Leon Glenister

Public and Administrative

The core of Leon’s practice involves public law and judicial review. He has a balanced practice, acting for claimants (individuals and companies), defendants and interested parties. He is ranked as a leading junior across Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500 in Administrative Law and Public Law, Local Government, Education Law, Social Housing Law and Planning Law. He is described in the Legal 500 as “one of the best public lawyers of his generation.”. 

Leon is appointed to the Attorney General’s B Panel of Junior Counsel and regularly acts for central government. He is also on the Equality and Human Rights Commission Panel of Counsel.

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 a co-author of a comprehensive free guide to the law relating to special educational needs, the ‘Noddy Guide’.

Some of his recent reported public law cases are listed below. Further cases in particular areas are listed in the relevant sub-category.

Supreme Court

• An appeal on the scope of PIP entitlement (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v MM [2019] UKSC 34).
• Acting in the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights in the initial appeal of the declaration that removal of Alfie Evans’ life support was in his best interests (E (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 550), as widely reported in the national and international press.

Court of Appeal

• Acting in a challenge relating to the common law right of autonomy in the context of a disabled prisoner’s right to demand medical treatment (R (JJ) v Spectrum Community Health CIC [2023] EWCA Civ 885)
• Successfully resisting an application to re-open an appeal in the Court of Appeal following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pathan v SSHD (R (Khan) v SSHD [2021] EWCA Civ 1655).
• Acting for Keep the Horton General campaign group in the Court of Appeal challenging proposed reconfiguration of Horton General Hospital, arguing a two phase consultation was unfair (Keep the Horton General v Oxfordshire CCG [2019] EWCA Civ 646).
• Acting in the challenge to NHS England’s Accountable Care Organisation (ACO) draft contract as being contrary to the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (R (999 Call for the NHS) v NHS England [2018] EWCA Civ 2849).
• Acting in the Detained Asylum Casework litigation in the Court of Appeal (R (TH) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 815).

High Court

• Successfully resisting a challenge to the Government’s White Paper on social care reform, specifically in relation to the policy regarding an appeals system for local authority social care decisions (R (HL) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2023] EWHC 866 (Admin))
• Acting in a widely publicised challenge to the change of control of GP practices to a company controlled by US-based Centene Corporation (Khurana v North Central London CCG [2022] EWHC 384 (Admin)).
• Acting for the Secretary of State in an article 14 ECHR challenge to the application of the student finance regulations following impacts of the COVID pandemic (R (Naeem) v Secretary of State for Education [2022] EWHC 15 (Admin)).
• Successfully resisting a challenge to DfE’s termination of the academy funding agreement of Khalsa Secondary Academy, the leading case on faith school academies which also clarified the scope of the PSED (R (The Khalsa Academies Trust) v Secretary of State for Education [2021] EWHC 2660 (Admin)).
• Acting for parents seeking to challenge the academisation of a school on the basis the consultation undertaken was then out of date (Kitchener-Pope v GB of Peavehaven Community School [2019] EWHC 2666 (Admin)).
• Acting for the Secretary of State for Health in a declaration of parentage application which raised a novel point on the interpretation of the Human Fertility and Embryology Act 2008, in relation to same sex couples using IVF where the correct consent forms were not signed (M v W [2019] EWHC 649 (Fam)).
• Acting in a challenge to a decision by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator to refuse jurisdiction to hear a complaint. The Administrative Court’s decision, to the effect that matters of jurisdiction are for the Court rather than rationality review, has implications for other ombudsman and adjudicator schemes (R (B) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator [2018] EWHC 1971 (Admin)).
• Challenging a well-known school’s decision to withdraw admission of a student (R (LH) v X School [2017] EWHC 1985 (Admin)).
• Acting for the PHSO in a judicial review challenge to the handling of a complaint relating to the death of two relations in the same hospital (R (Andrews) v Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman [2016] EWHC 2150 (Admin)).
• Acting for the Registrar General before Sir James Munby in relation to the registration of a birth following the use of donor sperm (Application K [2017] EWHC 50 (Fam)).
• Challenging the decision of Lambeth Council to regenerate Cressingham Gardens Estate (R (Plant) v Lambeth LBC [2016] EWHC 3324 (Admin); R (Bokrosova) v LB Lambeth [2015] EWHC 3386 (Admin)).
• Acting in High Court proceedings on whether a damages claim for unlawful detention which follows a judicial review claim is an abuse of process (XEM v Home Office [2016] EWHC 2622 (QB)).
• Acting for the local authority defending a judicial review challenge to a section 17 assessment and decision, and the failure to provide interim accommodation, in the context of conflicting evidence on the availability of suitable accommodation (R (Jalal) v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2016] EWHC 1848 (Admin)).
• Acting in the leading case on interim accommodation where a parent does not have the “right to rent” (N v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2016] EWHC 2559 (Admin)).
• Acting in one of the first judicial review challenges to the Legal Ombudsman, in relation to its jurisdiction (R (Kerman and Co LLP) v The Legal Ombudsman [2014] EWHC 3726 (Admin); [2015] 1 W.L.R. 2081).
• Acting in a judicial review claim against the OIA where the Court held that matters of procedural fairness and irrationality are not matters of academic judgment and can be considered by the OIA (R (Gopikrishna) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator [2015] EWHC 207 (Admin)).
• Acting in a judicial review against the OIA as to whether plagiarism is a matter of academic judgment (R (Mustafa) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator [2013] EWHC 1379 (Admin)).

Upper Tribunal

• Acting in the first appeal considering the specificity required of ‘education otherwise than at school’ in an EHC Plan (DM v Cornwall County Council (SEN) [2022] UKUT 230 (AAC)).
• An appeal on the relationship between Section F and Section I of an EHC Plan, and the scope of the LA’s duty in a SEN appeal (AJ v LB Croydon [2020] UKUT 246 (AAC)).
• Acting in the first appellate decision on the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme, clarifying its scope and general principles on FTT decision making (DP v Topmark Claims Management Ltd [2020] UKUT 106 (AAC)).
• An appeal on procedural fairness in relation to SEN proceedings (NE and DE v Southampton City Council (SEN) [2019] UKUT 388 (AAC)).
• An appeal on whether the Disclosure and Barring Service can rely on conduct relating to an adult in barring an individual from working with children (C v Disclosure and Barring Service [2019] UKUT 212).
• Acting in a judicial review on the relationship between paragraph 353 and 94B of the Immigration Rules (R (Ayache) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKUT 122).
• Acting for Gerard Coyne in a challenge to the leadership election of UNITE the Union, in which Len McCluskey was elected, as reported on the BBC and Guardian.
• Instructed in relation to a challenge of the Mental Health Tribunal decision to move Peter Coonan from Broadmoor back to prison, as reported widely in the national press, see BBC and the Guardian.
• An appeal on the jurisdiction of the FTT to make costs orders (UA v London Borough of Haringey [2016] UKUT 0087 (AAC); [2016] E.L.R 219)).

Education

Leon is ranked as a leading junior in Education Law by both Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500. The guides state he is “Very bright, thinks tactically and is very responsive”, and that he is “conscientious and approachable with very good attention to detail.”

He has practical experience of the area as a Governor of Dr Challoner’s Grammar School. He is also a supervisor at the University of Cambridge.

Schools and academies

He acts in all areas relating to schools, including admissions, exclusions, discrimination, academy conversion and OFSTED issues. He has acted for parents, schools, the Secretary of State for Education, the Teaching Regulation Agency and the Office of the Schools Adjudicator.

His notable cases include:

• Successfully resisting a challenge to DfE’s termination of the academy funding agreement of Khalsa Secondary Academy, the leading case on faith school academies which also clarified the scope of the PSED (R (The Khalsa Academies Trust) v Secretary of State for Education [2021] EWHC 2660 (Admin))
• Acting in a challenge to a Welsh council’s transgender guidance. See report on the BBC.
• The challenge brought against Ofqual in respect of the grading system for A level results in the summer of 2020, which led to the Government U-turn to use centre assessed grades as the basis of student marks. The claim was brought by the Good Law Project on behalf of six students. News coverage of the challenge can be seen on the BBC, The Times, the Telegraph and the Guardian. The legal team was covered in The Lawyer. Following this, Leon has acted in numerous discrimination claims relating to centre assessed grades.
• Acting for the Secretary of State in a judicial review brought by Somerset County Council challenging an Academy order, in the context of a local school restructure (Somerset CC v Secretary of State for Education [2020] EWHC 1675 (Admin).
• Challenging a well-known school’s decision to withdraw admission of a student (R (LH) v X School [2017] EWHC 1985 (Admin)).
• Acting for parents seeking to challenge the academisation of a school on the basis the consultation undertaken was then out of date (Kitchener-Pope v GB of Peavehaven Community School [2019] EWHC 2666 (Admin)).

Higher Education

Leon has acted and advised both for and against higher education institutions in a range of claims, many of which involve issues of discrimination. He has a special expertise in the law on the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (the OIA), having acted in cases that shaped the duties and jurisdiction of the OIA.

His cases include:

• Acting in relation to a series of challenges by universities against decisions not to re-award initial teacher training (ITT) accreditation.
• Acting for the Secretary of State in an article 14 ECHR challenge to the application of the student finance regulations following impacts of the COVID pandemic (R (Naeem) v Secretary of State for Education [2022] EWHC 15 (Admin)).Acting for the Secretary of State, successfully resisting a judicial review challenging the failure to direct that all teaching is online in the COVID pandemic (reported in the Guardian).
• Acting for a student in a judicial review against the OIA in relation to its jurisdiction (R (B) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator [2018] EWHC 1971 (Admin)).
• Acting in a judicial review claim against the OIA where the Court held that matters of procedural fairness and irrationality are not matters of academic judgment and can be considered by the OIA (R (Gopikrishna) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator [2015] EWHC 207 (Admin)).
• Acting in a judicial review against the OIA as to whether plagiarism is a matter of academic judgment (R (Mustafa) v Office of the Independent Adjudicator [2013] EWHC 1379 (Admin)).
• Acting for the University of Warwick defending a breach of contract claim by a former student.

Special Educational Needs

Leon regularly acts for both parents and local authorities in SEN appeals, acting both in the First Tier Tribunal, and appearing in numerous appeals before the Upper Tribunal. He often acts in judicial reviews arising from special educational needs issues, including in relation to funding cuts, direct payments and “failure to educate”.

He co-authors the ‘Noddy Guide to SEN’ with David Wolfe KC, a widely circulated and well-respected guide to SEN law used by practitioners and judges. He also authors the chapter on special educational needs in ‘Children’s Social Care Law’ (LAG, 2018).

Leon is regularly instructed in disputes on responsibility for SEND provision, acting both for local authorities as well as advising the Secretary of State.

His notable work includes:

• Acting in the first appeal considering the specificity required of ‘education otherwise than at school’ in an EHC Plan (DM v Cornwall County Council (SEN) [2022] UKUT 230 (AAC)).
• An appeal on the relationship between Section F and Section I of an EHC Plan, and the scope of the LA’s duty in a SEN appeal (AJ v LB Croydon [2020] UKUT 246 (AAC)).
• An appeal against an FTT decision, in relation to procedural fairness and reliance on documents which were not cited to the parties (NE and DE v Southampton City Council (SEN) [2019] UKUT 388 (AAC)).
• An appeal on the jurisdiction of the FTT to make costs orders (UA v London Borough of Haringey [2016] UKUT 0087 (AAC)).
• Acting for parents in a challenge against Somerset City Council’s funding cuts for special educational need provision, as reported on the BBC.
• Advising a local authority on its policy on ceasing to maintain EHC Plans.

Disciplinary proceedings

Leon has experience of acting in cases which involve disciplinary and regulatory issues relating to teachers and other staff working with children. He regularly acts for governmental agencies such as the Disclosure and Barring Service and the Teaching Regulation Agency.

His notable cases include:

• Acting for the Teaching Regulation Agency in a judicial review relating to the application of its rules in proceedings against a former headteacher.
• An appeal as to whether the Disclosure and Barring Service can rely on conduct relating to an adult in barring an individual from working with children (C v Disclosure and Barring Service [2019] UKUT 212).

High Court Planning

Leon is sought after in High Court planning and environmental challenges. His work spans judicial reviews, section 288 challenges, enforcement challenges, CLUED challenges and local plan challenges. He regularly appears unled against KCs.

His reported judgments are set out below.

Court of Appeal

• Challenge made to PINS as to its use of Appeal Planning Officers to make recommendations to Inspectors, raising issues of delegation and procedural fairness (Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities v Smith [2023] EWCA Civ 514).
  
• An appeal on the ‘bridge to nowhere’, which was to enable future development but which itself had no transport links to or over it. The case has wider significance on the interpretation of Officer Reports and ‘salami slicing’ in relation to EIA (R (Ashchurch Rural Parish Council) v Tewkesbury Borough Council [2023] EWCA 101).
• Acting unled in the Court of Appeal for the Secretary of State in considering the scope of the Mansi doctrine in building conversions for which an enforcement notice has been issued (Oates v SSCLG [2018] EWCA Civ 2229).

High Court

• Successfully resisting a “significant” planning claim relating to infrastructure contributions for development forming part of a wider allocation (Swindon BC v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 1627 (Admin)).
• Successfully resisting a challenge to an Inspector’s decision permitting development of up to 110 dwellings, raising issues on flood risk (Soilleux v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 204 (Admin)).
• Successfully quashing approval for a 5G mast, in a case which considered the scope of the duty on telecoms companies to seek to use existing infrastructure (Murtagh v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2022] EWHC 2991 (Admin)).
  
• Successfully defending a “significant” planning claim considering the scope of a planning enforcement order in respect of a single use when there is a mixed use (Payne v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] EWHC 3334).
• Successfully resisting a s288 claim, in the leading case on when working from home requires planning permission due to there being a “material change of use” or “incidental” use to a dwellinghouse (Sage v SSHCLG [2021] EWHC 2885 (Admin)).
• Successfully resisting a challenge to the grant of a consent by Natural Resources Wales for use of part of the River Wye for boating (R (Townley) v Natural Resources Wales [2021] EWHC 2391 (Admin)).
• Successfully resisting a challenge to the Cherwell Local Plan Partial Review, adopted by Cherwell DC as part of its development plan (Cherwell Development Watch Alliance v Cherwell DC and SSHCLG [2021] EWHC 2190).
• Successfully resisting a challenge to a licence granted by Natural England permitting felling trees where there was a potential bat roost, for the purpose of HS2 construction (R (Keir) v Natural England [2021] EWHC 1059 (Admin)).
• Successfully resisting a challenge to an Inspector’s decision that the affordable housing requirement in a local plan included extra care developments which were within a C2 use class (Rectory Homes Ltd v SSHCLG [2020] EWHC 2098 (Admin)).
• Successfully resisting a challenge to an Inspector’s decision refusing a CLOPUD relating to a caravan park, giving rise to issues as to what can be taken into account in interpreting a planning document (Breckland DC v SSHCLG [2020] EWHC 292 (Admin)).
• Acting in a challenge involving the correct test to apply in showing continuous use throughout a four year period after which no enforcement can be taken, and in particular where there had been renovations to a residential property (LB Islington v SSHCLG [2019] EWHC 2691 (Admin)).
• Acting in a statutory challenge on the interpretation of the holiday accommodation provisions in the East Devon Local Plan (Mills v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2019] EWHC 3476 (Admin)).
• Successfully resisting an appeal against an Inspector’s decision to uphold an enforcement notice issued by LB Hackney in respect of unlawful development of a synagogue in East London (Meisels v SSHCLG [2019] EWHC 1987 (Admin)).
• Acting in a challenge to an Inspector’s decision, successfully arguing that where there is an excess of five year housing land supply, an Inspector is not required to give increased weight to countryside policies (Eastleigh BC v SSHCLG [2019] EWHC 1862 (Admin)).
• Acting for the Secretary of State in a challenge to an Inspector’s decision in relation to five year housing land supply and what a “clear reason” is to refuse development pursuant to paragraph 11 of the NPPF (Green Lane Chertsey (Development) Ltd v SSHCLG [2019] EWHC 990 (Admin)).
• Acting for the successful Claimant in a judicial review which quashed a Council’s grant of planning permission on the basis it failed to fully consider the noise implications of the development (R (Kerswell) v LB Lewisham [2019] EWHC 754 (Admin)).
• Acting for the Secretary of State in a judicial review of the Planning Inspectorate’s decision, following the quashing of a planning appeal dealt with by Inquiry, to determine the appeal by written exchange rather than by re-opening the Inquiry. The Court gave guidance on how such decisions should be taken (R (North Norfolk District Council) v SSHCLG [2018] EWHC 2076 (Admin)).
• Challenging the decision of Lambeth Council to regenerate Cressingham Gardens Estate (R (Plant) v Lambeth LBC [2016] EWHC 3324 (Admin); R (Bokrosova) v LB Lambeth [2015] EWHC 3386 (Admin)).

Highways and Public Rights of Access

Leon has experience of advising on disputes relating to highways and has acted in numerous challenges to traffic regulation orders.

His work includes:

• Successfully acting for a local resident challenging an experimental traffic order made by LB Camden covering Haverstock Hill and the surrounding area. Local press reports are here and here.
• Advising a local authority on a new parking scheme where there was a conflict with existing Traffic Regulation Orders.
• Advising a local authority on whether it, or the policy, able to prevent a bridge being used for heavy goods to be delivered.
• Acting in an Upper Tribunal referral pursuant to the Land Acquisition Act 1973 in relation to compensation due following the widening of the M25.

Housing and homelessness

Leon has been ranked by Chambers and Partners in Social Housing since 2017, described in the 2022 edition as known for his dealing with “human rights and equality issues” and being “very detailed in his advice”.

He acts in cases arising from housing management as well as advising on policy. He acts in judicial reviews, possession proceedings and housing injunctions.

Fire safety

Leon has undertaken significant advisory work in relation to the Building Safety Act 2022, legislation designed to address issues arising from the Grenfell Tower tragedy. This has included considering potential public law issues arising from the Act as well as subordinate legislation.

Regeneration

Leon has advised and acted in relation to consultation and other issues arising from housing regeneration developments.

His cases include:

• Advising a residents group in relation to the impact of the Mayor of London’s proposal to require a resident ballot for GLA Funding.
• Acting for the residents of Cressingham Gardens Estate challenging the decision to demolish and regenerate on the basis the Council had picked an option which did not meet the objectives that were consulted on (R (Plant) v Lambeth London Borough Council [2016] EWHC 3324 (Admin)).
• Acting in an earlier challenge for the residents of Cressingham Gardens Estate challenging the Council’s withdrawal of a potential option midway through a consultation exercise (R (Bokrosova) v London Borough of Lambeth [2015] EWHC 3386 (Admin); [2016] P.T.S.R. 355; [2016] HLR 10).

Social housing

Social housing has been a significant feature of Leon’s practice for his entire career. He advises on all aspects of social housing, including recently advising on the contractual rights under funding agreements, and considering implications for providers following the Awaab Ishak.

From early in his career, Leon has acted in cases relating to housing management, both in possession and injunction proceedings, including multi-day trials. He has significant experience advising and acting in cases involving anti-social behaviour and subletting; and, consistent with his wider public law practice, has an in-depth knowledge of human rights and equality arguments.

Homelessness

Leon regularly acts in homelessness challenges, for both adults and children, and both for individuals and local authorities.

His cases include:

• Acting for the local authority defending a judicial review challenge to a section 17 assessment and decision, and the failure to provide interim accommodation, in the context of conflicted evidence on the availability of suitable accommodation (R (Jalal) v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2016] EWHC 1848 (Admin)).
• Acting in the leading case on interim accommodation where a parent does not have the “right to rent” (N v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2016] EWHC 2559 (Admin)).

Allocations and policy

Leon has advised local authorities on various housing policies.

Such advice has included:

• Advising a Council as to the potential discriminatory effects of its housing allocation policy.
• Advising a Council in relation to its powers to exclude new developments from parking permits.

Human Rights and Civil Liberties

Human rights and civil liberties lie at the heart of Leon’s public law practice. He is regularly instructed on cases which are centred on common law rights, Convention rights and discrimination. Examples of his reported cases in this area are:

• Acting in a challenge relating to the common law right of autonomy in the context of a disabled prisoner’s right to demand medical treatment (R (JJ) v Spectrum Community Health CIC [2023] EWCA Civ 885)
• Successfully resisting a challenge to the Government’s White Paper on social care reform, specifically in relation to the policy regarding an appeals system for local authority social care decisions (R (HL) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2023] EWHC 866 (Admin)).
• Acting for the Secretary of State in an article 14 ECHR challenge to the application of the student finance regulations following impacts of the COVID pandemic  (R (Naeem) v Secretary of State for Education [2022] EWHC 15 (Admin)).
• Acting for the Secretary of State for Health in a declaration of parentage application which raised a novel point on the interpretation of the Human Fertility and Embryology Act 2008, in relation to same sex couples using IVF where the correct consent forms were not signed (M v W [2019] EWHC 649 (Fam)).
• Acting in the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights in the initial appeal of the declaration that removal of Alfie Evans’ life support was in his best interests (E (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 550), as widely reported in the national and international press.
• Acting in the Detained Asylum Casework litigation in the Court of Appeal (R (TH) v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 815).
• Acting for the PHSO in a judicial review challenge to the handling of a complaint relating to the death of two relations in the same hospital (R (Andrews) v Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman [2016] EWHC 2150 (Admin)).
• Acting for the Registrar General before Sir James Munby in relation to the registration of a birth following the use of donor sperm (Application K [2017] EWHC 50 (Fam)).
• Acting in High Court proceedings on whether a damages claim for unlawful detention which follows a judicial review claim is an abuse of process (XEM v Home Office [2016] EWHC 2622 (QB)).
• Acting for the local authority defending a judicial review challenge to a section 17 assessment and decision, and the failure to provide interim accommodation, in the context of conflicting evidence on the availability of suitable accommodation (R (Jalal) v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2016] EWHC 1848 (Admin)).
• Acting in the leading case on interim accommodation where a parent does not have the “right to rent” (N v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2016] EWHC 2559 (Admin)).
• Instructed in relation to a challenge of the Mental Health Tribunal decision to move Peter Coonan from Broadmoor back to prison, as reported widely in the national press, see BBC and the Guardian.

Immigration

Leon acts both for and against the Secretary of State in immigration cases, particularly in the context of judicial review claims.

His immigration work includes:

• Successfully resisting an application to re-open an appeal in the Court of Appeal following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pathan v SSHD (R (Khan) v SSHD [2021] EWCA Civ 1655).
• Acting for the Secretary of State defending a policy challenge in relation to the EU Settlement Scheme (R (Here for Good) v Secretary of State for the Home Department).
• Acting in the Court of Appeal in the Detained Asylum Casework litigation: R (TH and ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 815.
• Acting in a judicial review on the relationship between paragraph 353 and 94B of the Immigration Rules (R (Ayache) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKUT 122).
• Acting in asylum proceedings relating to a judge of an EU state, who is facing extradition proceedings for bribery.
• Acting in High Court proceedings on whether a damages claim for unlawful detention which follows a judicial review claim is an abuse of process (XEM v Home Office [2016] EWHC 2622 (QB)).

Local Government including Local Government Finance

Local government law forms a core part of Leon’s practice through various areas of law. For more specific areas of practice, please see other tabs Education, Housing and homelessness, Health and social care, Licensing and Planning and Environment. He has extensive experience in challenges to Cabinet decisions, and has taken a keen interest in challenges to funding cuts.

Some examples of his notable cases involving local government are:

• Successfully resisting a challenge to the Cherwell Local Plan Partial Review, adopted by Cherwell DC as part of its development plan (Cherwell Development Watch Alliance v Cherwell DC and SSHCLG [2021] EWHC 2190).
• Acting for the Secretary of State in a judicial review brought by Somerset County Council challenging an Academy order, in the context of a local school restructure (Somerset CC v Secretary of State for Education [2020] EWHC 1675 (Admin).
• Acting on behalf of parents in a potential challenge to funding cuts by Somerset City Council, reported on the BBC.
• Challenging Oxfordshire CCG’s decision to reconfigure services at the Horton General Hospital, initially challenged by a consortium of seven local authorities (Keep the Horton General v Oxfordshire CCG [2019] EWCA Civ 646).
• Acting in judicial reviews in relation to an alleged ‘failure to educate’ where children have been excluded from school, or where a placement breaks down and the child has an EHC Plan.
• Advising a Council on the whether it could restrict the filming of Council meetings.
• Acting on behalf of a Council, defending a decision not to refer a healthcare matter to the Secretary of State.
• Acting as an independent investigator into a complaint as to alleged breaches of the Councillor’s Code of Conduct arising from a planning committee decision.
• Challenging the decision of Lambeth Council to regenerate Cressingham Gardens Estate (R (Plant) v Lambeth LBC [2016] EWHC 3324 (Admin); R (Bokrosova) v LB Lambeth [2015] EWHC 3386 (Admin)) as reported in the Guardian.
• Acting for the Council in R (Jalal) v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2016] EWHC 1848 (Admin), dealing with a section 17 assessment and decision.

NHS, Health and Community Care

Leon regularly acts in cases on health and social care, relating to both adults and children. This area falls within Administrative Law and Public Law, for which Leon is ranked as a leading junior in the Legal 500 and described as “extremely bright” with “great strategic insight”.

Disputes in relation to the NHS

Leon regularly acts in cases involving the rights and obligations of health bodies including NHS England, CCGs and service providers. He regularly advises in cases involving Continuing Healthcare, reconfiguration of services, issues regarding the National Tariff, who the responsible commissioner is and consultation.

His notable cases include:

• Acting in a challenge relating to the common law right of autonomy in the context of a disabled prisoner’s right to demand medical treatment (R (JJ) v Spectrum Community Health CIC [2023] EWCA Civ 885)
• Acting in a widely publicised challenge to the change of control of GP practices to a company controlled by US-based Centene Corporation (Khurana v North Central London CCG [2022] EWHC 384 (Admin)).
• Acting for the Secretary of State defending a widely publicised policy challenge by Maternity Action alleging the NHS charging regime for overseas visitors is discriminatory, (reported in the Guardian and Independent).
• Acting for the campaign group Keep the Horton General in the Court of Appeal in a challenge to proposed reconfiguration of Horton General Hospital, arguing a two phase consultation on the reconfiguration was unfair (Keep the Horton General v Oxfordshire CCG [2019] EWCA Civ 646).
• Appearing in the Court of Appeal in the widely publicised challenge to the payment provisions of the NHS Accountable Care Organisation Contract, R (999 Call for the NHS) v NHS England [2018] EWCA Civ 2849.
• Acting in the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights in the initial appeal of the declaration that removal of life support was in Alfie Evans’ best interests (E (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 550), in which it was argued the lack of a “significant harm” threshold before the state interfered with parental choices was discriminatory.
• Acting for a CCG defending a claim from a Council alleging a failure to make a decision on an individual’s eligibility for CHC, which also gives rise to issues on the responsible commissioner.

Adult social care

Leon regularly acts in a range of cases relating to adult social care. He regularly advises in relation to care provided under the Care Act 2014, and advises on disputes on ordinary residence. He is a contributing author to ‘Adult Social Care Law’ (LAG, 2019).

His notable work includes:

• Successfully resisting a challenge to the Government’s White Paper on social care reform, specifically in relation to the policy regarding an appeals system for local authority social care decisions (R (HL) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2023] EWHC 866 (Admin)).
  
• Acting in an ongoing judicial review challenging the Government’s White Paper on social care reform, and in particular the lack of appeal mechanism for local authority decisions made under the Care Act 2014.
• Acting for a Council in seeking recoupment of over £800,000 in fees paid for a residential placement for a disabled young person from another Council.
• Advising on potential judicial review proceedings arising from a dispute on individual’s feeding package.
• Acting for the Council in the Court of Protection, on a dispute relating to residence, including on a short term basis due to the issues arising from COVID-19.
• Advising on challenging the care package required where there was an urgent discharge from hospital arising from COVID-19.
• Acting in the Court of Protection for a mother of P a dispute relating to P’s residence and contact.

Children’s social care

Leon is very knowledgeable on children’s social care law, and many of his cases involve issues that cross with education issues. He is a contributing author to ‘Children’s Social Care Law’ (LAG, 2018).

His cases include:

• Acting for the local authority defending a judicial review challenge to a section 17 assessment and decision, and the failure to provide interim accommodation, in the context of conflicting evidence on the availability of suitable accommodation (R (Jalal) v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2016] EWHC 1848 (Admin)).
• Acting in the leading case on interim accommodation where a parent does not have the “right to rent” (N v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2016] EWHC 2559 (Admin)).

Assisted reproduction

Leon has advised and appeared in cases arising from the widespread failure of clinics engaging in assisted reproduction to ensure consent forms required to grant parentage were signed.

His cases include:

• Acting on Secretary of State for Health in a case which raised a novel point on the interpretation of the Human Fertility and Embryology Act 2008, in relation to same sex couples using IVF where the correct consent forms were not signed (M v W [2019] EWHC 649 (Fam)).
• Acting on behalf of the Registrar General in proceedings relating to the registration of births where consent forms were not signed following assisted reproduction (Application K [2017] EWHC 50 (Fam)).

Ombudsman complaints

Leon has significant experience of Ombudsman complaints across areas (see further ‘Regulatory tab) and has been instructed in relation to cases arising from complaints on NHS Services to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

His cases in relation to the PHSO include:

• Acting for the PHSO in a judicial review challenge to the handling of a complaint relating to the death of two relations in the same hospital (R (Andrews) v Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman [2016] EWHC 2150 (Admin)).

Planning

Leon is well known in the planning and environmental field, and is ranked as a leading junior in Planning Law in the Legal 500. He is described as “an incredibly clear and calm thinker”, having “persuasive and inevitable logic”, a “first choice barrister” and that it is “always reassuring to have Leon on your side rather than against you”.

For specific High Court, inquiry and other work, please see the sub-category pages. A general overview of notable work includes:

• Successfully resisting a “significant” planning claim relating to infrastructure contributions for development forming part of a wider allocation (Swindon BC v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 1627 (Admin)).
• Successfully resisting a challenge to an Inspector’s decision permitting development of up to 110 dwellings, raising issues on flood risk (Soilleux v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 204 (Admin)).
• Challenge made to PINS as to its use of Appeal Planning Officers to make recommendations to Inspectors, raising issues of delegation and procedural fairness (Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities v Smith [2023] EWCA Civ 514).
  
• An appeal on the ‘bridge to nowhere’, which was to enable future development but which itself had no transport links to or over it. The case has wider significance on the interpretation of Officer Reports and ‘salami slicing’ in relation to EIA (R (Ashchurch Rural Parish Council) v Tewkesbury Borough Council [2023] EWCA 101).
• Successfully quashing approval for a 5G mast, in a case which considered the scope of the duty on telecoms companies to seek to use existing infrastructure (Murtagh v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2022] EWHC 2991 (Admin)).
  
• Successfully defending a “significant” planning claim considering the scope of a planning enforcement order in respect of a single use when there is a mixed use (Payne v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] EWHC 3334).
• Successfully resisting a s288 claim, in the leading case on when working from home requires planning permission due to there being a “material change of use” or “incidental” use to a dwellinghouse (Sage v SSHCLG [2021] EWHC 2885 (Admin)).
• Successfully resisting a challenge to the grant of a consent by Natural Resources Wales for use of part of the River Wye for boating (R (Townley) v Natural Resources Wales [2021] EWHC 2391 (Admin)).
• A challenge to a licence granted by Natural England permitting felling trees where there was a potential bat roost, for the purpose of HS2 construction (R (Keir) v Natural England [2021] EWHC 1059 (Admin)).
• Successfully resisting a challenge to the Cherwell Local Plan Partial Review, adopted by Cherwell DC as part of its development plan (Cherwell Development Watch Alliance v Cherwell DC and SSHCLG [2021] EWHC 2190).
• Successfully resisting a challenge to an Inspector’s decision that the affordable housing requirement in a local plan included extra care developments which were within a C2 use class (Rectory Homes Ltd v SSHCLG [2020] EWHC 2098 (Admin)).
• Successfully resisting a challenge to an Inspector’s decision refusing a CLOPUD relating to a caravan park, giving rise to issues as to what can be taken into account in interpreting a planning document (Breckland DC v SSHCLG [2020] EWHC 292 (Admin)).
• Acting for the Health and Safety Executive in a called-in inquiry on the continuation of continuation of hazardous substances consent on land close to the Silvertown Tunnel, in order for it to be safe for the tunnel to open (link here).
• Acting in a challenge involving the correct test to apply in showing continuous use throughout a four year period after which no enforcement can be taken, and in particular where there had been renovations to a residential property (LB Islington v SSHCLG [2019] EWHC 2691 (Admin)).
• Acting for the local authority in a hearing in relation to a residential development on Commercial Road, raising issues on viability (link here).
• Acting in a statutory challenge on the interpretation of the holiday accommodation provisions in the East Devon Local Plan (Mills v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2019] EWHC 3476 (Admin)).
• Successfully resisting an appeal against an Inspector’s decision to uphold an enforcement notice issued by LB Hackney in respect of unlawful development of a synagogue in East London (Meisels v SSHCLG [2019] EWHC 1987 (Admin)).
• Acting for a rule 6 party at a 4 day inquiry in relation to a major housing development in Charlton Kings, Cheltenham, with issues including heritage and ecology (link here).
• Acting in a challenge to an Inspector’s decision, successfully arguing that where there is an excess of five year housing land supply, an Inspector is not required to give increased weight to countryside policies (Eastleigh BC v SSHCLG [2019] EWHC 1862 (Admin)).
• Acting for the developers at a 6 day inquiry in respect of the redevelopment of Regent’s Wharf, a canalside office space near King’s Cross, with issues including heritage and light (link here).
• Acting for the Secretary of State in a challenge to an Inspector’s decision in relation to five year housing land supply and what a “clear reason” is to refuse development pursuant to paragraph 11 of the NPPF (Green Lane Chertsey (Development) Ltd v SSHCLG [2019] EWHC 990 (Admin)).
• Acting for the successful Claimant in a judicial review which quashed a Council’s grant of planning permission on the basis it failed to fully consider the noise implications of the development (R (Kerswell) v LB Lewisham [2019] EWHC 754 (Admin)).
• Acting unled in the Court of Appeal for the Secretary of State in considering the scope of the Mansi doctrine in building conversions for which an enforcement notice has been issued (Oates v SSCLG [2018] EWCA Civ 2229).
• Acting for the Secretary of State in a judicial review of the Planning Inspectorate’s decision, following the quashing of a planning appeal dealt with by Inquiry, to determine the appeal by written exchange rather than by re-opening the Inquiry. The Court gave guidance on how such decisions should be taken (R (North Norfolk District Council) v SSHCLG [2018] EWHC 2076 (Admin)).
• Acting for a local authority at an inquiry in relation to its refusal to discharge a planning obligation where a lawful development certificate had been granted (link here).
• Challenging the decision of Lambeth Council to regenerate Cressingham Gardens Estate (R (Plant) v Lambeth LBC [2016] EWHC 3324 (Admin); R (Bokrosova) v LB Lambeth [2015] EWHC 3386 (Admin)).

Highways, Footpaths and Rights of Way

Leon has experience of advising on disputes relating to highways and has acted in numerous challenges to traffic regulation orders.

His work includes:

• Successfully acting for a local resident challenging an experimental traffic order made by LB Camden covering Haverstock Hill and the surrounding area. Local press reports are here and here.
• Advising a local authority on a new parking scheme where there was a conflict with existing Traffic Regulation Orders.
• Advising a local authority on whether it, or the policy, able to prevent a bridge being used for heavy goods to be delivered.
• Acting in an Upper Tribunal referral pursuant to the Land Acquisition Act 1973 in relation to compensation due following the widening of the M25.

Planning Appeals, Inquiries and Hearings

Leon regularly appears at inquiries, and has acted for developers, local authorities and rule 6 parties. His notable work includes:

• Acting for the Health and Safety Executive in a called-in inquiry on the continuation of continuation of hazardous substances consent on land close to the Silvertown Tunnel, in order for it to be safe for the tunnel to open (link here).
• Acting for the developers, as junior to Christopher Katkowski KC, at a 6 day inquiry in respect of the redevelopment of Regent’s Wharf, a canalside office space near King’s Cross, with issues including heritage and light (link here).
• Acting for a rule 6 party at a 4 day inquiry in relation to a major housing development in Charlton Kings, Cheltenham, with issues including heritage and ecology (link here).
• Acting for the local authority in a hearing in relation to a residential development on Commercial Road, raising issues on viability (link here).
• Acting for a local authority at an inquiry in relation to its refusal to discharge a planning obligation where a lawful development certificate had been granted (link here).

Planning Enforcement and Injunctions

Leon regularly acts in enforcement proceedings, at the High Court level and before the Magistrates Court in respect of alleged breaches of an enforcement notices.

His notable reported cases relating to enforcement include:

• Successfully defending a “significant” planning claim considering the scope of a planning enforcement order in respect of a single use when there is a mixed use (Payne v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] EWHC 3334).
• Acting unled in the Court of Appeal for the Secretary of State in considering the scope of the Mansi doctrine in building conversions for which an enforcement notice has been issued (Oates v SSCLG [2018] EWCA Civ 2229).
• Acting in a challenge involving the correct test to apply in showing continuous use throughout a four year period after which no enforcement can be taken, and in particular where there had been renovations to a residential property (LB Islington v SSHCLG [2019] EWHC 2691 (Admin)).
• Successfully resisting an appeal against an Inspector’s decision to uphold an enforcement notice issued by LB Hackney in respect of unlawful development of a synagogue in East London (Meisels v SSHCLG [2019] EWHC 1987 (Admin)).

Planning Judicial and Statutory Reviews

Leon is sought after in High Court planning and environmental challenges. His work spans judicial reviews, section 288 challenges, enforcement challenges, CLUED challenges and local plan challenges. He regularly appears unled against KCs.

His reported judgments are set out below.

Court of Appeal

• Challenge made to PINS as to its use of Appeal Planning Officers to make recommendations to Inspectors, raising issues of delegation and procedural fairness (Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities v Smith [2023] EWCA Civ 514).
  
• An appeal on the ‘bridge to nowhere’, which was to enable future development but which itself had no transport links to or over it. The case has wider significance on the interpretation of Officer Reports and ‘salami slicing’ in relation to EIA (R (Ashchurch Rural Parish Council) v Tewkesbury Borough Council [2023] EWCA 101).
• Acting unled in the Court of Appeal for the Secretary of State in considering the scope of the Mansi doctrine in building conversions for which an enforcement notice has been issued (Oates v SSCLG [2018] EWCA Civ 2229).

High Court

• Successfully resisting a “significant” planning claim relating to infrastructure contributions for development forming part of a wider allocation (Swindon BC v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 1627 (Admin)).
• Successfully resisting a challenge to an Inspector’s decision permitting development of up to 110 dwellings, raising issues on flood risk (Soilleux v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2023] EWHC 204 (Admin)).
• Successfully quashing approval for a 5G mast, in a case which considered the scope of the duty on telecoms companies to seek to use existing infrastructure (Murtagh v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2022] EWHC 2991 (Admin)).
  
• Successfully defending a “significant” planning claim considering the scope of a planning enforcement order in respect of a single use when there is a mixed use (Payne v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] EWHC 3334).
• Successfully resisting a s288 claim, in the leading case on when working from home requires planning permission due to there being a “material change of use” or “incidental” use to a dwellinghouse (Sage v SSHCLG [2021] EWHC 2885 (Admin)).
• Successfully resisting a challenge to the grant of a consent by Natural Resources Wales for use of part of the River Wye for boating (R (Townley) v Natural Resources Wales [2021] EWHC 2391 (Admin)).
• Successfully resisting a challenge to the Cherwell Local Plan Partial Review, adopted by Cherwell DC as part of its development plan (Cherwell Development Watch Alliance v Cherwell DC and SSHCLG [2021] EWHC 2190).
• Successfully resisting a challenge to a licence granted by Natural England permitting felling trees where there was a potential bat roost, for the purpose of HS2 construction (R (Keir) v Natural England [2021] EWHC 1059 (Admin)).
• Successfully resisting a challenge to an Inspector’s decision that the affordable housing requirement in a local plan included extra care developments which were within a C2 use class (Rectory Homes Ltd v SSHCLG [2020] EWHC 2098 (Admin)).
• Successfully resisting a challenge to an Inspector’s decision refusing a CLOPUD relating to a caravan park, giving rise to issues as to what can be taken into account in interpreting a planning document (Breckland DC v SSHCLG [2020] EWHC 292 (Admin)).
• Acting in a challenge involving the correct test to apply in showing continuous use throughout a four year period after which no enforcement can be taken, and in particular where there had been renovations to a residential property (LB Islington v SSHCLG [2019] EWHC 2691 (Admin)).
• Acting in a statutory challenge on the interpretation of the holiday accommodation provisions in the East Devon Local Plan (Mills v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2019] EWHC 3476 (Admin)).
• Successfully resisting an appeal against an Inspector’s decision to uphold an enforcement notice issued by LB Hackney in respect of unlawful development of a synagogue in East London (Meisels v SSHCLG [2019] EWHC 1987 (Admin)).
• Acting in a challenge to an Inspector’s decision, successfully arguing that where there is an excess of five year housing land supply, an Inspector is not required to give increased weight to countryside policies (Eastleigh BC v SSHCLG [2019] EWHC 1862 (Admin)).
• Acting for the Secretary of State in a challenge to an Inspector’s decision in relation to five year housing land supply and what a “clear reason” is to refuse development pursuant to paragraph 11 of the NPPF (Green Lane Chertsey (Development) Ltd v SSHCLG [2019] EWHC 990 (Admin)).
• Acting for the successful Claimant in a judicial review which quashed a Council’s grant of planning permission on the basis it failed to fully consider the noise implications of the development (R (Kerswell) v LB Lewisham [2019] EWHC 754 (Admin)).
• Acting for the Secretary of State in a judicial review of the Planning Inspectorate’s decision, following the quashing of a planning appeal dealt with by Inquiry, to determine the appeal by written exchange rather than by re-opening the Inquiry. The Court gave guidance on how such decisions should be taken (R (North Norfolk District Council) v SSHCLG [2018] EWHC 2076 (Admin)).
• Challenging the decision of Lambeth Council to regenerate Cressingham Gardens Estate (R (Plant) v Lambeth LBC [2016] EWHC 3324 (Admin); R (Bokrosova) v LB Lambeth [2015] EWHC 3386 (Admin)).

Environment

Leon is well known for his work covering environmental issues and is ranked as a leading barrister in the Legal 500 for Environmental Law. He regularly acts for claimants challenging environmental decisions, as well as for government bodies such as Natural England and Natural Resources Wales. His cases include:

• An appeal on the ‘bridge to nowhere’, which was to enable future development but which itself had no transport links to or over it. The case has wider significance on the interpretation of Officer Reports and ‘salami slicing’ in relation to EIA (R (Ashchurch Rural Parish Council) v Tewkesbury Borough Council [2023] EWCA 101).
• Successfully quashing approval for a 5G mast, in a case which considered the scope of the duty on telecoms companies to seek to use existing infrastructure (Murtagh v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2022] EWHC 2991 (Admin)).
• Successfully resisting a challenge to the grant of a consent by Natural Resources Wales for use of part of the River Wye for boating (R (Townley) v Natural Resources Wales [2021] EWHC 2391 (Admin)).
• A challenge to a licence granted by Natural England permitting felling trees where there was a potential bat roost, for the purpose of HS2 construction (R (Keir) v Natural England [2021] EWHC 1059 (Admin)).
• Acting for the Health and Safety Executive in a called-in inquiry on the continuation of continuation of hazardous substances consent on land close to the Silvertown Tunnel, in order for it to be safe for the tunnel to open (link here).

Cross-practice

Landmark's barristers often work at the intersection of our core practice areas; bringing a wide range of skills, knowledge and experience to bear on a particular dispute or issue facing a client.

Our focus is always on achieving the best possible outcome for our client. By viewing the client's objectives in a holistic way - and not purely through the lens of one rigidly-defined legal area - we deliver the best possible advice and representation in complex matters that engage multiple specialist areas of law. 

Whether it's providing support as an individual cross-practice barrister or a cross-disciplinary team of Landmark counsel, we are able to draw on an outstanding array of complementary skillsets and knowledge bases. This often achieves a better result than instructing multiple barristers from different specialist sets. This also improves the quality of client care through increased levels of communication, quicker response times, and a coordinated approach to clerking and fees, made possible by our team-based cross-practice approach.

Please contact our practice management team for more information.

Highways and Rights of Access

Local Government

ADR

Energy

EU Law post-Brexit

Public Works Projects