Landmark Chambers

Home > Our people > Barristers > Yaaser Vanderman

Yaaser has a practice covering all areas of Chambers’ work. 

He studied undergraduate law at Clare College, Cambridge University before completing postgraduate degrees at Keble College, Oxford University (BCL) and Harvard Law School (LLM). He was also the 2012 Eldon Law Scholar of Oxford University.

Yaaser joined Chambers after spending a year as the Judicial Assistant to Lord Toulson and Lord Hughes in the Supreme Court, where he worked closely with the Justices on a wide variety of cases. He previously worked at the South African Human Rights Commission and the International Bar Association.

Public/ Human rights/ EU law

Yaaser’s practice covers the breadth of public law issues, including civil liberties, environmental, housing, healthcare, immigration and asylum, citizenship and social security claims. His recent cases include:

  • Sheffield City Council v Teal and Payne [2017] EWHC 2692 (QB): High Court committal hearing against Sheffield tree protestors purported to have breached the injunction in Fairhall below;

  • Sheffield City Council v Fairhall and others [2017] EWHC 2121 (QB): High Court claim to restrain the Sheffield tree protestors, relying on Article 10/11 ECHR;

  • R (PNRAG and Frackman) v SSCLG and Cuadrilla [2017] EWHC 808 (Admin): A High Court challenge to the first horizontal fracking wells in the UK (currently on appeal to the Court of Appeal);

  • R (Williams) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] 1 WLR 3283: Appearing for the claimant in the Court of Appeal on whether requiring destitute children to pay a fee before obtaining British citizenship is unlawful or a breach of Article 8 and/or 14 ECHR;

  • Joyce and Jones v Birmingham City Council and CC of Merseyside: Appearing in the High Court in a human rights challenge to the compatibility of “Gang Injunctions” and the new ASBO regime with the right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the ECHR) (currently on appeal to the Court of Appeal);

  • R (Edward) v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2017] EWHC 1112 (Admin): An application in the High Court for committal of officers at Greenwich;
  • R (Edward) v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2016] EWHC 3410 (Admin): Appearing in the High Court in a judicial review brought in relation to Parts 6 and 7 of the Housing Act 1996;

  • R (Moore) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWHC 2736 (Admin): Appearing in the High Court in a challenge to the lawfulness of the Secretary of State’s decision to consent to the appropriation of allotment land, pursuant to section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925 and the relevant policy;

  • Representing a Claimant in the Court of Appeal and successfully obtaining an urgent injunction on the day of deportation to Sierra Leone;

  • R (Jalal) v Royal Borough of Greenwich: Appearing in the High Court in a judicial review brought under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 against Greenwich’s child’s needs assessment.

Yaaser has also advised and drafted grounds in a wide range of claims, including challenges made to Universal Credit and for Cruelty Free International in a case on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. 

During his time at the Supreme Court, Yaaser worked closely with the Justices on the following cases:

  • Keyu v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs – a challenge of refusals to hold a public inquiry into historic claims of a massacre in modern day Malaysia involving issues on the temporal jurisdiction of ECHR, Article 2 ECHR and proportionality;

  • Beghal v DPP – a challenge to stop, search and detention powers at an airport under terrorism legislation involving Article 5, 6 and 8 ECHR;

  • R (on the application of Evans) v Attorney General – a challenge by the Attorney General to prevent publication of Prince Charles’ ministerial correspondence under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and EU environmental legislation;

  • R (on the application of SG) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions – a challenge to the benefit cap involving Article 1 Protocol 1 and Article 14 of the ECHR;

  • R (on the application of Lumsdon) v Legal Services Board – a challenge to QASA for criminal barristers involving the principle of proportionality in EU law;

  • Hotak and Kanu v London Borough of Southwark – a case on the meaning of “vulnerability” in the homelessness legislation and application of the public sector equality duty;

  • Nzolameso v City of Westminster – a case on the extent of a local authority’s duty to provide accommodation to a homeless person in or near the authority’s own area; and,

  • Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities Limited – a case on whether, in possession proceedings, the defence of disability discrimination should be treated in the same was as an alleged breach of Article 8 ECHR.   

Yaaser has worked on a range of public law, human rights and EU law issues as pupil of both Martin Chamberlain QC (Brick Court Chambers) and James Maurici QC. He has worked on:

  • TfL v Uber London Limited - relating to the legality of Uber’s operations;

  • Freedom of Information issues for the Department of Work and Pensions (drafting advice);

  • R (Lee-Hirons) v Secretary of State for Justice – relating to the time and form in which reasons for detention under the Mental Health Act 1983 had to be given;

  • Issues relating to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 – in relation to IVF treatment and  whether certain restrictions are contrary to EU freedom of services provisions (drafting a research note); and,

  • State aid issues, including in the Inquiry relating to the Compulsory Purchase Order for Brentford Football Club’s new stadium (drafting closing submissions for the Inquiry);

  • Petru (Case C-268/13) – relating to medical treatment outside of an individual’s Member State (drafting the speaking note for the hearing before the ECJ).

Prior to joining Chambers, Yaaser worked pro bono at the following organisations:

  • Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School;
  • South African Human Rights Commission;
  • Liberty; and,
  • International Bar Association (Human Rights Institute). 

Planning & Environmental law

Yaaser is instructed in all types of planning and environmental work. For example, he has been involved in the following:

  • R (PNRAG and Frackman) v SSCLG and Cuadrilla [2017] EWHC 808 (Admin), a High Court challenge to the first horizontal fracking wells in the UK (currently on appeal to the Court of Appeal);

  • R (Fishron Properties Ltd) v Basingstoke and Deane BC (2017): A High Court challenge to a decision of the Council to dispose of land for hotel use which included an exclusivity clause preventing other hotels in the Basing View Business Park;

  • Yaaser has also appeared as sole counsel in several hearings and Inquiries, including an Inquiry listed for two weeks for the No McDonald’s Kenton Residents’ Action Group (Rule 6 party) between McDonald’s and Newcastle City Council. It related to a proposed development near one of the biggest secondary schools outside of London. The claim involved issues of transport safety, design and health policy;

  • A wide range of planning issues, including advising on the merits of challenging planning decisions, issues relating to development consent orders and enforcement work for both local authorities and defendants. 

Yaaser has worked on a range of planning and environmental law issues under the supervision of David Elvin QC, James Maurici QC and Martin Chamberlain QC (Brick Court Chambers). He has worked on:

  • Airport runway expansion – relating to legal implications of environmental effects (drafting advice); 

  • London Borough of Southwark v TfL – relating to which of the parties own the subsoil below and airspace above highways in London (drafting notes before the hearing);

  • Retail development plans – relating to issues of ransom value and best strategy (drafting notes for conference);

  • Habitats Directive and EIA legislation in relation to the impact of dredging on bodies of freshwater (drafting advice and notes for conference); and,

  • R (on the application of Swiss International Airlines AG) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change  relating to claimed discriminatory treatment in an emissions trading scheme (drafting a skeleton argument).

During his time at the Supreme Court, Yaaser worked closely with the Justices in the case of R (on the application of Champion) v North Norfolk District Council. This case considered the timing and extent of the “appropriate assessment” (Habitats Directive) and EIA screening and the interplay with mitigation measures. 

Property law

Yaaser, as sole counsel, has been successful in a three day multi-track possession trial for the Royal Borough of Greenwich as well as a two day hearing before the Land Registration division of the Property Chamber (First-tier Tribunal) in a boundary dispute. He has also appeared as junior counsel in the Chancery Division in relation to a Freezing Injunction with Katharine Holland QC.

He has advised and drafted statements of case in a wide range of cases, including enfranchisement, forfeiture, dilapidations and adverse possession issues. 

Yaaser has worked on a range of property law issues under the supervision of Myriam Stacey and David Elvin QC. He has worked on:

  • Business leases – in relation to: the dissolution and restoration of lessees and compensation under section 30(1)(f) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (drafting notes for conference); and, dilapidations and yielding up obligations (drafting advice);

  • Easements and profits à prendre – in relation to: whether such rights exist for the benefit of residential premises (drafting particulars of claims, defences and notes); and, the effect of gas pipelines on residential land (drafting advice);

  • Damages for breaches of covenant – in relation to whether a deliberate breach of an obligation not to make alterations as part of a Scheme of Management could result in disgorgement of profits or Wrotham Park damages; and,

  • Collective enfranchisement – in relation to the possibility of converting offices into residential premises for the purpose of a collective enfranchisement claim (drafting advice). 


  • ALBA
  • Young Public Lawyers' Group