inquest work, Harriet acts for bereaved families, government departments and other interested persons, as well as acting as counsel to the inquest. Harriet is regularly instructed in high-profile and sensitive matters, as well as cases involving a national security element. She has been instructed in cases in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Notable recent and current instructions include: R (Imam) v London Borough of Croydon: Counsel for Crisis (led by Justin Bates) in an intervention before the Supreme Court which concerns the nature of the duty owed by local authorities to homeless people, and specifically, the relief that should be granted after a local authority has breached its “full” homelessness duty. R (AT) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Counsel for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (led by Jason Coppel KC) before the Court of Appeal in this case which concerns the entitlement of an EU citizen residing in the UK post-Brexit to social security benefits, and the applicability of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights post-Brexit. Counsel to the Inquest into the death of Mr Thomas Orchard (led by Nicholas Moss KC). Press coverage here. Counsel for the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the Dawn Sturgess Inquiry (led by Cathy McGahey KC). Dawn Sturgess died in 2018 having been poisoned by Novichok after the attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury. Press coverage here. Counsel for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (led by Samantha Broadfoot KC) in a judicial review challenge concerning errors in Covid-19 PCR testing at the Immensa laboratory in Wolverhampton. Counsel to the Inquests (led by Jonathan Hough KC) in the ‘Bugaled Breizh’ Inquests, concerning the sinking of a French fishing trawler in 2004. Press coverage here. Counsel for the Defendant (led by David Blundell KC) in the linked challenges to the Secretary of State’s policy of intercepting migrant boats in UK waters, stopping them and redirecting them to France. Counsel to the Brook House Inquiry (led by Brian Altman KC). Press coverage here. Counsel for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry (led by Jason Beer KC). Press coverage here. Prior to coming to the Bar, Harriet worked as the stagiaire to Judge Christopher Vajda at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

Heather Sargent

Heather is ranked fourth in the list of top-rated junior planning barristers in the Planning Law Survey 2023 and has been listed as one of the top five juniors by the survey for the past four years. She has been ranked in both Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500 for several years. Her experience includes: Acting for Marks and Spencer on the redevelopment of its flagship Marble Arch store Acting for both developers and local planning authorities on numerous central London tall building schemes Advising the promoter of the Euston Over-Station Development Advising Gatwick Airport on its proposed DCO to bring its existing standby runway into routine use Defending two judicial review challenges to the 2019 NPPF for MHCLG Defending six judicial review challenges to the Airports NPS (which provides policy support for a third runway at Heathrow) for the Secretary of State for Transport Appearing at the London Plan examination (for the London Borough of Enfield) and for site promoters at the Guildford, Wealden, Tandridge and Welwyn Hatfield Local Plans Advising the acquiring authority on a CPO for a £37m road scheme (sole counsel) and acting for the acquiring authority on both the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (Calverley Square) CPO (theatre, civic centre and office scheme) and the London Borough of Enfield (Alma Estate Regeneration) CPO Acting for both appellants and local planning authorities on major housing schemes including Wisley Airfield, Guildford (2,000 units); Peel Hall, Warrington (1,200 units); and two sustainable urban extensions in Northampton Retail inquiry work (for both appellants and local planning authorities) Acting for retirement home providers on appeal High level judicial review and statutory challenge court work, including numerous appearances before the Court of Appeal as sole counsel. Heather is a member of the Attorney General’s B Panel of Counsel and of the Welsh Government’s B Panel of Junior Counsel. She is an Assistant Editor of the Encyclopedia of Planning Law and Practice, for which she focuses on heritage matters

Isabella Buono

Isabella is a barrister specialising in planning, environmental and public law. She acts for a wide range of public and private sector clients, including housebuilders, land promoters, local authorities and private individuals. Isabella’s recent cases include: B&Q, Cricklewood: Acted for a developer seeking permission for a mixed-use scheme in North London, including 1,049 residential units in buildings up to 18-storeys in height, led by Sasha White KC. The application was called in by the Secretary of State and will be determined following a two-week inquiry in February 2023. The Green, Southall: Promoted a compulsory purchase order designed to facilitate strategic regeneration in Southall, Ealing. Isabella acted for the acquiring authority and developer at a two-week inquiry in October 2022, led by Zack Simons. Maitland Lodge, Billericay: Acted for a developer seeking permission for 47 homes on a Green Belt site in Essex, led by Zack Simons. Planning permission was granted following a week-long inquiry in September 2022. R (University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust) v Harborough District Council: Acted for Leicestershire County Council in the leading case on section 106 contributions for NHS services, led by Zack Simons. The Trust’s claim was dismissed following a two-day hearing in the High Court in December 2022. R (Tesco Stores Ltd) v Allerdale BC [2022] EWHC 2827 (Admin): Acted for Lidl in a claim for judicial review brought by Tesco, challenging the grant of planning permission for a new Lidl store in Cumbria, led by Sasha White KC. Tesco’s claim was dismissed following a hearing in the High Court in October 2022. Before joining Landmark, Isabella spent nearly two years as the Judicial Assistant to the President of the UK Supreme Court, Lord Reed of Allermuir. At the Supreme Court, Isabella gained experience of a wide range of issues across her main areas of practice, including in: Heathrow Airport Ltd v Friends of the Earth [2020] UKSC 52 (on the Government’s approach to international climate change commitments when designating the Airports National Policy Statement); R (Begum) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 7 (on the rights of an individual deprived of British citizenship after traveling to Syria and aligning with ISIS); and R (SC) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2021] UKSC 26 (on the compatibility of the two-child benefit cap with articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights). Alongside her practice, Isabella teaches EU Law at St Edmund’s College, Cambridge. She has taught EU Law at Cambridge since 2017 and was elected as a Bye-Fellow of St Edmund’s in 2021.

Jacqueline Lean

Jacqueline has significant experience of planning and infrastructure projects, and is particularly well placed to advise on the real property, and landlord and tenant issues, which may need to be addressed when promoting, or implementing, proposed development. Similarly, she regularly advises on property matters, which include an interface with planning, environmental, regulatory or ratings issues. Her cross-discipline practice is illustrated most clearly by her involvement in the HS2 project, which has including promoting both the Phase 1 and Phase 2A Bills through Parliament; the legal challenges to the decision to proceed with the project and application of land acquisition policies, non-statutory compensation schemes and the Compensation Code. Jacqueline has acted as sole, or junior, counsel in Courts and tribunals at all levels, including the Supreme Court, the Aarhus Compliance Committee, and Parliamentary Select Committees.

James Maurici

James Maurici was called to the Bar of England & Wales in 1996. He was appointed King’s Counsel in 2013. He practices in planning; environmental law; and public law. His practice regularly encompasses EU and international law. He was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2009 and practises in that jurisdiction also. James was a member of the Attorney-General’s London Panels of Junior Counsel to the Crown from 1999-2013. He  also served on the Welsh Assembly Government’s Junior Counsel Panel from 2009 to 2013. Planning: James’ planning practice encompasses all aspects of planning including: advisory, advocacy at inquiries and hearings and advocacy in the Higher Courts. He has considerable experience of Development Plan examination hearings. His practice also encompasses compulsory purchase and compensation, harbours, highways, rights of way, commons registration and village greens (both inquiries and in the Higher Courts). His recent cases high-profile include: Compton Parish Council & Others v Guildford BC [2019] EWHC 3242 (Admin); R (Spurrier) v Secretary of State for Transport and others [2019] EWHC 1070 (Admin) and R (Plan B) v Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWCA Civ 214 multiple judicial review challenges to the Airports NPS favouring Heathrow expansion and raising issues related to SEA, air quality, climate change, bias, reasons and habitats; R (Shirley) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government  [2019] 2 C.M.L.R. 14 on the interpretation of the air quality directive; R (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] 5 Costs L.O. 691 on the challenge to the revised Aarhus costs rules; Environment: James’ environmental law practice is wide-ranging, covering matters such as habitats and species protection, contaminated land, air quality, waste, access to environmental information, statutory and common law nuisance and all aspects of environment impact assessment, strategic environmental assessment and environmental permitting. He has considerable expertise on climate change issues, and especially emissions trading: see below. He has also been involved in a number of cases concerning marine environmental issues: see below. He regularly advises and is involved in cases concerning access to environmental information. He has also appeared a number of times before the UNECE Aarhus Compliance Committee in Geneva. He has made many appearances before the Court of Justice of the European Union and the General Court of the European Union (formerly the European Court of First Instance) in environmental cases. Public law: His public law practice is very wide ranging and has included housing (see e.g. Yemshaw v Hounslow LBC [2011] 1 W.L.R. 433), social security (including national insurance) (see e.g. Zalewska v Department for Social Development [2008] UKHL 67), tax matters, education (James was a governor at two state primary schools for 13 years in total and a Chair of Governors for 5 years), regulatory, local government including local government finance (see e.g. R (Cheshire East BC) v Secretary of State for the Environment Queen’s Bench [2011] EWHC 1975 (Admin)); and all aspects of human rights law. He has appeared in a number of high-profile public law cases including: R (Sharon Shoesmith) v Ofsted and Others [2011] P.T.S.R. 1459; R (Bradley and others) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2009] Q.B. 114; Ken Livingstone v Adjudication Panel for England [2006] H.R.L.R. 45; R v. Bow Street Magistrate, ex p. Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2) [2000] 1 A.C. 119 and; the Alconbury litigation [2003] 2 A.C. 295. James has advised and acted on a number of cases involving the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman the Local Government Ombudsman and the Public Service Ombudsman for Wales. European: He has regularly appeared in the Court of Justice of the European Union and the General Court of the European Union (formerly the European Court of First Instance) on environmental matters. Cases include: Case C-71-14 East Sussex County Council v Information Commissioner [2016] P.T.S.R. 179 (property searches and the Environmental Information Directive); Case C 279/12 Fish Legal & Emily Shirley v The Information Commissioner, United Utilities, Yorkshire Water and Southern Water[2014] 2 W.L.R. 568 (the meaning of public authority under the Environmental Information Directive); Case C-43/12 Commission v European Parliament and Council (cross-border exchange of on road safety related traffic offences); Case C 530/11 Commission v United Kingdom and Case C-260/11 Edwards v Environment Agency (costs and environmental judicial reviews); Case C-567/10 Inter-Environnement Bruxelles ASBL, (strategic environmental assessment) 22/3/2012; Case C-504/09 P Commission v Poland (EU Emissions Trading) 29/03/2012; Case C-474/10 Seaport (NI) Ltd, Magherafelt District Council and Others v Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland (strategic environmental assessment) 20/10/2011 and; Case T-369/07 Latvia v Commission (EU Emissions Trading) 22/03/2011. International: In addition to his extensive European Court practice (see above) James has made several appearances before the UNECE Aarhus Compliance Committee in Geneva. He has acted in cases going to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. His international practice also includes cases in the Isle of Man (including before the Staff of Government see e.g. Penfolds v The Treasury). James works for a wide range of public sector clients, private clients and public interest groups.

James Neill

James was called to the Bar in 2006. He joined Landmark Chambers from Allen & Overy, where he spent five years focussing on commercial judicial review, planning and environmental, procurement litigation and international arbitration, particularly in the renewable energy, regulated utilities and infrastructure sectors. He was ranked in Chambers & Partners 2017 as the UK star associate in public and administrative law. His practice spans the full scope of public law, with particular expertise in planning and environmental, public procurement and State aid matters. Prior to pupillage, James worked in the House of Lords in the Opposition Whips Office as the lead researcher in constitutional and legal affairs, working with the Shadow Front Bench and Shadow Lord Chancellor. He spent five years after graduating serving with the Coldstream Guards on a number of operational tours, during which time he trained and qualified for the Bar.

James Hanham

James is a trusted litigator and adviser. He has appeared in a number of reported decisions which demonstrate the breadth of his property litigation expertise. James's work in the Courts (Court of Appeal, Business and Property and County) and the Property Chamber Tribunals appearing both as a junior and sole Counsel has been in cases against leading silks in the field. His abilities as an advocate are regularly praised by clients and commented upon by judges. His lay clients have ranged from developers (large and small), construction and engineering companies, public authorities, banks, private equity investors, landed estates, LLPs and of course individuals (both sole and in partnership). He accepts work on a public access basis. A background in commercial and chancery work means that he has the capacity to deal with complex insolvency, corporate and shareholder-related issues in the context of a property dispute. He is very experienced in arbitration work (particularly in the context of rent review and valuation disputes), expert determination and in the mediation process. He was a Harmsworth Scholar of the Middle Temple and began practice in the Temple before moving to 9, Stone Buildings and thereafter Maitland Chambers in 2008. He joined Landmark in 2022.

Jenny Wigley

Jenny's practice is focused on planning and environmental law and non-domestic rating (local government tax). Jenny appears regularly in planning inquiries and in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in judicial review and statutory review claims including those related to climate change, adequate consultation, legitimate expectation, water, heritage, Habitats Regulations, EIA, SEA, air quality, s.106 obligations and conditions, the GPDO, enforcement, interpretation of policy and adequacy of reasons. Of notable interest, Jenny represented the successful claimant in the statutory review challenge to all the Green Belt allocations in the Leeds Site Allocations Plan. She also recently represented a community interest group in four successful High Court challenges relating to the protection of a local playing field. Jenny represents developers, public interest groups, campaign groups, local authorities and central government agencies. She is currently advising a large unitary local authority in defending refusals of applications by HS2 under Schedule 17 of the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017. She is also representing National Highways in the High Court in statutory reviews of highway schemes. Additionally, she advises in relation to DCOs. Jenny has also recently represented hotel owners and Government contractors in successful High Court injunction proceedings (both defending against an application for a planning injunction and obtaining an injunction against protesters) relating to the emergency housing of asylum seekers. On the non-domestic rating side, her practice includes cases in the Valuation Tribunal, Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) and the Higher Courts, including in the landmark Divisional Court cases concerning empty rates relief (Makro, Kenya Aid, Digital Pipeline, Pall Mall and Public Health England). She recently represented the ratepayer in a case concerning the valuation of museums (Hughes (VO) v. Tyne & Wear Museums and Archives [2022] UKUT 206 (LC)) and she represented the Valuation Officer in the leading case concerning the valuation of tenant’s fit-out works in commercial offices (Bunyan (VO) v. Acenden Limited [2023] UKUT 17 (LC)). Jenny was formerly a solicitor at Stephenson Harwood.

Joe Thomas

Joe has represented Claimants, Local Authorities, Parish Councils, Community Groups and Property Developers. Joe has been repeatedly instructed to appear unled in the High Court, Upper Tribunal, Court of Protection and Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Tribunal. Joe is regularly instructed to appear in planning inquiries alongside and against established silks. Joe has appeared in large-scale planning inquiries both led and unled including the increase of flights at Luton airport, large scale developments on the Green Belt and the construction of residential towers in London. Joe has particular experience cross-examining expert witnesses with specific experience with cross-examining experts on daylight and sunlight impacts, landscape and visual impact assessments, highways as well as viability assessments. Joe has been repeatedly instructed to assist with high-profile public inquiries. Particular highlights from Joe’s unled practice before the High Court and Upper Tribunal include: R(Strack) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Laing Homes[2023] EWHC 655 (Admin): Judicial Review regarding the identity of rights-holders for Town and Village Greens and how that feeds into an application for deregistration and exchange. This case considered the interpretation of Government Policy as well as the nature and extent of the relevant inhabitants right to undertake nature conservation. Joe represented the Claimant (n.b. this case is due to be heard by the Court of Appeal in January 2024). R(Wells) v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council [2022] EWHC 3298 (Admin): Judicial Review into extent of Local Authorities’ duty of inquire when making planning decisions, specifically whether they are required to undertake site visits to adjoining premises before making planning decisions. This case considered the law on legitimate expectation, mistakes of facts, Tameside duty of inquiry as well as Wednesbury unreasonableness. Joe represented the successful Local Authority. TC and BW v London Borough of Islington [2021] UKUT 196: Appeal to the Upper Tribunal concerning into the extent that First-tier Tribunals must make reasonable adjustments for parents to participate in hearings before the First-tier Tribunal. Joe represented the parents pro-bono. Particular highlights from planning inquiries include: Land at Marshcroft – East of Tring (APP/A1910/W/22/330992): A “called-in” appeal against refusal for planning permission for an exceptionally large windfall development outside the plan process (1,400 dwellings) on the Green Belt. Key areas in dispute were the extent of the impact of the proposed development, the proper approach to the ‘very special circumstances’ under the National Planning Policy Framework, and the extent of harm to landscape and visual receptors. Joe represented the Combined Objectors group unled. Land to the North of Bradmore Way, Bradmore Way, The Brookmans Estate, Brookmans Park(APP/C1950/W/22/3307844): An appeal against refusal for planning permission for a housing estate within the Green Belt for 125 dwellings. Key areas of dispute were the impact upon the Green Belt and the number of ‘purposes’ impacted as well as the extent of harm on landscape and visual impact. Joe represented the successful Combined Objectors group unled. 17-37 William Road, London NW1 3ER (APP/X5210/W/21/3284957)  An appeal against planning permission for a 15-storey tower for purpose built student accommodation. Key issues included the impact of the development on daylight and sunlight, fire safety, design and heritage. Joe represented the London Borough of Camden (led by Sasha Blackmore). Expansion of flights from Luton Airport from 18 million passengers per annum (mppa) to 19 million passengers per annum: A “called-in” appeal for variation of conditions to retrospectively approve an increase in passenger numbers from Luton airport. The key areas of dispute were carbon emissions, noise impacts and enforcement. Joe represented the Combined Objectors group unled. Land east of Elsenham, to the north of the B1051, Henham Road (APP/C1570/W/19/3243744). An appeal against refusal of outline planning permission for 350 dwellings, one form primary school and Early Years and Childcare setting. The key areas of dispute were highways impacts, landscape and visual impact and the application of policy in the context of an absence of five years housing supply. Joe represented the successful developers (led by James Maurici KC). Particular highlights from Joe’s work for public and private inquiries include: Infected Blood Inquiry – Joe was part of the team of counsel representing the Department of Health; Joe assisted in the preparation of an extensive witness statement concerning the context for clinical policy decisions taken in the 1970s and 1980s (led by Eleanor Grey KC). Westminster School – Following ‘everyone’s invited’, Joe undertook research, analysis and drafted parts of the final report and recommendations concerning reviews of policies, training and development of curriculum for sex and relationships education (led by Fiona Scolding KC). Post Office Horizon IT inquiry – Joe is a member of the counsel team representing Post Office Limited. Joe has assisted in reviewing witness statements, undertaking detailed research into extant policies and practices and providing input into drafting submissions (led by Kate Gallafent KC and Simon Henderson) Joe is passionate advocate of equal opportunities and access to the bar. Joe regularly undertakes pro-bono representations through Advocate. He has also regularly provided strategic advice to community and campaign groups on a pro-bono basis. Joe is a contributory editor to Garner’s Environmental Law and previously contributed to theJournal of Planning & Environment Law and Planning magazine. He is also a contributor to the Health and Social Care Insight which is a monthly newsletter covering the latest update on developments in health and social care law from Landmark Chambers. Prior to becoming a barrister, Joe successfully completed the Teach First leadership development program. Joe is a school governor at two schools.

Joel Semakula

Joel practises across all three of Chambers’ main practice areas with a focus on planning, infrastructure, environmental and property law. Given his commercial background, he has a particular focus on claims with a commercial element. In appropriate cases, Joel accepts instructions on a direct access and pro bono basis. He is an assistant editor for Garner’s Environmental Law. He has significant experience in obtaining injunctions and contempt proceedings to protect land and buildings from trespass and nuisance, particularly by protesters. He is very familiar with the intricate procedural and legal issues which arise in relation to claims brought against ‘persons unknown’. In this field he has recently acted for National Highways, Shell and Exolum in response to direct action by groups such as ‘Insulate Britain,’ ‘Extinction Rebellion’ and ‘Just Stop Oil.’ His most recent instructions include: Shell UK Ltd v Persons Unknown and ors [2023] EWHC 1229 (KB): Acting for Shell in the High Court (led by Myriam Stacey KC) in applications to continue three interim injunctions to restrain unlawful protest activity at a range of its sites. This is leading case on non-party challenges to ‘Persons Unknown’ Injunctions. Acting for National Highways in the examination for the DCO for the A66 Northern Trans-Pennine project. Acting for the commercial developer (led by James Maurici KC) in a ten-day planning inquiry appealing the decision to refuse planning permission for a mixed-use development in Takeley (APP/C1570/W/22/3291524). Acting for a residents group in the Mole Valley Local Plan examination challenging the soundness of a draft plan on green belt grounds. Acting for the defendant (led by David Holland KC) in a ten-day trial in the High Court where the claimants seek his removal as a trustee and substantial damages for alleged breach of trust. Assisting with Annington Property Limited (and ors) v Secretary of State for Defence (led by Zia Bhaloo KC and James Maurici KC) in high value (approx. £8Bn) leasehold enfranchisement and judicial review proceedings. National Highways Ltd v Heyatawin [2021] EWHC 3093 (QB): Acting for National Highways (led by David Elvin KC and Myriam Stacey KC) in proceedings to prevent trespass and nuisance on the strategic road network in response to significant disruption caused by large-scale protest action by campaign group ‘Insulate Britain.’ Wallpott v Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee [2021] EWHC 3291 (Admin): Acting for NHS Wales (led by David Lock KC) in a judicial review of a decision not to approve NHS funding to meet the costs of the claimant’s treatment for terminal illness where it was determined she did not fall within the policy to permit independent patient funding. Successfully appeared, unled, for a Rule 6 party in a five-day planning inquiry, which was one of the first appeals to challenge a proposal for Discounted Market Sale housing where key issues were Rural Exception Sites and Very Special Circumstances for Green Belt development (APP/D3640/W/20/3248358) Before commencing legal studies, Joel was an investment banker with Morgan Stanley in New York. Joel, therefore, brings a wealth of commercial experience to his practice at the Bar. Following his legal studies, he was the Judicial Assistant to Lady Justice Gloster (as she then was) and Lord Justice David Richards (as he then was) at the Court of Appeal where he assisted on cases covering commercial, chancery, public and international law. Away from the law, Joel can be found performing on a comedy stage or volunteering with initiatives that support social mobility.

John Male

John Male QC was called to the Bar in 1976 and took silk in 2000. He is experienced in property law, planning and compulsory purchase. He was appointed as a Recorder in 2003, sitting in the County Court trying civil cases. He was appointed as a Deputy High Court Judge in 2014, sitting in the Chancery Division and now in the Business and Property Court. He is a member of ARBRIX. Alternative Dispute Resolution In recent years most of John’s time has been devoted to acting as the dispute resolver in property, compulsory purchase and planning cases, particularly those involving valuation issues. He acts as an arbitrator, independent expert, adjudicator or mediator. He has sat as a village green Inspector. He continues to sit as a Recorder trying civil cases in the County Court and as a Deputy High Court Judge trying cases in the Business and Property Court.  Mediation John has been an accredited mediator since December 2009. He mediates in a wide range of property and valuation disputes. As well as acting as a mediator, John also has experience of acting for clients at mediations. As a property litigator with over 40 years experience he has  an  understanding of the wider issues facing those involved in all kinds of property disputes, whether they arise between commercial parties, public sector bodies or private clients. With that experience and understanding, John is well placed to help participants find practical and realistic solutions to property related disputes, especially those between landlords and tenants. Since becoming accredited, John has successfully mediated property disputes concerning dilapidations, options and business tenancies. John is one of the editors of Hill and Redman’s Law of Landlord and Tenant.

John Litton

John's highly regarded domestic practice is complemented by a successful international practice encompassing planning and commercial work. He also practices in a broad range of civil and commercial litigation matters including complex rating cases. John was called to the Bar in 1989 and was appointed to the Attorney General’s A Panel of Treasury Counsel for seven years before taking Silk in 2010. John regularly appears at public inquiries. In addition to this, John frequently appears in the higher courts in England & Wales (including the Upper Tribunal), Northern Ireland, Hong Kong (including the Lands Tribunal and Town Planning Appeal Board), the Cayman Islands and the BVI. He is called to the Bar in Hong Kong, Northern Ireland, the Supreme Court of the Eastern Caribbean (British Virgin Islands) and appears by ad hoc admission in the Grand Court and Court of Appeal in the Cayman Islands. He is a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and an Associate Member of the Hong Kong Institute of Arbitrators. Advisory and other Advisory work includes advising Government RE: the review of National Policy Statements on Energy and National Networks, challenges to NPSs, interpretation of Building Regulations, interpretation of s.106 agreements and claims made under such agreements, planning enforcement, s.215 notices under the TCPA 1990, challenge to neighbourhood plan, on-shore wind development, challenges to DCOs, co-living development, strategic planning, interpretation of commercial contracts, rating, planning appeals in the Cayman Islands, foreign law expert, expert determination under a s.106 agreement. In addition to his core areas, John has acted for local authorities in relation to negligence claims, including Wooldridge v Torridge District Council. He has advised on nuisance claims relating to Japanese Knotweed. John also advises on planning related property issues including restrictive covenants and easements and has considerable experience in mass trespass litigation. International work John’s work in Hong Kong, Cayman Islands and the BVI encompasses a broad range of civil matters including commercial litigation, judicial review, town planning and rating. Recent Cases in Hong Kong Join Smart v Director of Environment – Representing Director of Environment in Hong Kong Court of Appeal in challenge to grant of environmental permit. Now on appeal to Hong Kong Court of Appeal (November 2021). Join Smart Ltd v Town Planning Board – Representing Town Planning Board in Hong Kong Court of First Instance in a challenge to refuse amendment to Outline Zoning Plan. Now on appeal to Hong Kong Court of Appeal (June 2021). Mayer v AFI Limited – application for permission to appeal to Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (March 2020). HCA 3014 of 2016 – strike out application in Hong Kong Court of First Instance. CLP Power Hong Kong Ltd v Commissioner of Rating and Valuation – John represented CLP in the Court of Final Appeal (and earlier in the Lands Tribunal and Court of Appeal) in relation to its rating appeal including the construction of s.8 & 8A Rating Ordinance (February 2017). Town Planning Board v Town Planning Appeal Board – John acted for the TPB in the Court of Final Appeal on the construction of s.16 of the Town Planning Ordinance and jurisdiction of the Town Planning Board to review its decision under s. 17 in relation to an application to fulfil planning conditions (January 2017). Mayer Corporation Development Limited v Alliance Financial Intelligence Limited (HCCL 2/2016) – John acted for the applicant in the Court of First Instance on an application to strike out an action seeking to set aside judgments allegedly obtained by fraud (November 2016). Jonnex International Ltd. v Town Planning Board (HCAL 130/2015) – John acted for the TPB in the Court of First Instance on an application for judicial review seeking to challenge a decision refusing to modify the Sai Ying Pun & Sheung Wan Outline Zoning Plan (September 2016). Song Lian Zhong v Chan Sze Wai HCA 277/2013 – John acted for the plaintiffs in the Court of First Instance in a 3 week trail for fraudulent misrepresentation (July/August 2016). Recent Cases in the Cayman Islands and BVI King Bun v Lau – 5 week trial in Commercial Court in British Virgin Islands representing a former director in a derivative action brought by minority shareholder for breach of directors’ duties relating to sale of a subsidiary company at an undervalue. (November/December 2019, July 2020 and February 2021). China Energy Development Holdings Ltd v Totalbuild Investments Holdings Group Ltd (Cause No. G0094/2015) and Energy International Investments Holdings Ltd v China International Energy Investments (Hong Kong) Ltd (Cause No. G0112/2015) (2014 – 2016) – John acts for the plaintiffs in two claims relating to breaches of warranty and misrepresentation arising out of cooperation agreements entered into with China National Petroleum Company for the exploitation of mineral resources in China. There have been a number of interlocutory proceedings and hearings for injunctions, service out of the jurisdiction, substituted service and discovery of documents. Trials likely in 2017/2018 (Cayman Islands). Lai Yueh-Hsing v Mayer Holdings Limited (FSD86/2014) (2013 – 2014) – creditors winding up petition. The proceedings include an application for appointment of interim receivers, the hearing of the petition and an appeal to the Cayman Court of Appeal (Cayman Islands). Li En Qiang v Nova Direct Investment Ltd (2016) – claim for the recovery of proceeds of redemption and remaining shares in an investment fund against a BVI company. Application challenging to Court’s jurisdiction (BVI). China NTG Investments Ltd v Great River Corporation (2014) – proceedings for the appointment of an interim receiver and an application for a stay of proceedings (BVI).

Jonathan Wills

Jon is a property litigation barrister, with a particular specialism in the Electronic Communications Code. Please see the Telecommunications tab for more details of this area of his practice. His experience in the planning field means that he is particularly well-placed to advise on property matters with a planning law element to them. Please see the tabs above for further details.

Julia Smyth

Julia is a public law, EU and ECHR specialist. She frequently appears unled in high-profile cases, and is praised by the legal directories as being “a truly excellent public law specialist," who is “phenomenally gifted", “extremely clever and very effective”, as well as “phenomenally hard working" and “approachable and responsive." Julia won the award for ‘Human Rights and Public Law Junior of the Year’ at the Chambers UK Bar Awards 2022. Prior to returning to self-employed practice in 2012, Julia had a successful career as a senior government lawyer. She is recognised by the legal directories as bringing her “experience as counsel for various government departments to claimant work, giving practical insights into how public bodies make decisions on the ground.” Julia has particular expertise in EU and Withdrawal Agreement law, human rights and civil liberties, social security, health, immigration and free movement law, as well as experience in a broad range of other areas including education, police pensions, parking regulation and environment law and animal welfare.

Justin Bates KC

Justin's practice covers all aspects of housing, property and local government law. He is the Deputy General Editor of the Encyclopaedia of Housing Law and is the author or co-author of a number of other books and annotated statutes. In recent years, Justin has given evidence on housing law reform to the All Parliamentary Committees on both Legal Aid and the Private Rented Sector; the Welsh Assembly on the Renting Homes (Wales) Act; and the House of Lords on housing and the Equality Act 2010. He co-drafted the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 for Karen Buck MP and continues to provide legislative and policy support to the Shadow housing team. He has appeared on various BBC news and current affairs programmes discussing housing law. In 2019/20, he worked on the Right to Manage reform proposals produced by the Law Commission. Justin is an active supporter of Advocate (the Bar Pro Bono Unit) and, in 2020, was nominated for the “Pro Bono Junior of the Year” award.

Katharine Holland

Katharine has appeared in a wealth of reported cases during her career involving all types of property litigation disputes and many of which have been high profile. She is experienced in acting in all courts and tribunals to the highest level and is regularly instructed on complex advisory matters. In 2003, Katharine obtained the first injunction to be granted against ‘persons unknown’ in the context of trespass and protest demonstrations in the Hampshire Waste case. Since then, Katharine has acted on many trespass cases relating to all types of sectors. She is a CEDR Accredited Mediator and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and in 2009 received a Diploma in International Commercial Arbitration. The current 2023 Legal 500 says "An incredibly intelligent silk, Katharine is committed to providing a first-class service to her clients. Her advocacy skills have undoubtedly been the deciding factor in winning some particularly difficult cases." and the 2023 Chambers & Partners says "Katharine is willing to give up her time and be available late into the evening to assist. She is our go-to person for urgent matters. Katharine is incredibly personable.". Other past directory references have included: "very bright, innovative and passionate about what she does." "Katharine always goes the extra mile. She is responsive, quick and forceful on her feet." "She goes after every point with everything she’s got and she has a real determination to win." "She continues to be an excellent silk." "A very strong advocate who obtains a client’s confidence and respect very quickly. Her ability to get to the heart of a dispute never ceases to impress. An absolute class act and an excellent team player." "Simply astonishing to watch on her feet." "Sources agree that Holland dazzles in court... astonishing to watch on her feet – she is razor-sharp and one of the best cross-examiners around." "Her ability to devour a lengthy and complex brief and summarise it in a few short paragraphs is mindblowing." "A firm favourite of countless solicitors who agree that she is phenomenal and delivers consistently time and again. A fearsome fighter. Katharine is a hugely committed barrister. When you are up against it and need someone to really knuckle down there is no-one with more commitment or energy." "Retains a first tier ranking with plaudits: can’t praise her enough, a team player, extremely knowledgeable, her paperwork is excellent, a barrister you want on your side, especially if you expect to go twelve rounds with the other side.... a superb fast-thinking trial advocate and ferocious cross-examiner." "Pulls out all the stops to win your case and is recognised by instructing solicitors and opponents as a superb, fast- thinking trial advocate."

Katharine Elliot

Katharine is a strong and accomplished advocate, who appears in the Magistrates’ Court, County Court, High Court, Court of Protection, First-tier and Upper Tribunals, coroners’ courts and professional disciplinary panels, both as junior counsel and in her own right. Katharine was appointed to the Attorney General’s C Panel in 2021. Prior to and since her appointment, she has been instructed by both the GLD and HMRC to act in complex, high value litigation alongside leading counsel. She also has extensive experience in private and public inquiry work, including acting as junior counsel to the Dame Linda Dobbs Review commissioned by Lloyds Banking Group. Katharine’s extensive knowledge of trusts, probate and general private client law makes her exceptionally well placed to advise in cases where public and private law issues meet. She also handles cases at the interface of public and criminal law. Katharine accepts public access and pro bono instructions where appropriate. A strong believer in promoting both access to justice and diversity at the Bar, Katharine regularly accepts pro bono instructions through Advocate, is a session leader and mentor for BME Legal and champions access to legal work experience for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. She is also a tutor with The Access Project, a charity which supports students from disadvantaged backgrounds to access top universities. Beyond the Bar, Katharine sings as a soprano with the Collegium Musicum of London Chamber Choir and previously sang with the London Symphony Chorus. She is a keen rugby union fan and played for Haringey Rhinos RFC until she retired from the sport in 2019. She also enjoys a casual game of netball. A keen linguist, Katharine speaks Italian and French and has studied German, Russian and Mandarin.

Katherine Traynor

Kate is a specialist property barrister with particular expertise in interrelated areas, including tax, insolvency, and rating law. She frequently appears in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chambers), the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), the High Court and the County Court and has recently appeared unled before the Court of Appeal. Prior to joining Chambers in December 2021, she practised in Manchester and Liverpool as a specialist business and property barrister. She continues to accept instructions and regularly appears as Counsel in Manchester and Liverpool. In early 2021, Kate established a social group for junior lawyers, she has recently grown the social group, now known as ‘the Junior Lawyers’ Social Group’. Before coming to the Bar, Kate worked for two national law firms practising in the commercial and costs departments, respectively. In 2019, she worked for Bond Turner Limited as a costs negotiator, where she worked on a variety of cost litigation matters. Before that, she worked for DWF Costs as a costs advisor. In 2018 she worked for DWF LLP as a commercial paralegal, where she worked on a variety of commercial litigation matters. In 2017, she worked for a boutique law firm, Hodge Halsall Solicitors, where she assisted the Managing Partner on a range of legal issues. Kate has a growing practice in planning, compulsory purchase, valuation, and rating law. She is currently undertaking her ATT and CTA exams, which offers a niche specialism in revenue law. Copies of her CV are available upon request. Kate is often instructed as sole counsel, frequently appearing in the County Court, First-tier Tribunal and High Court, as well as acting on several cases as a junior. She has a busy trial practice but also appears in application hearings – especially for summary judgment and strike out, interlocutory applications and CCMC hearings. Kate is a member of the editorial team for the Encyclopedia of Housing Law and Practice (Sweet & Maxwell). Recent cases: Kate recently appeared unled for the Respondent in Smith v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2023] EWCA Civ 514 on the principle of costs and successfully opposed the making of a costs order against the Respondent. Kate recently appeared (being led by Justin Bates) for the Appellant in Avon Ground Rents Limited v Canary Gateway (Block A) RTM Company Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 616; a case concerning the issue of whether a shared ownership lease where the tenant has not “staircased” to 100% interest but is a term more than 21 years was a “long lease” for the purpose of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. In 2022, Kate assisted with an appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) in Riverside CREM 3 Ltd v Unsdorfer and others [2022] UKUT 98 (LC) (led by Justin Bates), a case on whether a challenge to the FTT’s power to vary a management order could be raised for the first time on an appeal. Advising on and drafting an application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in the context of how the right to manage applies to a residential terrace and the interpretation of ‘premises’ for the purpose of s.72, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (led by Justin Bates). Advising on and drafting the claim documents in the High Court, in respect of a debt action brought under regulation 20 of the Non-Domestic Rating (Collection and Enforcement) (Local Lists) Regulations 1989, in the context of an alleged rate avoidance scheme (led by David Forsdick KC).

Katie Helmore

Katie is a specialist property litigator who is recognised for her commercial approach and versatile practice. Katie has a successful and established property practice encompassing all aspects of commercial and residential property litigation and including complementary areas of planning, rating and valuation and environmental law. Katie acts for a wide range of clients across the full spectrum of property litigation including individuals, large estates, developers, charities, local authorities, large commercial organisations, local authorities and retailers.

Katrina Yates

Katrina has a busy property litigation practice and is particularly strong on disputes involving land registration, commercial landlord and tenant, and planning law issues that arise in the real estate context. Her practice encompasses: Development work (including overage, options, and promotion agreements) Commercial landlord and tenant (including forfeiture, landlord’s consents, dilapidations, rent review, and disputes under the 1954 Act) Land registration (including alteration, rectification, indemnity and judicial review) Sale and purchase disputes (including misrepresentation, forfeiture of deposits, and disputes over vacant possession) Rectification of contracts and deeds Adverse possession and boundary disputes Easements Restrictive covenants Nuisance Trusts of Land Property-related professional negligence. Katrina has significant experience acting in commercial disputes for large institutional clients, including property investors, developers, and household name retailers. With a background of experience in complementary areas of planning law, she is the counsel of choice for development work, or any property litigation case which has a planning law element. Since 2020, she has also been appointed to the prestigious Attorney-General’s A Panel of Junior Counsel. In that capacity, she regularly advises central government departments on property issues of public importance and is standing counsel to the Chief Land Registrar. During her career at Landmark, Katrina has developed extensive breadth and depth of written and oral advocacy experience in the Senior Courts, including in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, the High Court, as well in the First-tier Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal, and the County Court.  Her varied experiences have also previously taken her into the magistrates’ courts, the Crown Court, and public inquiries, from which she has developed agility and clarity as an advocate. Recent and notable appearances include: Bay Dining Ltd v BNP Paribas Depositary Services Ltd (22 March 2023): successfully acted for BNP Paribas in defence of an application for relief from forfeiture of a commercial lease. Campbell v Chief Land Registrar [2022] EWHC 200 (ChD), before HH Judge Hodge KC: struck out multiple unmeritorious claims which sought to contend that various mortgages were invalid for failure to be executed by the lender as well as the borrower, based on a misapprehension of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, s.2.     Also obtained an extended civil restraint order against one litigant, which led to the making of a general civil restraint order on 2 March 2023 by Edwin Johnson J. Littler v Linden Ltd (29 March 2022): defended a developer against a claim for an injunction, which sought the removal and relocation of a foul drainage system. Billings & Billings v Coyde Construction Ltd (2021): trial as to the validity and construction of an easement, which included a challenge to whether the easement had been properly registered so as to bind successors in title. R (HCP Hendon Ltd) v Chief Land Registrar [2020] EWHC 1278 (Admin), before Martin Spencer J: successfully defended the Registrar’s decision to register a new lease as a concurrent lease, and in so doing clarified the law on the manner in which the Property Register to leasehold title can be relied on for the purpose of establishing the scope of the demise. Coventry Parkside Development Ltd v Uninn Parkside Development Ltd (Claim No. PT-2020-000075): acted for the defendant in an application for an injunction to restrain an airspace trespass caused by a crane oversailing an adjacent development site. Halfords Ltd v Turret Property Investments Ltd (County Court at Sheffield, Claim No. C01BS690): successfully represented Halfords at a trial of its business lease renewal claim, which included a rarely fought dispute as to the valuation of the new rent. Antoine v Barclays Bank UK Plc & Chief Land Registrar [2018] EWCA Civ 2846 [2018] EWHC 395 (Ch): successfully defended the Chief Land Registrar in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal in relation to a claim for rectification of the registrar, following the setting aside of a court order that had been obtained by fraud. R (Best) v Chief Land Registrar [2016] QB 23 (CA): with Jonathan Karas KC, acted for the Registrar in this landmark Court of Appeal case testing the novel question of whether an adverse possession application is valid, where the possession on which the applicant relies to establish his claim constitutes the criminal offence of squatting in a residential building, under s. 144 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Other experience: Katrina sat on the University of Bristol’s Law School Advisory Board between 2013 and 2016 and is a guest LLB land law lecturer. She is a regular contributor to the Civil Court Service (the “Brown Book”) and the Civil Court Practice (the “Green Book”). When she is not working at the law, Katrina is a keen singer and violinist who performs whenever she has the chance. She also enjoys learning languages and travelling, most recently taking-up surfing in Portugal and Morocco.

Kimberley Ziya

Kim has a particular interest in areas of overlap between planning and property law including rights to light, restrictive covenants and permitted development rights. Her notable work includes: FirstPort Property Services Limited v Settlers Court RTM Company Ltd & Ors [2019] UKUT 0243 (LC): instructed in the first “leapfrog” appeal from the Upper Tribunal (Property Chamber) to the Supreme Court in a case concerning the operation of the statutory Right to Manage regime. The Supreme Court has granted permission to appeal and the appeal is to be heard in November 2021. Led by Simon Allison. AEW UK REIT Plc v Sportsdirect.com Retail Ltd: instructed for Sports Direct in proceedings to determine whether rent was payable under the terms of its Lease for periods in which the leased premises were forced to close in compliance with government restrictions imposed in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Led by Katharine Holland KC. Jarvis v Evans [2021] 1 W.L.R. 24: acted for the landlord (supported by the National Residential Landlords’ Association) in an appeal concerning the licencing regime for landlords in Wales under the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. Led by Justin Bates. R (on the application of Zins) v East Suffolk Council: acted for the claimant in the judicial review of a planning permission granted to PGL Travel Ltd for the creation of a new activity lake within a countryside estate used as a children’s outdoor activity centre. Led by David Forsdick KC. Acting for the successful developer at a public inquiry concerning the proposed redevelopment of 70 “Airey” houses near Leeds (APP/N4720/W/20/3250249). Led by Sasha White KC. Advising on questions of noise nuisance, rights to light, restrictive covenants and rights of way arising following the grant of planning permission. Appearing for tenants and landlords before the County Court and First-tier Tribunal in cases concerning rent and service charge arrears, possession, forfeiture and tenancy deposits. Kim accepts instructions on a direct access and pro bono basis in appropriate cases. She is a member of the Attorney-General’s baby junior scheme and part of the editorial team for the Planning Encyclopedia. Prior to joining Chambers, Kim was a Research Assistant in the Law Commission’s Property, Family and Trusts team, where she worked on projects relating to Charity Law, Easements, Covenants and Profits, and Leasehold Enfranchisement. Before that Kim spent nine months at a boutique litigation firm in Los Angeles where she assisted with all aspects of cases covering civil fraud, employment, tort, probate and public law.

Leon Glenister

Leon is ranked across Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500 in five areas: Administrative and Public Law, Education Law, Planning Law, Local Government and Social Housing Law. He is described as “incredibly bright”, an “impressive advocate”, “clear, succinct and persuasive”, “well-liked by clients”; and that it is “always reassuring to have Leon on your side rather than against you”. Leon regularly acts in complex cases of a national profile, including in cases up to the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights. His recent instructions include: challenges on the scope of the right to autonomy, the construction of HS2 on the basis of environmental concerns, the ownership transfer of GP surgeries to US-based companies, the EU Settlement Scheme, the COVID vaccination rollout and the appointment to the Charity Commission Chair. He has recently been instructed on significant planning cases including on the Silvertown Tunnel, PINS use of planning officers and the ‘bridge to nowhere’ case. His previous cases have included the challenge to Ofqual’s grading system for the 2020 A-level exams, the Alfie Evans litigation, the challenge to the NHS Accountable Care Organisation contract and the challenge to the Yorkshire Ripper’s move from Broadmoor to prison. Leon is a tutor in Administrative Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge. He is also a contributing author to both ‘Children’s Social Care Law’ (LAG, 2018) and ‘Adult Social Care Law’ (LAG, 2019). He is co-author of a comprehensive free guide to the law relating to special educational needs, the ‘Noddy Guide to SEN’. Away from law, he is a Governor of Dr Challoner’s Grammar School. He is proudly of mixed heritage, with a British father and Malaysian-Chinese mother.

Luke Wilcox

Luke has an established practice, specialising in planning, rating and valuation, highways and property law.   As a planner, Luke appears regularly both in public inquiries and in legal challenges in the Courts (including appearing unled against silks). He acts for developers, LPAs and the Secretary of State. He has particular experience in housing, heritage, highways and valuation/viability matters in the planning field. Luke is recognised as one of the leading rating practitioners in the country. He has appeared four times in the Supreme Court, advises and acts for clients from multinational corporations to central government departments, and regularly lectures at national rating events. He also practices in related taxation fields where property valuation issues arise. Luke maintains a busy property practice, with a particular expertise in property valuation matters (primarily rent review) and cases concerning rights of way (both public and private).

Matthew Henderson

Matthew acts for developers, local authorities and a range of individuals and interested parties.  He frequently appears in the High Court, public inquiries and examinations, both led and unled. In 2020, Matthew was ranked in Planning Magazine’s top 10 planning juniors under the age of 35. 

Matthew Reed

Matthew appears in all the courts of record including the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, Divisional Courts and the High Court as well as the criminal courts, Parliament and the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). He acts for developers, local authorities and NGOs. He has appeared in over 50 reported Court cases and 100 significant inquiries and hearings. Matthew's practice ranges from planning, to environmental law, property and local government. In the planning sphere, Matthew has since 2008 been consistently ranked as a leading barrister in the planning sections of Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500. He is also ranked as a leading silk for planning work and as a top silk for residential work (along with only 25 other barristers) in the Planning Magazine’s 2023 Legal Survey. Matthew is the consultant editor of the compulsory purchase volume of Halsbury’s Laws. Matthew’s recent 2022/23 work has comprised: A housing development project involving 3000 houses in the north of England An appeal relating to a major minerals site in Essex A new road compulsory purchase project in the Midlands Energy from waste power stations in Essex and north London A transport and works act order in southern England Development agreement arbitrations relating to schemes in London Developments affecting grade 1 listed buildings Habitat regulations cases Local plan promotion for a London Borough Local plan objections in the Midlands. In the field of environmental law, Matthew is ranked in Chambers and Partners as a leading silk. During 2022/3, he has been dealing with many of the issues arising from nutrient loading in the river system, whether from point source or diffuse pollution, advising local authorities, NGOs and private organisations on the issue. In 2023, Matthew’s property practice has generally related to the cross-over between planning and property, having been involved in litigation on a number of development agreements and options. He has also advised on cases addressing the enforceability of restrictive covenants and easements.

Matthew Fraser

Matthew regularly appears in courts of all levels, as well as representing a range of clients in public inquiries and hearings. He has extensive experience acting for and advising private individuals and businesses, local authorities, central government departments, other public bodies, NGOs and interest groups. Matthew is ranked by the legal directories in both administrative/public law and planning law. In Chambers and Partners 2023, he is ranked as “Up and Coming” in both Administrative and Public Law and Planning Law. In Legal 500 2023, he is ranked in Band 3 among “Leading Juniors” for Administrative Law and Human Rights, and in Band 4 among “Leading Juniors” in Planning Law. Matthew has been ranked among the top barristers in planning law under the age of 35 in the Planning Magazine’s 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 Legal Surveys (ranking joint 8th in the most recent survey). Notable court work Highlights of his court practice include: R (Pearce) v West Berkshire Council [2023] EWHC 209 (Admin) - claim for judicial review against the grant of planning permission for a new sports facilities R (Finch) v Surrey CC [2022] PTSR 958 – Scope of requirement to carry out environmental impact assessment in relation to greenhouse gas emissions Kaitey v SSHD [2022] 3 WLR 121 – whether conditional immigration bail can be imposed on a person if it would be unlawful to detain them Antoniades & Ors v Administrator of the Sovereign Base Areas (JR/1, 4 & 5/2015) – represented the successful Administrator resisting a claim for judicial review brought by locally employed civilians in the Sovereign Base Areas (Judgment, 22 June 2022) Monkhill Ltd v SSHCLG [2021] PTSR 1432 – Meaning of policies providing a “clear reason for refusal” in National Planning Policy Framework para. 11(d) Peel Investments (North) Ltd v SSHCLG [2021] PTSR 298 – Whether a time-expired plan is “out of date” under para. 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework Tower Hamlets LBC v SSHCLG  [2020] PTSR 111 – Interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework para. 196 on harm to heritage assets RR v SSWP  [2019] 1 WLR 6430 – Major constitutional case in the Supreme Court about what remedy a tribunal can grant to victims of the bedroom tax – acted for the successful appellant Dover DC & China Gateway International Ltd v CPRE Kent  [2018] 1 W.L.R. 108 – Leading case in the Supreme Court concerning the duty on local authorities to give reasons for planning decisions. Notable inquiries/hearings Highlights of his practice at inquiries/hearings include: Little Chalfont, Buckinghamshire: represented the successful landowner in gaining planning permission for a 380-home scheme in the Green Belt due to "very special circumstances" following a 7-day public inquiry (March 2023). Grove Farm, Havering: represented the successful landowner in appealing against 21 enforcement notices and securing planning permission for large-scale industrial development in the Green Belt on the basis of "very special circumstances" (January 2023). 458 Oxford Street, London: represented the main objector (SAVE Britain's Heritage) opposing the re-development of M&S's flagship store at a two-week public inquiry for the called-in application (October 2022) Warren Golf Club, Maldon: represented the successful council resisting a scheme for luxury holiday lodges at a golf club in a two-week public inquiry (June 2022) Thistle Quay Hotel, Poole: represented the successful council at a two-week public inquiry resisting a major mixed-use residential, hotel and commercial scheme in the historic Poole quayside (June 2022) West Berkshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: represented the successful council promoting their new plan at public examination hearings (February 2022) Loxwood Road, Alfold: represented the successful developers at a public inquiry securing planning permission for 99 homes in the Surrey countryside (December 2021) Cheshire East Site Allocations DPD: represented the successful council promoting their new plan at public examination hearings (October 2021) Broad Road, Hambrook: represented the successful developer promoting a scheme for 118 homes at a public inquiry (September 2021) Whitstable Oyster Company: represented the successful oyster company at a two-week public inquiry appealing against an enforcement notice requiring the removal of inter-tidal trestles used for the cultivation of oysters (August 2021).

Matthew Dale-Harris

Matt/Matthew is a planning and environmental law specialist. He is ranked by Legal 500 as a leading junior in both Planning and Environmental Law and has been appointed to the Attorney General’s C Panel of Junior Counsel. He is the Editor of the Environment section of the Civil Court Practice and assists the editors of the Planning Encyclopaedia. Matthew’s planning practice focuses on housing and infrastructure work (as well as CPO). He has acted for a range of developers including national housebuilders such as Taylor Wimpey and land promoters like Catesby Estates as well as specialist and boutique developers like Optivo and Acorn Developments. He also has a busy practice working for local authorities and regularly appears in development management and enforcement appeals around the country. As panel counsel, he regularly acts for the DHLUHC, DEFRA and the Environment Agency. Some of the schemes Matt is currently or has recently been instructed on (in relation to the planning application, planning appeal, CPO and/or legal challenge stages) include: Wisley New Settlement. Appeal for Taylor Wimpey against non-determination of application 1,730 home development in Surrey on the Former Wisley Airfield (with James Maurici KC) Hulton Park, Bolton. The redevelopment of a Grade II registered park and garden in the Bolton Green Belt to provide a championship standard golf course capable of winning a bid for the 2031 Ryder Cup along with up to 1,036 dwellings. Westbury Energy from Waste Incinerator. An appeal against refusal of a major EfW incinerator in Wiltshire (led by David Elvin KC) NEXT distribution centre, Dowding Way, Epping. A new regional distribution hub next to the M25. Matt successfully defended the LPA’s refusal of permission. Whitfield Urban Extension, Dover. A major urban extension for the development of up to 6,750 homes (with David Elvin KC). Whitechapel Bell Foundry. A controversial redevelopment of a historic bell foundry in the East End of London. Matthew acted (with Rupert Warren KC) for the objector, Reform Heritage. Loxley-I gas exploration well, Surrey Hills. An exploratory borehole targeting the Lozley Gas Discovery in the High Weald Basin, one of the largest accumulations of natural gas in England (with David Elvin KC). Capital House, Southwark. Redevelopment in the immediate context of the Shard and Guy’s Hospital to provide a 39-storey building housing up to 905 student accommodation units (with Russell Harris KC). Land north of Flitch Way, Braintree. A 120 unit scheme on the edge of Braintree, Essex. Matthew acted for the successful developer. Roman Quarter Project, York. A mixed use redevelopment in York town centre involving the controversial excavation of Roman strata below the city and creation of a new archaeological attraction. He also acts for local authorities in relation to their plans and has been instructed (with Matthew Reed KC) by London Borough of Enfield in respect of their emerging local plan. As an environmental lawyer, Matthew acts frequently for government (DEFRA, EA, MMO) as well as NGOs and corporates. He is regularly instructed in relation to water matters (see his specialist Expertise page) including for water companies, harbour authorities and the EA. He also works across broader countryside matters and continues to act for both landowners, regulators and representative bodies such as the British Association of Shooting and Conservation or Moorlands Association on matters of importance to landowners such as the management of peat, game birds, pest control and water abstraction. He is experienced in public rights of way of village green litigation both in relation to appeals under the 1981 Act and disputes in the courts. He is also often instructed in relation to development related property and compensation work including CPO compensation claims and litigation and advice relating to s.106 agreements as well as overage and other forms of development contracts. Matthew’s most significant cases and inquiries can be accessed by clicking the links to the right, for more detail of his practice in specific areas please also click the links under ‘Expertise’. Matthew is a member of the UK Environmental Law Association and the Planning Bar Association.

Miranda Butler

https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/barrister/miranda-butler/

Miriam Seitler

Miriam regularly appears in the County Court representing parties in possession proceedings, including forfeiture claims, and has acted as sole Counsel in numerous fast track and multi-track trials. She also has extensive experience in the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) dealing with residential property matters. Miriam has recently and regularly advised on or acted in cases in the following areas of property litigation: Electronic Communications Code Specific performance of a contract for the sale of land Service charge disputes Costs in a service charge context Forfeiture and relief from forfeiture Eviction of a Rent Act tenant Possession proceedings under the Housing Act 1988 Opposed lease renewals under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Vesting orders under the 1993 Act Priorities of interests in a registered land context Validity of collective enfranchisement/lease extension notices Enforcement of a party wall award Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 Urgent trespasser claims in the County Court and High Court Discharge/modification of restrictive covenants Easements Land registration Professional negligence (in a property litigation context). Miriam has had the opportunity to be led by senior members, as follows: With Toby Watkin KC in the High Court concerning a claim by the tenant that the landlord has unreasonably withheld consent to assign. With Tom Weekes KC in a claim concerning the construction of a lease and derogation from grant. With Toby Watkin KC for the landlord in an opposed lease renewal under the 1954 Act involving grounds (c), (f) and (g). With Katharine Holland KC in a contractual dispute in the High Court (Chancery Division). With Myriam Stacey KC on a case concerning the general boundaries rules and implied and prescriptive easements. In Iceland Foods Limited v Aldi Stores [2016] EWHC 1134 Miriam appeared in the High Court, led by David Holland KC, before Mr Justice Mann on an issue concerning the construction of a lease. Miriam is a contributing editor of Hill and Redman’s Law of Landlord and Tenant (Residential Tenancies, Division C) and a regular contributor to Estates Gazette in a joint column, “Moot Point.” She presents regularly at Chambers seminars.

Myriam Stacey

Before taking Silk, Myriam was consistently recognised in the leading UK Legal directories and was ranked as a Band 1 junior by Chambers and Partners since 2016. Myriam is co-Chair of the Property Group at Landmark Chambers. She is frequently involved in high-profile disputes. Myriam is regularly, and repeatedly, instructed by developers and landowners in connection with disputes relating to the development of land and has considerable experience in advising and acting for such parties including in relation to the construction of development agreements and Section 106 Agreements and disputes related to options, overage provisions, rights to light and other real property issues including easements, restrictive covenants and rights to light. In addition, Myriam is involved in rapidly evolving areas of property law. For example, she is currently instructed by the Department of Levelling Up and Communities in relation to claims under the Building Safety Act 2022 and in the past few years, has accumulated extensive experience of the complex procedures and legal issues arising in respect of applications and claims against ‘persons unknown’, involving a range of different types of protests, and has regularly appeared on behalf of a range of landowners in the High Court as well as in the Court of Appeal and the Divisional Court (eg in National Highways v Heyatawin [2021] EWHC 3093; National Highways v Buse [2021] EWHC 3404; National Highways v Persons Unknown [2023] EWHC 1073; [2023] EWCA Civ 182; Shell UK Ltd v Persons Unknown [2023] EWHC 1229); Exolum Pipeline System Ltd v Persons Unknown [2023]). Myriam also has extensive experience of landlord and tenant disputes, ranging from 1954 Act claims, and disputes concerning the rights and liabilities under leases. Myriam’s landlord and tenant practice covers both commercial and residential property and claims involving guarantees. She recently appeared in the Court of Appeal (AGHR Ltd v Kane Laverack [2023] EWCA Civ 42 in an appeal involving allegations of breach of a user clauses in residential lease and claims for damages). She also has extensive experience in advising clients in relation to issues and disputes arising out of the Land Registration Act 2002, boundary disputes and adverse possession claims. She recently appeared in the Privy Council in an important claim concerning the inter-relation occupational rights and Torrens system of title by registration (Chitolie v St Lucia National Housing Corporation JCPC 2022/0064). She also has experience dealing with disputes under the Electronic Communications Code 2017 and appeared on behalf of the operator in the Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal in Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Compton Beauchamp Estate Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1755. In addition to her litigation practice, Myriam is often instructed to advise in relation to difficult points of law arising from transactional work. Myriam is valued for her technical ability, her ‘hands-on’, collaborative and commercial approach, her leadership skills and her extensive experience as a trial advocate. Myriam has dual French–English nationality, three children, two dogs and enjoys yoga, running and hill walking in her spare time.

Neil Cameron

Neil has extensive experience in planning, compulsory purchase, parliamentary and environmental work. He was joint head of Landmark Chambers from 2015-2018. He sits as a Deputy High Court Judge, including in the Planning Court. Major planning inquiries include Custom House (Grade 1 listed building in the City of London), The Tulip (305 m tall visitor attraction in the City of London), Cribbs Causeway (retail), Burgess Business Park (residential and commercial mixed use) King’s Lynn incinerator proposal (energy from waste), Leeds NGT (Transport and Works Act). He has deep knowledge and experience in residential schemes at section 78 appeals and at local plan examinations. He has acted for retirement housing developers over many years. He acted in Parliament on petitions in relation to Crossrail and HS2. In 2023 he appeared for the Greater Manchester local authorities on the HS2 Phase 2b Bill. He promoted the Middle Level Act 2018 in the House of Commons and House of Lords opposed bill committees. Court appearances include: Supreme Court: R (Wright) v. Forest of Dean and Resilient Severndale [2019] UKSC 53 (whether payments to a community benefit fund are a material consideration) Dover District Council v. CPRE [2017] UKSC 79 (the duty on local planning authorities to give reasons) Morge v. Hampshire County Council [2011] UKSC 2 (consideration of the Habitats Directive -2011). Court of Appeal: Peel v. Hyndburn (interpretation of retail planning permissions), Loader v. Rother District Council (interpretation of paragraph 74 in the NPPF, and consultation requirements). High Court: LB of Islington v. Secretary of State (challenge to Class J permitted development rights). Westminster and English Heritage v. Secretary of State (challenge to a decision not to call in an application). Orbital Shopping Park v. Swindon Borough Council (whether additional retail floorspace is liable to CIL). Chambers and Partners 2023 "He is outstanding. Neil combines a very pragmatic and approachable style with superb legal skills and technical expertise." "He is calm and measured and an excellent technical lawyer." Legal 500 2023 ‘Neil takes complex issues and simplifies them so that they are easily understood by clients, inspectors, judges and opponents! He is able to address the most bizarre left field questions and answer them easily and in a reassuring way.’

Neil King

Neil King KC was called to the Bar in 1980 and took silk in 2000. He joined 2 Mitre Court Buildings in 1982 and moved to Landmark Chambers in December 2003. He specialises in all aspects of Town and Country Planning, Environmental and Compulsory Purchase and Compensation law. Neil has appeared at numerous public inquiries, in the Lands Tribunal, the High Court and Court of Appeal. Planning cases include airport and other infrastructure projects; proposals for waste incineration, landfill and quarrying; tall building proposals in London, including London Bridge Tower (the ‘Shards of Glass’), Doon Street tower and at Old Street/City Road; and many retail, warehouse club, hotel and housing schemes. Recent compulsory purchase cases include 10 major retail-led city and town centre redevelopment schemes. He has also advised on a wide range of compensation issues arising from the acquisition of land for regeneration, rail, road and flood relief schemes. High Court and Court of Appeal cases include R (Al Fayed) v Tandridge DC (telecoms mast development), LB Hillingdon v ARC (limitation/estoppel on compensation claim), R (Lowther) v Durham CC (use of waste as a fuel), R (Hautot) v LB Wandsworth (validity of Battersea Power Station planning permissions), UKRA v Secretary of State (lawfulness of guidance on EPA conditions), and R (Friends of Lake District) v Secretary of State (power to withdraw call-in).

Nicholas Taggart

Nic Taggart has been acknowledged by both Chambers & Partners and Legal 500 as a top-tier “leading junior” barrister in real estate litigation for over 18 years. Principally a specialist in commercial real estate law, Nic also likes getting involved in the more recherché areas. Nic deals with just about every aspect of commercial real estate, with an emphasis on commercial landlord and tenant work, such as dilapidations, rent reviews and lease renewals under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.  Being, at heart, an anarchist, Nic has undertaken many cases under “Ground (f)” of the 1954 Act (including the leading case of S Franses v. The Cavendish Hotel (London) and disposed of a few guarantees under the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 (including the leading case of K/S Victoria Street v. House of Fraser). Nic also has experience and expertise in the usual land law disputes, involving restrictive covenants, easements (including rights of light), boundary disputes, land registration matters, including adverse possession, overage and development disputes, trespass and nuisance claims.  Nic also has a particular specialisation in respect of conveyancing issues, arising before or after the transaction.  He enjoys getting stuck into some more recherché aspects of real estate, such as mines and minerals, manorial and customary rights, utility wayleaves and property aspects of infrastructure provision, riparian rights, the real estate aspects of canals and harbours, and drainage.  He also has experience and expertise in disputes involving property-related professional negligence, acting for claimants and insurers. Nic is qualified and experienced as an arbitrator and as a legal assessor, but lacks the disposition to be a mediator. For laughs, he is an editor of Hill & Redman’s Law of Landlord and Tenant (contributing to the chapters on termination, possession and business tenancies), a member of the editorial boards of both The Conveyancer and Property Lawyer and The Journal of Building Survey, Appraisal & Valuation, and a past member of both The Law Society’s Conveyancing and Land Law Committee and the RICS Dilapidations Steering Group.  He is a regular speaker at Property Litigation Association and RICS events and provides in-house training for a number of solicitors firms.  He appreciates that he needs to get out more. Away from the law, Nic is a devotee of proper relaxation. His interests include photography, reading military histories, listening to music not popular since the 1980s and doggedly supporting the Williams F1 team.

Nick Grant

Nick is ranked as one of Planning Resource Magazines top planning barristers under 35 and is listed as a rising star for planning in the Legal 500. Nick specialises in planning and infrastructure, compulsory purchase, and environmental law. He is particularly experienced in residential (particularly older persons accommodation) and large energy infrastructure work. He has appeared at all levels: in public inquiries, the First-tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal, High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court. He has appeared as sole council in each save for the Supreme Court. He also represented the United Kingdom (again both led and unled) before the UN’s Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee. He is on the Attorney General’s C-panel of counsel, is ranked in Planning Resource Magazine’s top-rated planning juniors and top-rated planning juniors under 35 (top 5), and is ranked as in the Legal500 for as a leading junior in planning and environmental law, and as a “rising star” for local government work. Prior to starting pupillage, Nick was Judicial Assistant to Lady Justice Arden (now Lady Arden) in the Court of Appeal. Before that, he taught Environmental Law at UCL during his BPTC. While studying for an LLM at Harvard Law School, he was a Senior Editor for the Harvard Business Law Review Online, clerked (equivalent to being a Judicial Assistant) for three judges in the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, and represented prisoners before disciplinary tribunals. He is a contributor to the 4th edition of Friston on Costs and A practical guide to planning law and rights of way in National Parks, the Broads, and AONBS (Law Brief, 2020). He was previously an editor both of Garner’s Environmental Law and the Encyclopaedia of Housing Law and Practice. Nick is direct access qualified and regularly undertakes pro bono work through Advocate, the Environmental Law Foundation and the KCL Human Rights and Environment Clinic.

Paul Brown

Paul’s practice covers all aspects of planning and environmental law, public and local government law. His clients include national and regional housebuilders and other developers, local planning authorities, central government, environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth and private individuals. He has extensive experience in the High Court and Court of Appeal, as well as at Public Inquiries and Hearings. Recent, high profile cases include: RAF Scampton and RAF Wethersfield: instructed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in defending the challenges to the use of these two sites to house asylum seekers Ashchurch Rural Parish Council v. Tewkesbury Council: instructed by the appellant in the Court of Appeal hearing on this successful challenge to the Environmental Impact Assessment of the “bridge to nowhere” Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities v. Smith: instructed by PINS in the Court of Appeal in this challenge to the use of Appeal Planning Officers to assist Inspectors in making appeal decisions West Cumbria Coal Mine: instructed by Friends of the Earth in their objection (on climate change grounds) to the development of a new coal mine in Cumbria.  Appeared at the inquiry in 2021, and instructed in the subsequent High Court challenge R (Rights:Community:Action) v. Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities: instructed by the claimant in the widely publicised challenge to the amendments to the General Permitted Development Order and the Use Classes Order, which introduced new permitted development rights to build upwards and the new Use Class E. Westferry Printworks: instructed by Westferry Developments Ltd to promote the redevelopment of this site near Canary Wharf to provide 1524 new homes in 5 stepped towers. Rother Valley Railway CPO: instructed by local landowners to object to the compulsory purchase of their land to extend the route of a heritage steam railway. Paul’s recent local plan work includes Mid-Sussex Site Allocations DPD (for the LPA); St Albans Local Plan and Maidstone Borough Local Plan (acting for supporting developers);  Tandridge Local Plan and Tunbridge Wells Local Plan (acting for objectors). Before taking silk in 2009, Paul was a member of the Treasury A Panel, where he acted for a wide range of government departments including DCLG, DEFRA, the Ministry of Justice, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education. In 2014, he was the legal adviser to the Committee on the Review of Planning Guidance, led by Lord Taylor.  A member of the Joint Planning Law Committee responsible for organising the Oxford Planning Conference for more than 10 years, he chaired the Planning and Environmental Bar Association and was Joint Head of Landmark Chambers between 2019 and 2022.

Philip Nathan

Philip joined chambers in April 2010 from 36 Bedford Row. First called to the Bar in 1996, Philip practised crime for three years until leaving the Bar to join the Refugee Legal Centre in 1999. He moved to Sutovic & Hartigan Solicitors in 2000, taking on a broader range of immigration work. Philip returned to the Bar in January 2003 and ever since he has specialised in Asylum and Immigration law. In the Administrative Court by way of Judicial Review, Philip has had recent success in diverse areas such as the appropriate interpretation of the test applied in refusals of fresh claims (AS (Sri Lanka)), unlawful detention following previous compliance with temporary admission (Shylolibavan) and ensuring Home Office compliance with the various EU Directives on asylum law, in particular the right to work provisions of the Reception Directive (ZO (Somalia) and Others). Philip also acts regularly for Appellants before the Immigration and Asylum Chambers of both the First Tier and Upper Tribunals and thereafter on further appeal to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. In this regard he has had notable success in ensuring Home Office compliance with policy statements (Shkembi v SSHD (CA) and IA (Mauritius) (AIT)) and in particular helping to settle the correct interpretation to the various maintenance provisions of the Immigration Rules (MK (Somalia) v ECO (CA) and Mahad and Others v ECO (SC). Philip is an avid sports fan, previously enjoying skiing, playing regular golf, cricket and tennis and watching AFC Wimbledon, all severely hampered by relatively recent arrival of two young boys. He also enjoys playing the cello, film, and theatre.

Reuben Taylor

Reuben practices throughout England and Wales and acts for many leading developers as well as central Government, local authorities and individuals. He has particular expertise in the High Court and Court of Appeal, and in advisory work and advocacy on planning appeals. He has developed a particularly strong reputation for dealing with noise, road traffic, air quality and other technical environmental impact issues. He has been an editor of the Sweet & Maxwell Planning Law Encyclopaedia and a contributor to Atkin’s Court Forms and Butterworths’ Compulsory Purchase & Compensation Service and he was the joint Head of Landmark Chambers from 2020 – 2023. In his spare time, Reuben loves to play bass guitar in a hard rock band and tennis with his teenage boys.

Richard Drabble

Richard Drabble KC was called to the Bar in 1975 and took silk in 1995. He is a Bencher of Inner Temple; a former Chairman of ALBA and a current member of the Bar Council’s Law Reform Committee. He practices in public law. He has appeared in many leading human rights and environmental cases. He appeared as (very) junior counsel in CCSU v Minister for the Civil Service (GCHQ). He acted for the government in connection with the decision to grant planning permission for Terminal 5 at Heathrow; with a judicial review challenge to the Airports White Paper; and resisting a challenge by Greenpeace to consultation on nuclear policy. His practice has a particular emphasis on social security, immigration, environmental, planning, local government and human rights law. He has appeared at all levels of the domestic court system, including the Supreme Court and House of Lords. He has also appeared before the ECtHR in Strasbourg (for example in Chapman v UK; Stec v UK; and Tsfayo v UK) as well as the CJEU (for example Stewart v SSWP [2012] PTSR 1; and the Grand Chamber hearing of the joined cases of Tele 2 Sverige and Watson and others v SSHD [2017] QB 771). He appeared in Trinidad in Jones v AG in a successful constitutional challenge to the law criminalizing homosexual activity; and before the Privy Council in The Minister of Home Affairs (Bermuda) v Barbosa [2019] UKSC 41. He has recently appeared in the Supreme Court in cases raising important human rights issues, including KV (Sri Lanka) v SSHD [2019] 1 WLR 1849;  Kiarie v SSHD [2017] 1 WLR 2380; and IT (Jamaica) v SSHD [2018] 1 WLR 5273. In terms of social security, he appeared in the Supreme Court in the challenges to both versions of the benefits cap; and for the claimants in the bedroom tax case of R (Carmichael) v SSWP [2016] 1 WLR 4550 and the later case on remedies RR (Appellant) v SSWP [2019] 1 WLR 6430. He is instructed by Sainsburys to resist the Valuation Officers appeal concerning the rating of supermarket ATMs in the Supreme Court in March 2020.

Richard Langham

Richard Langham specialises in town and country planning, highways law, environmental law and compulsory purchase and compensation, acting for local authorities, developers, amenity groups and individuals. In relation to planning, he has experience of most forms of development.  In recent months he has appeared at public inquiries into proposals for quarrying, significant housing development and caravan sites.  He has particular experience of enforcement, including by prosecution and injunction, and often obtains interim injunctions, including injunctions against persons unknown.  He is regularly instructed to oppose development by gypsies and to act in enforcement cases against gypsies.  As a result he has had occasion to consider many GTAAs and their deficiencies.  He has recently appeared at local plan examinations into proposals to allocate land for gypsy sites. Richard’s advisory work covers all aspects of planning work and related property law.  He has often advised on s106 agreements, permitted development rights, immunity claims and development agreements.  Increasingly he is asked to advise on CIL, and particularly the concept of ‘commencement’.  He appeared in the only Court of Appeal case on the meaning of r123 of the CIL Regulations. Richard is often instructed in footpath cases and has appeared at many DMMO inquiries.  On several recent occasions he has drafted objections which have caused surveying authorities to reject DMMO applications.  He is often asked to advise and act in cases raising the more abstruse aspects of highways law, including recently the drafting of TROs, obligations under the NRSWA 1991, the sufficiency of user evidence, the extent of dedication and the true meaning of ‘as of right’, ‘bringing into question’ and ‘without interruption’. Richard has been involved in significant litigation concerning the need for and the requirements of environmental assessment: one of his cases led to a change to the EIA Regulations.  He has also acted in many cases concerning the impact of noise, and the intricacies of the measurement of noise.  Many of his recent planning inquiries have involved noise issues and he has recently acted in both criminal and civil proceedings concerning alleged noise nuisance. Richard often acts in compensation claims and advises on the compensation code, including, in the last few years, the different versions of ss14-18 of the Land Compensation Act 1961.  He has significant experience of settlement negotiations and has assisted in achieving highly satisfactory outcomes for clients. Richard is qualified to accept public access instructions and has conducted inquiries and High Court litigation on a public access basis.

Richard Moules KC

Richard was named the Planning and Land Use ‘Junior of the Year’ at the Legal 500 Bar Awards 2023. He undertakes work for private developers, central and local government, public bodies and interest groups. He has been on the Attorney General’s A Panel of Junior Counsel since 2018 and has acted for the Government in many of the most significant planning and environmental cases over the last five years. Richard is consistently ranked as one of the top junior planning and environmental law barristers in the country. Some of the recent high-profile cases Richard has been instructed on include: Supreme Court R (on the application of Finch) v Surrey CC (June 2023) - leading Nicholas Grant for the Secretary of State in a significant Environmental Impact Assessment case. The issue is whether an Environmental Impact Assessment for a commercial oil extraction project must consider the downstream greenhouse gas emissions arising from the oil’s eventual combustion by third party consumers. Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] 2 W.L.R. 339 - led by Tom Weekes KC acting for residents successfully arguing that overlooking from the Tate Modern’s viewing platform is an actionable nuisance. Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd v United Utilities Water Ltd  (March 2023) - led by Jonathan Karas KC and James Maurici KC in a case about whether private watercourse owners can sue sewerage undertakers in trespass or nuisance in respect of sewage discharges, or whether the statute provides exclusive remedies for the regulators  (Court of Appeal: [2023] Ch. 1 & High Court [2021] 1 W.L.R. 5871). Secretary of State for Transport v Curzon Park Ltd [2023] UKSC 30 - led by David Elvin KC in a case about compulsory purchase compensation arising from the HS2 scheme. The issue concerned the relevance of other parties’ applications for Certificates of Alternative Development (“CAAD”) when deciding a CAAD application for the subject site. (Court of Appeal [2021] P.T.S.R. 1560 Upper Tribunal [2020] UKUT 37 (LC)). C G Fry and Son Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 1622 (Admin) - leading Nicholas Grant in a case concerning the lawfulness of carrying out appropriate assessment at the condition discharge stage post-Brexit which has been granted a leapfrog certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court. Privy Council Lake v Attorney General of Anguilla [2022] UKPC 33 – led by Richard Clayton KC in a case about the correct valuation method for valuing land acquired by compulsion to extend an airport runway. Chitolie v St Lucia National Housing Corporation (July 2023) - led by Myriam Stacey KC in a case concerning land registration and the protection of overriding interests of squatters in St Lucia.

Richard Turney KC

Richard has a broad court, inquiry and advisory practice and a wide client base, including major developers and landowners, central Government, local authorities, NGOs, and individuals. His experience as an advocate spans every level of court and tribunal from the magistrates to the Supreme Court. He is a appointed to the Attorney General’s A Panel of Junior Counsel. He is also consistently ranked as a top junior in planning and environmental law in the directories. In 2019 and 2020, Planning Magazine ranked him as the top planning junior at the Bar, being described by one solicitor as “one of the best advocates of his generation”. Richard previously taught public law as a tutor and lecturer Cambridge, SOAS and UCL. He now regularly gives lectures and training in all areas of his practice. Prior to joining the Bar, Richard worked as a research assistant at the Law Commission during which time he worked on projects relating to the reform of the Housing Acts and the regulation of residential landlords, as well as monetary remedies in public law.

Richard Clarke

Richard is a specialist property barrister whose practice spans the full range of property litigation. He has extensive experience in residential and commercial landlord and tenant cases, as well with cases concerning easements, covenants, boundaries and adverse possession. Richard acts for both landlords and tenants and his clients include government agencies, local authorities, portfolio landlords and individuals. Richard regularly acts unled in complex and high-value litigation, including at appellate level.  His recent reported cases include R (Sensar Ltd) v Chief Land Registrar [2021] 4 W.L.R. 36, a judicial review concerning the operation of s73(5) of the Land Registration Act 2002, and Football Association Premier League v Lord Chancellor [2021] 1 W.L.R. 3035; [2021] Costs L.R. 415; [2021] 2 Cr. App. R 16 (Divisional Court), an appeal concerning whether the investigate costs of a private prosecution are recoverable. He regularly acts for and advises parties on applications for landlord consent under residential leases. His cases include acting for a tenant challenging their landlord’s refusal to grant consent to alterations. He successfully acted for a landlord challenging a substantial fine issued by a local authority under s249A of the Housing Act 2004, with the Tribunal reducing the fine by over 90%. Richard has significant experience of service charge claims before the First-tier Tribunal. Richard is the author of ‘A Practical Guide to Alienation, Alteration and User Covenants in Commercial Property’ (July 2023, Law Brief Publishing), a book for solicitors and surveyors on the workings of covenants in commercial property.

Robert Walton

Robert is consistently rated as one the top planning barristers in the UK in the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners directories. The latest edition of the Legal 500 describes Robert as, “Astute and highly commercial. Fantastic with clients. Able to distil highly complex legal issues into crystal clear strategic advice. Undoubtedly one of the very best in his field and a pleasure to instruct and work with”. Planning Robert’s planning work principally focuses on advising clients in preparation for, and appearing at public inquiries, hearings and in the higher courts. He also advises clients on all aspects of planning law, including policy formulation, development control and enforcement. Public Law Robert has a wide ranging public law practice including all aspects of judicial review / statutory challenges, challenging and defending decisions of central and local government as well as other bodies whose decisions are amenable to challenge in the courts. Environment Robert’s environmental work covers all aspects of environmental law, including regulatory and enforcement work. Compulsory Purchase and Compensation Robert’s compulsory purchase work centres on advising and representing acquiring authorities in respect of the making and securing of compulsory purchase orders.  He also acts for private objectors to CPO schemes.  Robert specialises in compensation work, both for compensating authorities and claimants.

Rupert Cohen

Rupert has a successful property and chancery practice allied with a specialist knowledge of costs law. He was appointed Junior Counsel to the Crown (Attorney General’s B Panel) in 2020 and is an ADR Accredited Mediator. Rupert’s webpage on property litigation can be accessed through the following link: Property Litigation section Rupert’s webpage on costs litigation can be accessed through the following link: Costs Litigation section Rupert’s webpage for his services as a mediator can be accessed through the following link: Mediation section He is described in the directories as “a fantastic advocate, frighteningly clever and an absolute pleasure to work with. My go to junior for complex or tricky points of law.” (Legal 500 – Property Litigation, 2022). “A go-to guru for costs cases at the junior level.” (Legal 500 – Costs Litigation, 2022). “A costs wizard who is clearly very able. Clients love him as he is both succinct and confident.” (Chambers & Partners – Costs Litigation, 2021) “Direct, commercial and a joy to work with.” “He has such a phenomenal way with words and on his feet.” (Chambers & Partners – Real Estate Litigation, 2021). He is also ranked in both Chambers & Partners 2022 and Who’s Who Legal 2021 as a “leading mediator” and described as “a noteworthy mediator with particular expertise and experience in substantial property disputes” (Chambers & Partners – Mediators, 2022), in addition to “He is very good at thinking strategically as well as on the technicality of law. He is fantastic on his feet.” “Rupert is calm and very polished. He is diplomatic with clients.” (Chambers & Partners – Real Estate Litigation, 2022) Recent cases: Aviva Investors Ground Rent GP Ltd v Williams [2023] UKSC 6 Belsner v CAM Legal Services Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1387 (led by David Holland KC) FirstPort Property Services Ltd v Settlers Court RTM Co Ltd [2022] UKSC 1 Pigot v Environment Agency [2021] EWCA Civ 213 (led by Richard Turney) Lejonvarn v Burgess [2020] EWCA Civ 114 Mirchandani v Lord Chancellor [2020] EWCA Civ 1260 Global Assets Advisory Services Ltd v Grandlane Developments Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1764 West v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWCA Civ 1220 (led by Nick Bacon KC).

Rupert Warren

Rupert is a leading specialist in planning and related areas of public law. Rupert was called to the Bar in 1994 and took silk in 2012. He is rated in Band 1 in both Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners. Rupert acts for many leading developers, landowners, promoters and investors, as well as central Government, local authorities and individuals. He has particular expertise in the High Court and Court of Appeal, complex advisory work and advocacy in major planning appeals. Residential development continues to form a core part of Rupert’s practice in 2023, including in the promotion of new settlements (in Essex, Kent, Hampshire and West Sussex), major urban extensions through Local Plans and applications (in Kent, Durham, Cambridge, Bristol, Oxford and around London). He continues to advise on residential-led development particularly in London, as well as residential projects across the country. These include major town centre schemes in central Manchester, Reading, Kingston and Guildford. Design, heritage, water/nutrient neutrality, BNG and carbon feature heavily in these projects. For many years Rupert has advised and represented the market leaders in the field of retirement and later years residential development, including McCarthy Stone, Life Story, Inspired Villages, BUPA, Minton and Guild Living/L&G. In London he successfully challenged part of the Mayor’s residential SPG on behalf of the sector as well as leading on its London Plan representations. Rupert advised government for some years in relation to the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge Arc and continues to be involved in many projects across that area, including North Cambridge, extensions to the north and south of Oxford, infrastructure-related residential and mixed-use schemes from Buckinghamshire to Norfolk In London, Rupert is recognised as a leader in the field of complex mixed use development projects, often featuring tall buildings and heritage context as well as commercial/mixed uses. In 2022-23 his caseload in London has been heavy, including representing Mitsubishi Estate in the called-in inquiry into the redevelopment of the ITV site on the South Bank, the called-in Berkeley/St Edward’s re-development of the Tesco/Homebase sites in Hounslow and the appeal consent for residential development opposite Hampton Court (Jolly Boatman site). He advised and represented the City of London on its Salisbury Square Fleet Street project, currently under construction, Canary Wharf Group on Isle of Dogs proposals and advised on the consents (including through appeal) at Glengal Quay and Crossharbour District Centre. Rupert is also expert in retail, commercial, Life Sciences/R&D, logistics and data centre development. In 2022-23 he has advised and represented major online retailers, strategic logistics developers/stakeholders such as SEGRO, IM Properties and Prologis, and data centres developers (including major applications and appeals both east and west of London, in the Thames Valley corridor). He is working on appeals and applications in both Oxford and Cambridge involving substantial provision of Life Science floorspace and offices. His experience embraces DCO work (for instance advising and representing government on the Hinkley Point C new nuclear proposal), railfreight proposals, road schemes, and town centre CPOs (he was involved in the schemes now known as Grand Arcade, Cambridge, Bath Southgate and Cabot Circus Bristol). Rupert advised the Coalition Government on the first NPPF in 2011-12, and its successor on the major revision in 2017-18. He advised on the PD changes in 2020-21 and successfully defended the legislative changes in the Court. As a result, he has a particular expertise in national policy formulation, interpretation and legal challenge.

Russell Harris

Russell specialises in planning and environmental work. He is now involved in most of the UKs highest-profile development schemes. Russell is particularly experienced in preparing for and acting at large public inquiries. He is noted for his ability to understand large volumes of technical evidence, to formulate effective cross-examination of expert witnesses and to present a client’s case clearly and effectively. Russell has been selected as Planning Silk of the year a number of times: most recently at the October 2022 Legal 500 UK Bar Awards. Russell sits on the Wales Assembly Government Planning Forum. He has been appointed a Special Advocate by the Attorney General and is a Bencher and trustee of Gray’s Inn. When not at work, he spends most of his time on the Atlantic Ocean. He is also a WRU rugby coach.

Samantha Broadfoot

Samantha is joint head of the Public Law Group at Landmark Chambers. Samantha’s practice encompasses a wide spectrum of cases with a public law angle including: Health care – pharmaceutical regulation, hospital downgrades, NHS charging schemes, NHS investigations. Education – academisation process, SEN, exclusion, Ofqual issues. Immigration – systemic challenges, business, EU, removal, human rights, asylum. Human Rights – across a range of fields including family law & parentage, surrogacy, regulating access to police DNA databases, discrimination, UNCRC. Disciplinary / regulatory / code of conduct – e.g. proceedings before SDT, BSB, as well as challenges to decisions of such bodies & others, e.g. LSO. Local authority – allocation of responsibility (‘who pays’), community care, powers, conduct issues. Welfare – PIP. Inquests – air accidents, marine accidents and hospital deaths Public international law – questions of public international law arising out of the creation of the Republic of Cyprus and the Sovereign Bases Areas. Samantha is individually ranked in the directories in Administrative and Public Law and in Immigration. She is a contributor to the textbook NHS Law and Practice (2018). She is also a Recorder and sits in the Crown Court. She was appointed as a member of the European Human Rights Commission’s Panel in January 2020. Samantha acts for individuals and campaign groups seeking to bring public law challenges, as well as for a range of clients from central and local government, and regulators. She acts across the range forums, from judicial review and statutory appeals, to disciplinary matters and inquests. Prior to becoming a KC in February 2017, she was appointed to the Attorney General’s A panel of Junior Counsel. This was following her previous appointments where in 2001, Samantha was appointed to the Attorney General's C Panel of Junior Counsel and in 2005, to the B Panel. In 2008, she was appointed to the Bar Standards Board Complaints Committee. In 2019, she was appointed as legal counsel to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s B Panel.

Sasha White

Planning NOMINATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND NOTABLE MATTERS: Nominated for Planning Silk of the Year by Legal 500 for 2020. Identified as one of the top Planning Silks currently practicing in England and Wales in Legal 500, Chambers and Partners and Planning Magazine. He has been described as a “Excellent in every way – expertise, experience, advocacy and diligence” and “Sasha is without parallel the best planning [K]C to work with” [Legal 500 2022] and “Sasha is absolutely the best, he is a pleasure to work with and always makes everyone at ease, even junior members of the client team” [Legal 500 2023] And “a true legend of the Planning Bar” and who “is the best silk I know for cross-examining” [Chambers and Partners Guide to the Bar 2022] As a Junior he was stated to be “the leading Planning junior in the UK” by Legal 500 in 2003 and identified as the number one Planning Junior in the UK by Planning Magazine for 8 consecutive years from 1996-2004. Hosted the RTPI National Annual Planning Awards of Excellence – 2021 and 2022. Has won 38 of his last 41 planning appeals and High Court cases. [As at 1/10/2023] Previously Head of the Planning Group at Landmark Chambers [2020-2023] Founder member of and Panelist for “Have we got planning news for you” which has produced over 80 episodes and been watched by over 100,000 since March 2020. Author of “Planning Appeals” – Central Law Publishing 1997. Took 4 years away from work to be the primary parent for his three children [2003-2007]. PROFESSIONAL INSTRUCTIONS IN THE PAST 5 YEARS: In the past 8 years since 2015 Sasha has: Been instructed by 8 of the top 10 planning solicitor firms. Been instructed by 9 of the top 10 UK housebuilders. Been instructed by 8 of the top 10 UK retailers. NOTABLE INSTRUCTIONS IN THE PAST 5 YEARS: Won permission for 200 houses in Chichester in August 2023. Won permission for 150 units in Waverley in May 2023. Won permission at appeal for 215 units in Swindon in December 2022. Promoted 1000 units in London Borough of Barnet in March 2023 at Call in Inquiry. Won permission for 500 houses in the Green Belt in Little Chalfont in March 2023. Won planning permission at appeal for 1400 homes in Bury St Edmonds in 2022. Won planning permission for 150 houses in Tenterden in April 2022. Won 11 appeals for Churchill Homes in 2021-23. Won permission in St Helens for 1 million square feet of B8 in Green Belt in October 2021. Won permission in Bath for major mixed-use development of 400 units in 2021/22. Instructed to represent Tower Hamlets Council on the highest profile case of 2020/1 involving Westferry Printworks and the Secretary of State accepting “Apparent Bias”. Appeared as advocate in over 100 public inquiries under the Planning Acts. Successfully defended grant of permission for the largest permission in Southwark. Did the first housing planning appeal in 2020 to deal with the effect of Covid 19. Successfully promoted Newcastle and Gateshead Core Strategy involving 40,000 homes. Promoted over 75 Housing Appeal Schemes ranging in size from 50 to 5000 units. Been instructed by the Government through the Homes and Communities Agency in England and the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland. Advised on 5 major settlements and garden villages all in excess of 5000 units. Been instructed by the leading members of the Land Promoters Development Forum. Appeared for LPA in a major inquiry [Sunderland] for an EFW proposal February 2020. Won Permission for a major redevelopment in the LLDC in November 2019. Won the Inspectors recommendation to refuse the Westferry Printworks proposals for a major redevelopment scheme of 1500 homes in January 2020. Won planning permission for the largest town centre redevelopment in 2019 in the UK. Advised a major London Authority [2019/2020] on the biggest scheme in their history. PREVIOUS CAREER HIGHLIGHTS: Promoting the major expansion of Liverpool Airport in 1995 with Lionel Read KC. Appearing in the 12 party Peterborough Retail inquiry in 1996 led by Stephen Morgan. Advising Tesco Stores from 1997-2015 on over 200 retail schemes. Supporting at appeal the expansion of Brent Cross in 1999. Winning permission at call in inquiry for the new Newcastle Falcons Stadium in 2002. Winning permission for 450-unit housing on most investigated site in UK - 2008. Winning permission at appeal for new Tesco led by Russell Harris KC in Wiltshire in 2009. Winning in the Supreme Court with Neil Cameron Q.C. in Morge v HCC in 2010. Winning planning permission for 500 student units at appeal for UCL in 2010. Appearing for the North Yorkshire County Council in a gas-processing factory in 2011. Protecting the planning permission for stadium for FC United in the High Court in 2012. Protecting the planning permission for the redevelopment of Old Trafford Cricket Ground in the Court of Appeal in 2013 led by Christopher Katkowski KC. Winning permission on appeal for 1000 houses in North Tyneside for Persimmon and the Duke of Northumberland in 2013 and 2014. Promoted 6 development plans [1996-2019]. PERSONAL: Current Non-Executive Director of the Professional Cricketers Association [2020-]. Current Non-Executive Director of Kent County Cricket Club [2023-] Previously Director of Middlesex County Cricket Club [2019-2022] Run 4 marathons [London (2016, 2019, 2021), NYC (2017),] and 15 half marathons. Cycled from Land’s End to John O’Groats in August 2020 raising £17,000 for the Samaritans. Cycling from Dover to Durness in August 2023 across 14 days and 1500 kilometers. Playing member of Aston Rowant Cricket Club 4th XI. [2011-Present] Member of: MCC, Middlesex CCC, Kent CCC, Warwickshire CCC, Surrey CCC, Western Province CC, Primrose Hill CC, Huntercombe GC, RAC, Alnmouth GC and Turnberry GC. Chair of the Home Counties Premier Cricket League [2022-] Season Tickets -Rangers FC, Arsenal FC, Murrayfield, Twickenham, Lords, Edgbaston, Oval. Read Law at Trinity College Cambridge [Vice-President of the CU Law Society [1988-1989].

Sasha Blackmore

Sasha has appeared at all levels up to the Supreme Court and has extensive experience of judicial review proceedings, statutory appeals and planning inquiries. Sasha appears regularly in the Administrative Court and the Planning Court. Sasha has a particular interest in environmental-related matters in public and planning law, and spent time on a Pegasus scholarship in Australia and New Zealand examining their system of environmental and planning courts. Sasha has also been a Trustee and Director of Forum for the Future and has been a Trustee and Director of the United Kingdom Environmental Law Association as a member of the Governing Council. Sasha spent her first year of tenancy as a Judicial Assistant to the Law Lords (Lord Scott of Foscote, Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury), working on cases before both the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords and the Privy Council. She gained substantial experience of appellate advocacy and judicial practice during that year. Cases she worked on in the House of Lords as a judicial assistant included, R v. London Borough of Bromley, ex parte Barker [2006] UKHL 52 and Belfast City Council v Miss Behavin Limited [2007] UKHL 19. In September 2020, Sasha was appointed to the Attorney General’s A Panel of Junior Counsel. She is also one of a small number of barristers appointed to the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Panel Counsel in 2019.

Scott Lyness

Scott Lyness specialises in all aspects of planning and environmental law. Scott took silk in 2020 being rated for many years as one of the leading junior members of the planning Bar. Scott’s planning practice encompasses all aspects of planning both at inquiries and examinations and in the Higher Courts. He provides strategic and technical advice on the preparation of development proposals. He acts for a wide range of developers, planning authorities and interest groups at all stages of the planning process. Further details of Scott’s recommendations and work across these practice areas can be found within the Expertise and Recommendations links. He was called to the Bar of England and Wales in November 1996 and to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2005. He is a member of the Planning and Environment Bar Association and the UK Environmental Law Association.

Simon Pickles

Simon Pickles practices principally in three areas – planning, compulsory purchase & compensation and environmental law. Aside from a strong emphasis on advisory work, he routinely appears at inquiries, hearings and in the High Court and Lands Chamber. Simon advises on highways issues and has appeared at footpath diversion and definitive map modification inquiries. He also provides local authority councillor training. Planning Simon has a great deal of experience of planning law and practice. He has advised and appeared at inquiries, hearings and examinations for developers and landowners, local authorities and individuals in relation to a wide range of developments. Residential Many appearances at inquiries into residential developments inc. mixed-use development. Assisting in preparation for and attendance at hearings into residential development. Schemes considered have ranged from conventional residential schemes to more complicated or controversial examples including a garden suburb affecting the Green Belt, loss of open space, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, specialist residential schemes for those approaching retirement or retired and affordable housing. Energy and Waste Advice over several years to a team of officers at Surrey County Council on the grant and subsequent variation of planning permission for a Waste Management ‘Eco Park’ (now under construction) comprising: a Gasification Facility (60,000 tpa); Anaerobic Digestion Facility (40,000 tpa); Community Recycling Facility; etc. Issues included: classification of the gasification plant as ‘disposal’; safety; Best Available Techniques); reference back to committee; and the application of section 73 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. Simon also represented the County Council at associated FP diversion inquiries. The original permission was not challenged and permission to challenge its variation was refused. Advice on other anaerobic digestion and pyrolysis plant proposals and wind farm development. This work is against the backdrop of appearances at inquiries into major waste projects including: an energy-from-waste/incineration plant to accept waste from central London; and a major integrated facility including de-inking, anaerobic digestion, combined heat & power, and MBT technologies in Essex. Advice also on planning permission for windfarm development and exploratory deep on-shore mining (with a view to fracking or not). Environmental impact assessment Detailed appraisal of environmental statements relating to major residential development proposals. IPPC/ Environmental permitting Advice on permits relating to on-shore deep mining and waste-related developments, having earlier resisted judicial review challenges to permits granted in respect of energy-from- waste/incineration plants. Habitats Directive and appropriate assessment Advice in respect of miniplans designed to avoid a requirement for appropriate assessment of the prospect of impacts on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA (SANGS policy). Contaminated land Advice on the operation of the contaminated land regime. Earlier work Greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme – Appeared on first appeal against a refusal by the Environment Agency to allow an applicant to join the scheme (outcome reversed by amending regulations). Appeared also on first appeal against a revocation notice served under the GHG Emissions Trading Scheme Regulations 2005 FEPA 1985 – Advice on the defence of a prosecution (discontinued) for the alleged unauthorized deposit of contaminated material under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

Simon Allison

Simon is a specialist property practitioner. He is described in the Legal 500 as an excellent advocate and one of the best barristers in the property field. Simon relishes all forms of advocacy, and has appeared in all levels of court and tribunal including recently appearing twice in the Supreme Court. He is widely recognised as a specialist in leasehold management, forfeiture and service charge cases, and has appeared in a number of the leading cases in this area. Simon was shortlisted for Barrister of the Year at the Enfranchisement and Right to Manage Awards 2022. Simon is frequently instructed across the full range of real property disputes, including landlord and tenant, issues of adverse possession, restrictive covenants, land registration and easements. He regularly advises on a range of issues arising out of development agreements, including joint venture agreements, options and overage, as well as on issues at the intersection of property and insolvency law. His clients include developers, land owners, financial institutions, leasehold management companies, ground rent investment companies, local authorities, Right to Manage companies, LPA receivers and surveyors. Simon is favoured by solicitors for his practical common sense commercial advice; he is regularly instructed to represent clients at mediations and other forms of ADR. Simon is a past Treasurer and Secretary of the Property Bar Association, having served in each role for three years. In 2021, Simon was appointed as a fee paid Judge of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), assigned to the Land Registration division. Before coming to the Bar, Simon worked for ten years providing (through his company) technical, design and production services to clients in the entertainment, film, corporate hospitality and motor industries, both in the UK and abroad. He has considerable commercial experience. Simon spends his spare time entertaining his children, ideally combining this with his interests in cycling, cars, collecting photography books and working on his house (a thatched former cow shed). Simon is regularly instructed in a wide range of property disputes, including secured lending claims, land registration issues, boundaries, nuisance, party walls, rights of way and other easements, and restrictive covenants. He has a particular interest in, and experience of, claims of adverse possession. Simon is experienced in related enforcement procedures, including obtaining orders for sale, specific performance, rectification of the Register, injunctive relief (and committal) and the attendant determination of relative equitable interests in property.

Stephen Whale

Stephen is one of the highest ranked juniors for Planning in the country in both the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners. Stephen has an extensive practice in all aspects of planning and environment law, local government law, highway law, public law and licensing law. He regularly advises and represents developers, local authorities, interest groups, government agencies and the Secretary of State. Stephen has a great deal of experience at planning inquiries and hearings, as well as DCO examinations, together with all court levels from the magistrates’ court up to the Supreme Court. He is licensed to accept direct instructions by way of Public Access. Stephen has many reported cases to his name. He has been highly ranked in the leading directories for both Planning and Licensing over many years. Stephen is the author of the enforcement section in the Encyclopaedia of Planning Law. Stephen was called to the Bar by Gray’s Inn in 1999. He was appointed to the Attorney General’s Panel of Junior Counsel between 2007 and 2020, culminating in five years on the A Panel.

Stephen Morgan

Stephen specialises in planning and related fields of law including villages greens, highways and common land. His work covers the whole range of planning matters and developments of all of natures and scales, including currently a new settlement of up to 10,000 dwellings in South East England. Stephen adopts a strategy led, solution seeking approach to assist his private and public sector clients. Those he works with include many developers, land owners, housebuilders, minerals and waste operators, local residents and he also works frequently with local authorities and parish councils. To seek to provide the best possible assistance to his clients, he seeks to keep up to date on all decisions and relevant happenings, along with emerging procedural, legal and policy changes. Stephen’s practice as a specialist planning barrister also includes extensive experience of village greens, highways, advertisements, heritage assets and compulsory purchase and compensation. His work covers hearings, inquiries, criminal and civil courts, including advising and appearing in judicial review and statutory challenge proceedings. Stephen’s experience covers the whole range of residential, retail, leisure/community and commercial developments (including urban extensions as well as major regeneration schemes), as well the other specific types of development and projects, including major infrastructure projects and in particular waste and energy facilities; his work covers the regulatory aspects (under the various regimes and Directives) as well as the planning issues. He has for several years for example been acting for the promoter of a new settlement of up to 10,000 houses together the extensive associated infrastructure in the south-east of England, which has required many technical as well as planning solutions. Stephen’s work spans all planning and related aspects including – developing strategy before and after the necessary consents are sought; in relation to development plan proposals; advising on responding to officers and other consultees; getting around objections; considering conditions or covenants to cover concerns; legal agreements; assisting in written representations as well as hearings, including appearances and in preparing for and appearing at inquiries. Stephen is very familiar with and enjoys the challenge of “technical” aspects of development such as highways, noise, air quality, dealing with nitrates from residential schemes, contamination and archaeology. He also has extensive experience in design issues in relation to the whole range of development types. This work covers not just planning application appeals and call-ins but also enforcement notice appeals, certificate of lawfulness appeals, listed buildings enforcement notices. Stephen’s village green work involves him in advising commons registration authorities and sitting as an inspector; advising and appearing at inquiries on behalf of applicants and objectors; he has also appeared in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to these matters. As well as promoting schemes, Stephen has also always worked with local authority teams – including in relation to applications, appeals and formulation and promotion of development plans, which he has done throughout his career.

Thomas Jefferies

Tom Jefferies is an experienced specialist in property litigation with a niche expertise in leasehold enfranchisement. He no longer appears in planning inquiries and appeals, but has brought his experience to bear in cross practice litigation raising planning and highways issues, such as enforcing planning obligations and disputes over obligations to use reasonable endeavours to obtain planning permission. He relishes court hearings and has appeared at all levels from the LVT to the House of Lords, frequently against silks. He is a CEDR accredited mediator, and takes great satisfaction helping parties reach a settlement out of court. Tom accepts instructions under the Public Access Scheme.

Tim Buley

Tim is recognised as a leading silk across eight areas in Chambers and Partners 2024 and the Legal 500 2024. Comments about Tim include that he is “clearly one of the most talented public lawyers of his generation of rising silks”, “a great advocate”, and that “when he’s your opposition, your heart sinks because he is so good”. Tim’s practice covers the full range of public law work, from commercial and regulatory matters, planning and the environment, through constitutional and EU law, local government and healthcare, to civil liberties and human rights, immigration, and social welfare. He is equally experienced acting for and against public bodies, and for commercial interests and individuals. The breadth of his practice is demonstrated by his clients, who include commercial organisations and developers, regulators, individuals, NGOs and pressure groups, most central government departments, devolved administrations, many local authorities, and a wide range of independent and non-departmental public bodies. Tim has appeared as leading counsel at all levels of the UK court system including numerous appearances in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and Administrative and Planning Courts, as well as in public inquiries and tribunals. He has also appeared in the Court of Justice of the European Union and the General Court. He has well over 250 reported cases across his practice areas. Tim is a Special Advocate and a member of the Welsh Government’s Panel of King’s Counsel and the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s Panel of Counsel. Prior to appointment to silk, Tim was a member of the Attorney-General’s A-Panel of junior counsel to the Crown and he continues to act for the government in significant cases. He is Developed Vetted. In Autumn 2022, he was appointed as a Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber).

Tim Mould

Tim Mould was called to the Bar in 1987 and took silk in 2006. Between 2001 and 2006 he was a member of the A Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown (Common Law). Between 1997 and 2006 he was standing junior counsel to the Inland Revenue (Rating and Valuation). He is called to the Bar of Northern Ireland. He is a Bencher and member of Gray’s Inn. Tim’s extensive practice includes planning, environmental, parliamentary, compulsory purchase, rating, highways and other aspects of local government law. Since he began his career at the Bar, he has appeared in many important cases at appellate level and at first instance in planning, compulsory purchase, environment, highways and rating law. He has extensive experience of litigation in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) in rating appeals and land compensation claims. He has appeared regularly before Parliamentary committees, both promoting railway schemes and under special parliamentary procedure. Since 2010 he has acted for the Government in the preparation of the HS2 high speed rail programme and the promotion of the HS2 legislation – the High Speed Rail (London to West Midlands) Act 2017 and High Speed Rail (West Midlands to Crewe) Act 2021. He acted for the Promoter of the Crossrail Act 2008. His recent inquiry work has concerned rail improvement schemes and other transport related infrastructure. Tim is consistently recognised in Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500 in the fields of planning, environment, rating and local government law and a full list of recommendations may be found on the ‘Recommendations’ tab. Recent cases include: Wyatt v Fareham Borough Council and Environment Agency [2022] EWCA Civ 983 (development control and protecting the marine environment from nitrates pollution) Richards v Environment Agency [2022] 1 WLR 2593 [2022] EWCA Civ 26 (Regulation of waste disposal activities – positive obligation to protect life and amenity under articles 2 and 8 ECHR) Sheakh v London Borough of Lambeth [2022] WLR(D) 170 [2022] EWCA Civ 457 (Low traffic neighbourhoods and disabled persons – the public sector equality duty) High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill 2022 (completing the western leg of HS2 between Crewe and Manchester Piccadilly) London Historic Parks and Gardens Trust v Minister of Housing [2022] EWHC 829 (Admin) (statutory challenge to grant of planning permission for Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre at Victoria Tower Gardens Westminster) Smith v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] 1650 (Admin) (compatibility of current definition of gypsies and travellers in Planning Policy for Traveller Sites with Articles 8 and 14 ECHR and the Equality Act) Huddersfield to Westtown Improvements Order 2021 (Transport and Works Act Order inquiry – Network Rail’s Trans Pennine Railway upgrade) Pro Investments Ltd v Hounslow Borough Council [2021] UKUT 201 (LC) [2021] RVR 305 (determination of land compensation for Brentford Community Stadium CPO) Ricketts (VO) v Cyxtera Technology UK Ltd [2021] UKUT 265 (LC) [2022] RA 45 (rating assessment of data storage centres) Cardtronics UK Ltd v Sykes (VO) [2020] 1 WLR 2184 [2020] UKSC 21 (rating assessment of ATMs in foodstores) Sawkill v Highways England [2020] 1 WLR 3661 [2020] EWHC 801 (Admin) (scope powers of entry for survey – major infrastructure projects) Packham v Prime Minister and Transport Secretary [2020] Env LR 10 [2020] EWCA Civ 1004 (net zero and the decision to proceed with HS2) East West Rail (Bedford to Bicester) Improvements Order 2019 (Transport and Works Act Order inquiry – Network Rail’s reinstatement of the Varsity line) Howbury Park Strategic Rail Freight Interchange Inquiry (2018) (planning inquiry into proposed SRFI development near Dartford) Hughes (VO) v Yorkshire Museums and Gallery Trust [2017] RA 302 [2017] UKUT 0200 (LC) (rating assessments of museums and art galleries) Current casework Tim’s current casework includes the forthcoming House of Commons Select Committee proceedings on the High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill, HS2 related judicial reviews and land compensation claims, promoting an urban regeneration scheme at a forthcoming CPO inquiry, acting for farmers on proposed variations and revocations of water abstraction licences and advising on a range of rating and land compensation matters arising from the recent cases summarised above.

Tim Morshead

Tim is a litigation specialist practising in commercial and real estate law. He has appeared in many of the leading cases in these areas, including interpretation of contracts as well as the valuation, rating, planning and public law issues which arise. He also has expertise in the fields of nuisance, professional negligence, compulsory purchase, highways, town & village greens and local government law. A member of the Treasury “A” Panel until taking silk, he is an experienced trial and appellate advocate, including in the Supreme Court / House of Lords and Privy Council. Advocacy and Litigation Experience Tim is an experienced litigator with appearances in a variety of tribunals including the Supreme Court, House of Lords, the Privy Council, the Court of Appeal, the High Court (Chancery Division, Queen’s Bench Division, Technology & Construction Court, Commercial Court, Administrative Court), the County Court, the Lands Tribunal (now the Upper Tribunal, Lands Chamber), various Valuation Tribunals and Leasehold Valuation Tribunals and planning and other statutory and non-statutory inquiries. He is an experienced cross examiner of factual and technical/ expert evidence. Tim also has experience of sitting as a non-statutory inquiry inspector, arbitrator and legal assessor. He is a qualified ADR group mediator. Reported cases A fuller list of Tim’s cases can be provided on request but over the past few years his main reported cases have been these: Supreme Court: Southwark London Borough Council and City of London Corporation v. Transport for London [2018] 3 WLR 2059: real estate/ highways: Tim acted for TfL in this appeal concerning the meaning of the word “highway”: does it mean just the “top two spits” as had been thought and held below? Or can it include the whole interest in the land covered by the surface of the highway? Regency Villas Title Ltd v. Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd [2018] 3 WLR 1603: real estate/ easements: a case concerning the legal characteristics of an “easement”. Cardtronics Europe Ltd v. Sykes [2019] 1 WLR 2281: rating: whether ATMs situated in shops are liable to rates. Tim acts for HMRC and permission to appeal to the Supreme Court has been granted with a hearing due in March 2020. Iceland Foods Ltd v. Berry [2018] 1 WLR 1277: rating: a case concerning the interpretation of the Plant and Machinery Regulations in relation to Iceland’s air conditioning equipment. Woolway (VO) v. Mazars LLP [2015] AC 1862: rating: this case is the leading modern authority on the identification of the “hereditament” in rating. Arnold v. Britton [2015] AC 1619: contracts/ real estate: this case about a lease is a leading modern authority on the interpretation of contracts. (Older House of Lords cases: Chartbrook Limited v. Persimmon Homes Limited [2009] 1 AC 1101: contracts/ real estate: this case about an overage agreement is a leading modern authority on the interpretation of contracts. Cobbe v. Yeoman’s Row Management Limited [2008] 1 WLR 1752: real property/ equity: this was a case about proprietary estoppel.) Waters v. Welsh Development Agency [2004] 1 WLR 1304: compulsory purchase: this case established the modern principles applicable to identifying “the scheme” for the purposes of applying the Point Gourde principle. Court of Appeal: Cardtronics Europe Ltd v. Sykes [2019] 1 WLR 2281: rating: see above. Jones v. Oven [2018 All ER(D) 65: real property: interpretation of covenant. Dudley Muslim Association v. Dudley MBC [2016] 1 P&CR 10: public law and real property: this case concerned the relationship between public law concepts and ordinary contract law. Swift 1st Ltd v. Chief Land Registrar [2015] Ch 602: real property: this case concerned the fraud/forgery provisions of the Land Registration Act 2002. Beech v. Kennerley [2012] 9 EG 150: real property: easements. R ota Milton Keynes Council v. Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government [2012] JPL 728: public law: this case concerned the law of legitimate expectations. (Older cases of importance in their fields: Real estate: Silkstone v. Tatnall [2012] 1 WLR 400, Franks v. Bedward [2012] 1 WLR 2428, Batsford Estates (1983) Co Ltd v. Taylor [2006] 2 P&CR 5, Starmark Enterprises v. CPL Distribution Ltd [2002] Ch 306. Rating: Bradford (VO) v. Vtesse Networks Ltd [2010] RA 69, Planning/ minerals: R ota Bleaklow Industries Ltd v. SSCLG [2009] 2 P&CR 21) High Court: R ota Principled Offsite Logistics Ltd v. Trafford Council [2018] RA 499: rating: Tim acted on behalf of a rates mitigation business in this case which vindicates its scheme for the mitigation of empty rates. Upper Tribunal: Harding v. Secretary of State for Transport [2017] RA 271: compulsory purchase: whether the “hereditament” covered by the blight provisions included both elements of a property used for equestrian purposes even though separated by a road. Clients Tim’s clients include major landholdings, large commercial organisations, supermarket operators and other retailers, branches of the central government, governmental and quasi-governmental agencies, banks, pension funds, charities, local authorities and statutory bodies, as well as private individuals and companies. Property Law Most of Tim’s work concerns land and he has a substantial “classic” Chancery and property law practice including: proprietary estoppel, fraud and constructive trusts, mortgages, land registration, commercial landlord and tenant litigation and arbitration (including rent review, business tenancy renewals, insolvency issues and dilapidations), overage agreements, disputed contracts for the sale of land, interpretation & rectification of development agreements other documents, restrictive covenants (including applications to the Lands Tribunal to modify or discharge restrictive covenants to enable residential and commercial development to proceed), easements, nuisance, trespass, adverse possession and disputed wayleave agreements both for and against statutory undertakers. Valuation Tim’s work often brings him into contact with valuation questions, and not only in relation to rent review and dilapidations cases. He has appeared frequently in the Lands Tribunal in valuation cases. Compulsory Purchase and Compensation Tim has advised and acted for a variety of clients in relation to HS2, Crossrail, the Olympic CPO, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link CPO, the Bedford Bypass CPO, the Clapham Bypass CPO and other highway schemes; and in relation to the compensation payable under such schemes. Rates Tim’s property practice extends into the law of rates and he has appeared frequently for HM Revenues & Customs as well as for ratepayers in a large number of the leading cases in this field. Highways and town and village greens Tim also has extensive experience of the law of highways and town and village greens, as well as planning law and other more-or-less public law related aspects of land law. He has appeared as counsel at inquiries and in statutory appeals/ judicial reviews of decisions in these fields. he has also sat as a village green inspector. Public and Planning Law Tim also has considerable public law experience outside the property field, partly but not wholly in the planning field. He is now frequently instructed to advise and appear in cases involving elements of both property and public law, including for example: vires questions arising in connection with land transactions by or with public bodies, human rights issues relating to the use and occupation of land and interference with title.

Tim Mould

Tim Mould was called to the Bar in 1987 and took silk in 2006. Between 2001 and 2006 he was a member of the A Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown (Common Law). Between 1997 and 2006 he was standing junior counsel to the Inland Revenue (Rating and Valuation). He is called to the Bar of Northern Ireland. He is a Bencher and member of Gray’s Inn. Tim specialises in planning, environmental and local government law (including rating, compulsory purchase and compensation and highways and rights of way) and the related areas of property, European Union and human rights law. Tim has extensive experience of advocacy in the High Court (including the Administrative Court and the Planning Court) and Appellate Courts, at public inquiries and in tribunals, particularly the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber. He has appeared frequently in Parliamentary Committees (on the High Speed Two (London to West Midlands) Bill, the Crossrail Bill and the Rookery South (Resource Recovery Facility) Order). He appears regularly on planning and environmental judicial review cases in Northern Ireland. He has appeared in the European Court of Human Rights. He regularly represents and advises clients across all sectors. Tim’s recent practice has been primarily focused on HS2, the Government’s high speed rail strategy. During 2012 and 2013, Tim acted as leading counsel to the Transport Secretary in the successful defence of the legal challenges on SEA, EIA and judicial review grounds to the Government’s HS2 proposals for high speed rail serving London, Birmingham and the northern cities, culminating in the seminal Supreme Court decision in early 2014 (Buckinghamshire County Council and others v Secretary of State). Throughout 2013 Tim advised on the preparation of the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill seeking powers to construct and operate the first phase of HS2. From July 2014 until early 2017, he acted as leading counsel for the Promoter before the Parliamentary Select Committees hearing petitions against the Bill, covering wide ranging issues including compulsory purchase and compensation, public procurement, planning and infrastructure powers and regulatory controls, railway powers, transport policy, environmental protection, rights of way and highways, EU and UK legislation on the protection of habitats, EIA, the Aarhus Convention, human rights, and constitutional law.   The Bill achieved Royal Assent in February 2017 and construction is due to begin later in 2017. Tim is now promoting a related Transport and Works Act Order on behalf of the Secretary of State and advising on the forthcoming Bill for the next phase of HS2 – Phase 2A (West Midlands to Crewe). Tim continues to act and advise in a wide range of planning, environmental and local government cases. Recent planning cases include judicial reviews of planning permission to convert Conan Doyle’s historic house at Hindhead into a school (R (Gibson) v Waverley BC) and of planning permission for a gold mine near Omagh, County Tyrone. He is acting for the UK before the Aarhus Compliance Committee in the River Faughan Anglers’ complaint. Highways and rights of way work includes coastal access proposals under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.Tim’s recent rating practice includes acting for both Tesco and the Co-Op in the rating appeals on the rateability of ATMs in foodstores, recently determined by the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), and for the ratepayers in rating appeals on York museums heard by the Upper Tribunal in early February 2017. He is now advising ratepayers on appeal proceedings in the City of London. CPO work includes the promotion of the Brightwells Regeneration Scheme in Farnham for Waverley Borough Council and land compensation claims arising from the Olympics CPO and the development of a waste management facility in Buckinghamshire. He has advised the Government on changes to the law of compulsory purchase and land compensation. He is acting for the Secretary of State on Southwark LBC’s claim for judicial review of the Aylesbury Estate CPO decision.

Timothy Corner

Tim’s planning work embraces all types of development. He appears regularly in the higher courts and in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) as well as in inquiries, examinations and hearings. He is listed by Chambers & Partners as a top tier planning silk. Tim’s recent cases in court include: Secretary of State for Transport v Curzon Park Ltd (Supreme Court, April 2023, compulsory purchase, whether when an application for a Certificate of Appropriate Alternative Development-“CAAD”- is determined in relation to a site, applications for CAADs on other land can be taken into account) R (Spitalfields Historic Buildings Trust) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets and Old Truman Brewery Ltd [2023] PTSR 31 (Morris J, lawfulness of standing orders preventing Committee members voting on a planning application if they were not present when the application was previously considered by the Committee) Hayle Town Council v Cornwall Council and Burrington Estates (Hayle) Ltd and Progress Land (Hayle 3) Ltd [2023] EWHC 389, (Lane J, whether a planning application had to be reconsidered by the Committee following a change of circumstances) Wild Justice v Natural Resources Wales [2021] Env L.R. 24 (High Court, judicial review challenge to licences to cull wild birds) Sawkill v Highways England [2020] EWHC 801 (Dove J, Development Consent Orders, general principles of statutory construction) Burgos and Amayo v Secretary of State [2019] EWHC 2792 (Jay J, lawfulness of Secretary of State’s decision to confirm compulsory purchase order at Seven Sisters) Leicester University v Secretary of State [2016] JPL 709 (Supperstone J, relevance of extrinsic evidence in interpreting planning permissions) Turner v Secretary of State [2015] EWCA Civ 582 (Court of Appeal, bias in public law). As a Deputy High Court Judge Tim regularly deals with planning cases in the Administrative Court. His recent judgements include Bounces Properties v Secretary of State [2023] EWHC 735 (Inspector’s duty to seek views of parties on points not raised in the evidence), Strongroom Ltd v London Borough of Hackney [2023] EWHC 488 (costs where a planning judicial view settles), R (Wells) v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council [2022] EWHC 3298 (Inspector’s duty to inspect property of an objecting third party), R (Buxton) v Cambridge City Council [2022] JPL 487 (listed buildings, relevance of reversibility of alterations) and R (G) v Thanet DC [2021] EWHC 2026 (bias, appropriate assessment, delegation to officers). Tim appeared for the Welsh Government at the examination of the Wylfa Newydd Development Consent Order and recently acted for HS2 in a major compulsory purchase compensation claim in the Upper Tribunal.     Recent public inquiries and Local Plan examinations include appearance at the Bedford Local Plan examination for O & H Ltd (4000 homes in a new settlement) and inquiries for Berkeley (new riverside development in Reading, new school and housing in the Surrey Green Belt), BMOR (12 and 14 storey residential development in Vauxhall), Sainsbury’s (new stores with major residential above in Ilford and Whitechapel), Haringey Council (Wards Corner CPO, large scale regeneration) and Canary Wharf and Qatari Diar (Southbank Place development behind the London Eye). He has also recently secured allocation for 5000 new homes and 30h. of employment in the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan, on behalf of O&H Ltd. Tim is listed by Chambers & Partners as a leading silk in planning law (top tier) and by the Legal 500 as a leading silk in planning and environment law.

Toby Watkin

Toby has appeared in significant cases in the Supreme Court, Privy Council, Court of Appeal in relation to property related matters, and regularly appears in the High Court, the County Court and all the specialist property courts and tribunals in England and Wales. Toby is also co-Chair of the Property Group at Landmark Chambers. Toby is instructed in all areas of property litigation, including Real Property Disputes, Conveyancing and Land Registration, Landlord and Tenant disputes, issues relating to Mortgages & Receivers, and Property-related Professional Negligence. He has significant experience of cases involving the Electronic Communications Code (new and old). He regularly lectures and writes on property-related matters. Toby is frequently involved in very high-profile property litigation. In the last few months he has appeared in two major cases on the law of easements: Regency Villas v Diamond Resorts (whether a general right to use recreational facilities within a resort was capable existing as an easement – judgment of the Supreme Court awaited) and Starham v Greene King [2018] EGLR 8 (whether a general right to ‘use’ land was capable of existing as an easement or restrictive covenant, or was a mere licence). In 2017 Toby acted for the successful landowner in a multi-million pound dispute with a national housebuilder relating to the remediation of land in the Northeast for housing development. In 2018 he acted for the successful landlord (London Borough of Southwark) in relation to high-profile litigation relating to the Dulwich Hamlet Football Club, which was widely reported in the national press. He has significant experience in obtaining injunctions to protect land and buildings from trespass, either by protesters or by ‘urban explorers’. He is very familiar with the intricate procedural and legal issues which arise in relation to claims brought against ‘persons unknown’. In this field he has recently acted for Chelsea Football Club (Chelsea FC v Brewer & Orts, 2017) the Bullring, Manchester Arndale, Brent Cross and 12 other major shopping centres (Intu v Taylor & Otrs (LTL 27.4.18)) and a number of tall buildings under construction across the City of London (Multiplex Construction v. Law & Otrs). He is valued for his hands-on, commercial approach to problems, for his clear advice, and for his great experience as a trial advocate. Toby also has wide experience of Alternative Dispute Resolution, and is both an ADR Group accredited mediator and a qualified arbitrator (MCIArb: AHKIArb). As well as his litigation practice, Toby is often asked to advise in relation to points arising from transactional work, and drafted of tenancy agreements and other instruments for a large social landlord, as well as the disciplinary rules for two professional bodies. Toby also assisted in the drafting of the Funding Code under the Access to Justice Act 1999. In 2005, Toby was appointed as Secretary to the Investigation Committee of the Academy of Experts (its disciplinary investigation body). He is also a qualified ADR Group Accredited Mediator. Toby joined Landmark Chambers in 2010 after many years in Lincoln’s Inn. Toby’s wider interests include classical music (listening and performing), sailing and cycling.

Tom Morris

In January 2023 he was sole counsel for the successful respondent in the landmark Supreme Court appeal in Jepsen v Rakusen, having appeared unled for the successful appellant in the Court of Appeal. In recognition of the success of his practice, he is the most junior of the six barristers shortlisted to be 'Junior of the Year' across the whole of the Bar of England and Wales in the 2023 Legal 500 UK Bar Awards. Tom is instructed as sole counsel for the respondents to two upcoming appeals to the Court of Appeal: one on the scope of the freezing order jurisdiction, the other on the applicability of the Limitation Act to interest on judgment debts. He is instructed as junior counsel to Timothy Morshead KC by the appellants to the Supreme Court in Darwall v Dartmoor National Parks Authority, a landmark appeal concerning public rights to camp in the national park. Since the start of the year, he has appeared as sole counsel for the successful respondents in two High Court appeals, has been instructed as sole counsel by the appellants in three further High Court appeals, and has appeared as sole counsel in three appeals in the property chamber of the Upper Tribunal. In the last twelve months, he has been instructed in a fraud trial in the High Court and in numerous multitrack trials and interim applications in the county court involving complex disputes of fact and law – particularly injunction and freezing order applications, boundary disputes, landlord consent disputes and other landlord and tenant disputes. Although Tom is a specialist in property litigation, his practice ranges widely and encompasses costs, development and highway disputes, commercial disputes and insolvency. He has appeared in test cases on a range of issues which, on several occasions, have changed or clarified the law. For example, as sole counsel, Tom has: persuaded the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court that the practice in the First-tier Tribunal (affirmed by two Upper Tribunal decisions) of making Rent Repayment Orders against superior landlords was based on an incorrect interpretation of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. persuaded a High Court Judge in the commercial court that section 24(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 limits the recovery of Judgments Act interest to six years’ worth (a point apparently thought ‘hopeless’ by the Senior Costs Judge and now on appeal to the Court of Appeal). successfully obtained a freezing order in the Chancery Division in support of a potential costs order, involving a departure from the previous law (now on appeal to the Court of Appeal). appeared in the first appeal to the Upper Tribunal on the meaning of “house” within Part 3 of the Housing Act 2004 (an appeal to the Court of Appeal settled shortly before it was due to be heard). resisted a High Court appeal against a successful application to set aside a bankruptcy petition based on the (novel) argument that an arguably unreasonable refusal by a landlord to consent to the assignment of a commercial lease gave rise to a cross-claim in damages capable of being set off against the relevant arrears of rent. successfully resisted an appeal against a Deputy Master’s decision to order security for costs. Led by Justin Bates, Tom also appeared for the successful landlord in the appeal and cross appeal to the Court of Appeal concerning execution of documents by corporate landlords, which clarified the law relating to the signing of section 8 notices and deposit protection certificates. Tom (also led by Justin Bates) is also appearing in an upcoming appeal to the Court of Appeal to reconsider whether courts can order parties to participate in alternative dispute resolution. As a costs litigator, Tom has acted for many years on behalf of the paying party in the 100-day detailed assessment of a bill of costs in the sum of over £60 million (partly led by Ben Williams KC) before the Senior Costs Judge. Tom’s client’s considerable success (on an indemnity basis assessment in which, for example, profit costs were reduced by almost 40%) was recognised in the court making a ‘different order’ on the costs of the detailed assessment. A dispute over interest culminated in a hearing before Mrs Justice Dias in the Commercial Court in which Tom’s interpretation of section 24(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 prevailed. Tom is also regularly instructed by HM Government, on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, in appeals relating to the law of litigation funding. He has been appointed to the C panel as a result.

Tom Weekes

Tom is a leading property silk. His recent cases include Fearn v Tate Trustees [2023] 2 WLR 339 (succeeded in the Supreme Court in a groundbreaking case establishing that the Tate Gallery is liable in nuisance for operating a viewing gallery at Tate Modern enabling visitors to view neighbouring flats) and Bath Rugby Ltd v Greenwood [2023] 1 P&CR 6 (succeeded in the Court of Appeal in establishing that Bath Rugby’s ground is not subject to restrictive covenants capable of impeding the development of a new stadium). Recommendations in the legal directories include: “...very driven and fantastic in submissions… and incredibly easy to work with." and "...a deep thinker and strategist" (Chambers and Partners, 2024). "A very strong and competent KC who is a pleasure to work with." (Legal 500, 2024). “…the person clients go to when they have a ridiculously complex case” (Chambers and Partners, 2023). “…undoubtedly one of the leading property barristers in the country” (Legal 500, 2023). “…a leading specialist in restrictive covenants…he is user-friendly and very bright” (Chambers and Partners, 2022). “Carving out a name as the primus inter pares for property development disputes” (Legal 500, 2020). “He is brilliant – very reactive, straightforward, practical and commercial” (Chambers and Partners, 2020). Tom regularly appears in cases about the development of land. He advises developers at an early stage about private law impediments to developments. Tom has appeared in many leading cases about restrictive covenants: including cases about the enforceability and interpretation of covenants; applications under s.84(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (for discharge/modification); and in cases about whether consent has been unreasonably refused. As the co-author of Rights of Light: The Modern Law (Jordans, 2015, 3rd ed), Tom is a leading specialist in the field of rights of light. He has appeared in cases about whether developers have succeeded in exploiting drafting loopholes to avoid paying overage; in disputes about options; and in many cases about whether developers can escape from contracts to buy sites. In relation to land ownership disputes, Tom has appeared in leading Court of Appeal cases about adverse possession and land registration. In the field of commercial landlord and tenant litigation, Tom acts on lease renewals and in litigation about forfeiture, dilapidations, rent reviews and consents. He has appeared in many cases about whether tenants have satisfied break conditions. As the author of Property Notices (LexisNexis, 2021, 3rd ed), he regularly acts in cases about the service and validity of notices (including break notices). Tom accepts instructions under the Public Access Scheme.

Yaaser Vanderman

Yaaser is ranked in Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 as a leading junior in four categories – Administrative and Public Law, Civil Liberties and Human Rights, Planning Law and Property Law. He works with a range of clients, including individuals, NGOs, major companies, regulatory bodies and Government, believing that he can provide the best service to each of his clients if he has the broadest experience possible. He regularly appears at inquiries, the Tribunals, the High Court and Court of Appeal, and has been instructed in eight Supreme Court cases since 2019. Yaaser has been appointed to the Attorney General’s B Panel of Junior Counsel and is called to the Bar of Northern Ireland. He is the author of Manual on Protest Injunctions: Practice, Procedure and Persons Unknown(2023) – a free online resource aimed at all those involved in claims where an injunction is sought to restrain protest and trespass activity. He is regularly instructed in high-profile and test cases for claimants, defendants, interested parties and interveners. For example, he has recently been instructed in the following: Various protest cases relating to abortion, university accommodation, energy companies, COVID-19, local parks and NHS trusts. For example, he acted for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in the Supreme Court following the Attorney General’s challenge to the Abortion Service (Safe Access Zones) Bill, which made it a criminal offence to protest within 100m of an abortion clinic. He also acted in the High Court challenge to the banning of the Sarah Everard vigil in Clapham Common. Yaaser has been involved in approximately 20 protest hearings since 2022. Civil liberties and human rights cases including in relation to social security issues, abortion laws both in England and Northern Ireland, various COVID-19 policies and restrictions and bulk transfers of data protected by data protection laws. For example, he acted in the Supreme Court case of R (SC) v SSWP relating to the two-child benefit rule which limits child tax credit to the first two children. It is the leading case on various issues, including the margin of appreciation in the human rights context, the use of Parliamentary materials, and the use of unincorporated international agreements. He also acted for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in the successful challenge to the failure of the Government to secure that abortion services were, in fact, available to women and girls in Northern Ireland following legalisation of abortion in the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020. Commercial Judicial Reviews in a range of sectors and on a number of subjects, including in relation to: challenges by sections of the pharmaceutical industry relating to the pricing of branded medicines to the NHS; the renewable energy industry and windfall levies; and, the airline industry. For example, Yaaser acted for the Government on a challenge brought by Manchester Airport Holdings and a number of airlines to the international travel system during the COVID-19 restrictions. Energy, Utilities and Infrastructure including challenges to decisions to permit exploration, installation or exploitation of energy resources; challenges to decisions relating to other national infrastructure such as airport runways; and, promoting and objecting to Transport and Works Act Orders for railway schemes. For example, he has recently acted for the developer in a challenge to the licensing of gas storage caverns (holding approximately 500 million standard cubic metres of natural gas) to be constructed under the sea off the coast of Islandmagee, Northern Ireland. In addition, Yaaser acted for Network Rail in obtaining the consent for the East-West Rail scheme. Administrative and public law including on education issues, immigration, housing, animal welfare and local government. For example, Yaaser was involved in the challenge to the A-level results system that was set up by Ofqual in 2020 to award students grades according to an algorithm as the pandemic meant they could not take their exams. He was also instructed in the Supreme Court cases of DN Rwanda v SSHD (involving the detention of a foreign national (for the purposes of deportation) on the basis of secondary legislation subsequently found to be ultra vires) and AM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD (on the circumstances in which removal of a seriously ill individual to another country would result in breach of Article 3 ECHR (inhuman and degrading treatment)).

Zack Simons

The directories rate him as “exceptionally talented”, “an absolutely brilliant barrister” (Chambers and Partners), “in high demand” (Who’s Who Legal), “a joy to work with”, “fantastic”, a “brilliant advocate” (Legal 500), simply brilliant and a star advocate (Planning Magazine). Zack was nominated for Planning and Land Use Junior of the Year in the Legal 500 Bar Awards 2022, and is a Tier 1 ranked “leading junior” in Legal 500. Zack is also the creator of “planoraks”, where he publishes posts on UK planning law, litigation, appeals and plan examinations. You can subscribe for new #planoraks posts here.

Zia Bhaloo

At the outset of her practice, Zia had a wide chancery commercial practice, including insolvency, property, company, professional negligence, trusts and commercial disputes. Prior to taking silk her practice focussed largely on property. As well as maintaining her property expertise, she is increasingly instructed on commercial, commercial chancery matters and international arbitrations, as well as areas outside her core areas, often with a specialist junior. She is well-known for property and landlord and tenant, and she has a wide range of experience in these areas including: property insolvency, valuation issues, dilapidations, business tenancies, rent review, telecoms, all issues arising out of development, easements, restrictive covenants, rights of light, the interpretation of sale, finance, development and overage agreements, mines and minerals, service charges and social housing. She often acts in cases which also include significant planning issues. She is recommended for her cross examination and has been recommended in both Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500 for many years for commercial chancery, property litigation, and social housing. The research by those directories over many years emphasises the fact that she is a “commercially astute tactician”. Her focus and interest is on using the law, and strategy, to achieve results which achieve the client’s objectives, and which work on the ground. Zia is the co-editor of Butterworths Property Insolvency and the Rural Law Notebook. Zia speaks Swahili and Cutchi.