Christopher Jacobs

Riparian / water law

Christopher advises generally on all areas relating to water law. Recently, he has advised local authorities and landowners in relation to coastal erosion. He has also advised recently on matters concerning drainage, reservoirs, weirs and coastal access rights.

Christopher has acted in the following cases:

• DRPS Property Ltd v Residential Marine Ltd [2025] UKFTT 1092 (PC) - In a claim for rectification of the land register to include land not originally shown on the title plan, the First-tier Tribunal held that the land in issue was created as a result of dumping concrete on land in the 1960s so that it was not capable of being conveyed to the applicant's predecessor-in-title in 1984.
• Bernel v Canal River Trust [2021] EWHC 16 (Ch) – in which the court accepted that riparian rights can derive from artificially piped water and considered whether a claimed culverted natural watercourse was a land drain or sewer. The court also considered the acquisition of prescriptive rights to drain land by way of easement
• Hounslow LBC v Devere [2018] EWHC 1447 (Ch) – in which the court considered the legal character of river works in relation to the law of trespass.
• Port of London Authority v Mendoza [2017] UKUT 146 (TCC) – whether the act of mooring a boat was insufficient, by itself, to evidence an intention by the boat owner to take adverse possession of the riverbed beneath the boat and whether it was possible to acquire title through adverse possession to the bed of a river that was subject to public navigation rights.
• In 2015, he represented the successful Respondent in the Property Tribunal in a dispute with the Port of London Authority over whether PLA was entitled to register land above Mean High Water on the Thames riverbank, Morlandia v PLA.

Property

Christopher advises and represents parties in the following areas:

• Commercial leases and licences
• Residential tenancies
• Boundary disputes
• Easements
• Restrictive Covenants
• Adverse possession
• Trusts and beneficial interests
• Private and public nuisance
• Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR rights
• Trespass
• Misrepresentation
• Injunctions
• Rights of light and remedies
• Highways
• Public rights of way
• Housing.

Christopher’s notable cases include:

• DRPS Property Ltd v Residential Marine Ltd [2025] UKFTT 1092 (PC) - In a claim for rectification of the land register to include land not originally shown on the title plan, the First-tier Tribunal held that the land in issue was created as a result of dumping concrete on land in the 1960s so that it was not capable of being conveyed to the applicant's predecessor-in-title in 1984.
• Tandem Properties Ltd v Sheffield City Council [2024] EWHC 1926 (Ch) Commercial development; Limitation periods; Misrepresentation; Peaceful enjoyment of possessions; Private nuisance; Public nuisance; Striking out; Summary judgments
• Bernel Ltd v Canal and River Trust [2021] EWHC 16 (Ch) in which the court accepted that riparian rights can derive from artificially piped water and considered whether a claimed culverted natural watercourse was a land drain or sewer. The court also considered the acquisition of prescriptive rights to drain land by way of easement.
• Constandas v Lysandrou [2018] EWCA Civ 613. The Court of Appeal reviewed the test for whether a judge was entitled to resort to the burden of proof when considering a disputed claim as to beneficial ownership of a property.
• Hounslow LBC v Devere [2018] EWHC 1447 (Ch). [2018] L.L.R. 764. The Court considered the legal character of River Works and held that Vessel owners had trespassed onto local authority land when mooring their vessels to posts holding up a riverside walkway. However, they had not interfered with the local authority’s rights when mooring their vessels to structures which were sunk into the river bed.
• Port of London Authority v Mendoza [2017] UKUT 146 (TCC) – whether the act of mooring a boat was insufficient, by itself, to evidence an intention by the boat owner to take adverse possession of the river bed beneath the boat and whether it was possible to acquire title through adverse possession to the bed of a river that was subject to public navigation rights.
• Broomleigh Housing Association Ltd v Okonkwo [2011] C.P. Rep. 4 [2010], EWCA Civ 1113 (Civil procedure – Enforcement of costs orders after possession proceedings – making of a committal order under CPR r.71.8).
• Ofulue v Bossert [2009] 2 WLR 749 (House of Lords, adverse possession, acknowledgment of title – whether an acknowledgement of title contained within without prejudice correspondence had the effect of stopping the running of time for the purpose of the limitation period.

Water

Christopher has been involved in the following cases:

• Bernel Ltd v Canal and River Trust [2021] EWHC 16 (Ch) 
• Port of London Authority v Mendoza [2017] UKUT 146 (TCC).

Statutory Public Inquiries

Christopher has represented core participants in the following statutory public inquiries.

The Covid-19 Inquiry: Christopher represented the Traveller Movement in Module 4 of the Covid-19 Inquiry, which investigated the institutional conduct and responses by various groups to the Covid vaccination programme. The hearings took place in January 2025.

Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry (2021-2024). Christopher represented (with Sam Stein KC) 157 former sub-postmasters who were convicted, prosecuted, sued, dismissed or reputationally damaged as a consequence of the Post Office scandal. The Inquiry commenced in November 2021 and the hearings were concluded in December 2024. Christopher made detailed submissions before Sir Wyn Williams (the Inquiry Chair) in April 2023 during a hearing which led to an interim report to Parliament on the question of compensation for subpostmasters.

The Brook House Inquiry: Christopher acted for a core participant Detention Custody Officer in the Brook House Inquiry, which addressed institutional failings in safeguarding detainees at an Immigration removal centre.

The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA): Between 2018 and 2023 Christopher represented over 60 core participants in IICSA, which was the largest ever Public Inquiry in England and Wales. Christopher represented core participants (victims and survivors, whistleblowers and senior members of staff within local authorities) in the following strands of the IICSA Inquiry.

• Nottinghamshire Councils Investigation

• Roman Catholic Church – Archdiocese of Birmingham Investigation

• Accountability and Reparations Investigation phase 1

• Roman Catholic Church – English Benedictine Congregation and Ealing Abbey

• Residential Schools Investigation

• Accountability and Reparations Investigation phase 2

• Roman Catholic Church – Wider Investigation

• Lambeth Council Investigation

• Organised Networks Investigation

• Allegations of child sexual abuse involving the late Lord Janner of Braunstone.

Public and Administrative

Christopher is a judicial review specialist and advises and represents clients in judicial review challenges across the public law spectrum. He has acted in a number of public law challenges in the Administrative Court in areas including:

• Planning and Environment
• Compulsory purchase
• Police pensions
• Education
• Procedural fairness in criminal proceedings
• Public Inquiries
• Housing allocation
• Decisions by regulatory bodies in relation to broadcasts
• Decisions by DEFRA concerning forestry and public health
• Eviction of Gypsy, Roma and Travellers

Christopher is currently instructed in a judicial review case in the Administrative Court concerning the failure of the government to implement the majority of the recommendations made by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) or to provide a timetable for implementation. Rex ota The Maggie Oliver Foundation v Secretary of State for The Home Department [2025]

Christopher is also instructed in a pending judicial review of the decision of the Pensions Ombudsman to decline jurisdiction to determine applications arising out of Regulation 11 injury benefits decisions. Rex ota Wilson v The Pensions Ombudsman [2025] .

Notable cases in which Christopher has acted include:

• R (on the application of Traveller Movement) v Chair of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry [2025] 4 WLR 45 whether a body participating in a public inquiry was a "substantial body" and therefore should not receive public funding for legal representation
• R (on the application of Lehram Capital Investments Ltd) v Southwark Crown Court [2023] EWHC (Admin). Procedural fairness in private prosecutions in the Crown Court.
• R (on the application of Gomes) v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC [2023] EWHC 778 (Admin). Children’s welfare. Local authorities’ powers and duties in relation to rehousing. Grenfell rehousing policies.
• R (on the application of Plant) v Lambeth LBC [2022] EWHC 3079. Whether a local authority acted unlawfully in granting planning permission for the redevelopment of part of a council garden estate which required the removal of four mature trees. The Court considered the interpretation of local plan policy Q10 which said that, where it was "imperative" to remove trees, adequate replacement planting would be secured.
• R (on the application of Paling) v Ipswich Magistrates’ Court [2021] EWHC 2739 (Admin) . Christopher represented a local authority in a challenge concerning the fairness of a hearing before magistrates and reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010..
• R (on the application of Granger-Taylor) v High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd [2020] EWHC 1442 (Admin). The Court considered a challenge to the HS2 Scheme based on inherently dangerous engineering operations in the Euston area and whether the decision to proceed amounted to a justiciable breach of the rights guaranteed to a nearby homeowner under Article 8 ECHR and Protocol 1. Article 1.
• R (on the application of Seventeen De Vere Gardens (Management) Ltd) v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC [2016] EWHC 2869 (Admin). Christopher acted for the successful claimant management company in a case where a Planning Applications Committee had unlawfully declined to determine a revised application for retrospective planning permission which was subject to a pre-existing enforcement notice.
• R (on the application of Watt) v Hackney LBC [2016] EWHC 1978 (Admin) [2017] J.P.L. 192 [2016] A.C.D. 115 [2017] C.L.Y. 1754. Christopher acted for the successful Claimant in a challenge to a grant of planning permission where a daylight assessment before a planning committee had contained material errors of fact.
• R (Traveller Movement) v Office of Communications [2015] EWHC 406 (Admin) – a challenge to Ofcom’s decision not to uphold a complaint that Channel 4 had breached broadcasting standards in relation to the TV programmes My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and Thelma’s Gypsy Girls.
• Venn v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] EWCA Civ 1539 | [2015] 1 W.L.R. 2328 | [2014] 11 WLUK 778 | [2015] C.P. Rep. 12 | [2015] 1 C.M.L.R. 52 | [2015] Env. L.R. 14 | [2015] J.P.L. 573. Christopher was led by Richard Drabble QC in an appeal (having acted for the Claimant at first instance) in relation to the scope under CPR r.45.41 of the availability of protective costs orders for environmental cases falling within the Aarhus Convention 2001.

Police Pensions

Christopher undertakes police pension cases.

He has recently worked with David Lock KC in an appeal in the Crown Court under

Regulation 34 of the Police (Injury Benefit) Regulations 2006 concerning entitlements under the reconsideration provisions under the 2006 Regulations.

Christopher is currently instructed in a judicial review of a decision of the Pension Ombudsman concerning whether the scheme of Regulation 11 of the 2006 Regulations operates as an occupational pension scheme .

Christopher advises generally on police pensions and undertakes work in the Police Medical Appeal Board.

Planning

Christopher specialises in Compulsory Purchase Public Inquiry work.

He has represented objectors to large developments in the following inquiries:

• LB Ealing CPO (2022)
• Harrow Manorway CPO 2018
• Woodberry Down CPO 2018
• Aylesbury Estate CPO 2016 – 2018

Christopher undertakes Planning work in the following areas:

• Statutory Review applications under Section 288 TCPA 1990

• Judicial reviews of grants of planning permission

• Public Inquiries and appeals against planning decisions

• Enforcement appeals and Inquiries.

• Criminal proceedings in enforcement related matters.

Notable planning cases include:

• R (on the application of Plant) v Lambeth LBC [2022] EWHC 3079 (Admin) – whether a local authority acted unlawfully in granting planning permission for the redevelopment of part of a council garden estate which required the removal of four mature trees. The Court considered the interpretation of local plan policy Q10, which said that, where it was "imperative" to remove trees, adequate replacement planting would be secured.
• R (on the application of Granger-Taylor) v High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd [2020] EWHC 1442 (Admin). The Court considered a challenge to the HS2 Scheme based on inherently dangerous engineering operations in the Euston area and whether the decision to proceed amounted to a justiciable breach of the rights guaranteed to a nearby homeowner under Article 8 ECHR and Protocol 1. Article 1.
• Crystal Property Limited v SSCLG [2016] EWCA Civ 1265. Court of Appeal – Whether a planning inspector erred by looking at the height and mass of a proposed building when determining an application for outline planning permission where all matters, including scale, were reserved for future determination.
• R. (on the application of Seventeen De Vere Gardens (Management) Ltd) v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC [2016] EWHC 2869 (Admin). Whether a Local Planning Authority acted unlawfully in declining to determine a planning application under section 70C Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
• R (on the application of Watt) v Hackney LBC [2016] ACD 115. The circumstances in which a mistake of fact could constitute a ground for judicial review in planning cases.
• SSCLG v Venn [2015] 1 W.L.R. 2328 [2015] C.P. Rep. 12 [2015] 1 C.M.L.R. 52 [2015] Env. L.R. 14 [2015] J.P.L. . The Court of Appeal considered the scope under CPR r.45.41 of the availability of protective costs orders for environmental cases falling within the Aarhus Convention 2001
• R (on the application of Sheridan & others) v Basildon District Council [2011] EWHC 2938 (Admin) in relation to a judicial review of enforcement action and rights of children evicted from Dale Farm.

Local Government

Christopher acts for local authorities in harassment claims. He acted for the successful local authority in Greenwich RLBC v Elworthy [2022] EWHC 2302 (QB) in which the court granted an interim injunction and held that whilst was a legitimate part of a local authority's functions to be held accountable for its actions and those of it officers and employees; they should not be subjected to numerous unsubstantiated allegations or threats.

Christopher regularly advises local authorities on various property and planning matters.

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.

EU Law post-Brexit

Public Interest Litigation

Telecommunications