Landmark Chambers

Home > Our people > Barristers > Tim Morshead QC

Tim Morshead

Tim Morshead QC


Print all

Public & Planning Law

  • Robert Hitchins Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2010] EWHC 1157 (Admin). Tim acted for the Secretary of State who successfully resisted this developer’s challenge and established that it is lawful for the Secretary of State to judge the “viability” of affordable housing by reference to the possibility of better economic conditions in the future.
  • Bleaklow Industries Ltd v. Secretary of State [2009] EWCA (Civ) 206; [2009] 2 P&CR 21; [2009] JPL 1477; [2009] NPC 46. This case concerned the interpretation of minerals permissions and, particularly, the expression “winning and working”. The trial judge had given the expression a wide meaning which, on the facts, enabled Bleaklow to extract large amounts of limestone from a national park, to the significant harm of the landscape. Tim (who did not appear below) acted on behalf of the Secretary of State on the appeal, arguing that the expression had an established meaning which, on the facts, prevented such activities. This was accepted and the appeal was allowed.
  • Hammerton v. Ministry of Justice [2009] EWHC 1423 (Blake J). Whether unfair trial in breach of Article 6 automatically indicates unlawful detention contrary to Article 5, so producing a right to damages; whether damages available at common law or under Article 5 following claimant’s imprisonment for contempt later overturned on appeal. Tim appeared for the Ministry of Justice, successfully resisting all parts of the claim.
  • R (H) v Secretary of State for Health [2005] UKHL 60; [2006] 1 AC 441; [2005] 3 WLR 867 (with Philip Sales). Humans Rights Act 1998; Article 5 of the Convention.
  • Sloam v Adjudication Panel [2005] EWHC 124 (Admin) Regulation of conduct in local authorities.
  • With David Elvin QC he was instructed as amicus at first instance in Rowland v. Environment Agency [2003] Ch 581 — which, with the later decision in the Court of Appeal, is one of the leading cases on legitimate expectations.