Yaaser Vanderman

Public and Administrative

Yaaser is a specialist barrister with expertise in administrative law, civil liberties, commercial/regulatory law, information and data, international trade, healthcare and community care, environmental law, education, housing, social security, local government, national security and immigration, asylum and citizenship claims. He acts for claimants, defendants, interested parties and interveners. Yaaser has been appointed to the Attorney General’s Panel of Counsel (B Panel) and is also called to the Northern Ireland Bar.

Yaaser is regularly instructed in high profile cases, having been instructed in nine Supreme Court cases since 2019. He has recently been involved in the following matters:

• Healthcare cases: Yaaser has acted in most of the important challenges on abortion issues over the last few years in England and Northern Ireland. This has included acting for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in challenges brought against 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. Yaaser has also been involved in commercial JRs, for example a recent challenge brought by sections of the pharmaceutical industry relating to the pricing of branded medicines to the NHS.
• Free speech and Protest cases: Yaaser has been involved in free speech and 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 challenge to the banning of the Sarah Everard vigil in Clapham Common. Yaaser has been involved in approximately 20 protest hearings since 2022.
• Social security cases: Yaaser 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 has also been involved in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal challenges to the EU Settlement Scheme in R (Fratila) v SSWP and AT v SSWP.
• Commercial, regulatory, energy and infrastructure: Yaaser has been involved in challenges brought in a range of sectors and on a number of subjects, including in relation to the renewable energy industry on windfall levies, the airline industry’s challenges to the international travel system during the COVID-19 restrictions, decisions to permit exploration, installation or exploitation of energy resources and decisions relating to national infrastructure such as airport runways. For example, he has 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.
• Education: Yaaser acted in a number of challenges against the Government’s approach to education and schools during COVID-19. 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 during the pandemic. More recently, he has acted for the Government in challenges to Academy Orders under the Academies Act 2010.
• Immigration, asylum and citizenship: Yaaser has acted in a number of significant cases including 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)). He was also instructed in the Court of Appeal case of R (Williams) v SSHD on whether requiring destitute children to pay a fee before obtaining British citizenship was ultra vires the primary legislation and/or a breach of Article 8 and/or 14 ECHR. This was a precursor to the R (PRCBC) v SSHD case which went to the Supreme Court.

A more detailed breakdown of the cases he has done recently in each of his specialisms can be found using the tabs on the right-hand side of this page.

Yaaser is a member of ALBA, JUSTICE and he is an ex-Chair of the Executive Committee of the Young Public Lawyers Group.

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

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

Commercial Judicial Reviews

Yaaser regularly acts in, and advises in relation to, challenges brought by individuals, commercial actors and industry bodies against the decisions of central government, regulators and other public bodies. To date, this includes matters in the following sectors:

• The renewables sector
• The energy sector
• The electricity market
• The airline industry
• The aeronautical sector
• The pharmaceutical industry
• The agricultural sector.

For example, Yaaser has advised in and acted on:

• A challenge by sections of the pharmaceutical industry relating to the pricing of branded medicines to the NHS. In R (BGMA) v SSHSC, the British Generic Manufacturers Association (BGMA) is challenging the Government’s decision to agree the next voluntary pricing scheme for branded medicines with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry only and not also with the BGMA. The voluntary scheme is an agreement, which manufacturers and suppliers of branded medicines can enter into, that controls the prices that can be charged to the NHS.
• Matters relating to windfall levies on the energy and renewables sectors, including in relation to the electricity generator levy and the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022.
• Challenges to the payment structure of the electricity capacity market.
• The 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.
• The airline industry’s challenges to the international travel system during the COVID-19 restrictions. This involved a challenge by Manchester Airport and a number of airlines to the system of allocating countries to the Red, Amber or Green list. News reports of the case can be seen in the Financial Times, the Telegraph, and the Guardian.
• The challenge to the proposed expansion to Heathrow Airport in the form of a third runway.
• The licensing of rocket launches and their lawfulness under the OSPAR Convention.
• Challenges to decisions permitting fracking wells
• The licensing of water abstraction by the Environment Agency affecting farmers in Norfolk.

Education

Yaaser acts on various education issues. His recent matters include:

• The challenge to the A-level results system that was set up by Ofqual in 2020 to award students grades according to an algorithm during the pandemic. News coverage of the issue and the challenge can be seen on the BBC, The Times, the Telegraph and the Guardian.
• Challenges to Government policy forcing students to return to school during the COVID-19 pandemic even where they or their families were especially at risk from COVID-19.
• Advising on the legality of mandating the use of masks in schools during COVID-19.
• Challenges to Academy Orders made by the Government requiring schools to join multi-academy trusts. For example,      R (Yew Tree Primary School) v Secretary of State for Education was a High Court challenge to the refusal of the Secretary of State to revoke an Academy order in circumstances where the COVID-19 pandemic had meant that Ofsted’s inspections had been suspended. News coverage of the challenge can be seen in the Guardian.
• A challenge to the Secretary of State’s allocation of Basic Need Funding for 2020/21. This relates to the amount of capital funding granted to local authorities to provide for increases in students. In R (Sandwell MBC) v Secretary of State for Education, the Council successfully argued that the nil allocation awarded by the Secretary of State was unlawful.
• Advising on a number of issues relating to the Academies Handbook.
• Advising on whether university students can seek relief from their universities – in the form of refunds or early termination of their accommodation – due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the move to remote teaching.

Energy and Utilities

Yaaser regularly acts in, and advises in relation to, challenges brought by individuals, commercial actors and industry bodies in the energy, renewables and waste sector against the decisions of central government, regulators and other public bodies.

For example, Yaaser has advised in and acted on:

• Matters relating to windfall levies on the energy and renewables sectors, including in relation to the electricity generator levy and the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022.
• Challenges to the payment structure of the electricity capacity market.
• The 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.
• The challenge by a commercial operator to a permit granted to a large energy from waste plant in the area of Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, Northern Ireland.
• Challenges to decisions permitting fracking wells. In R (Preston New Road Action Group) v SSCLG and Cuadrilla [2018] EWCA Civ 9, was a Court of Appeal challenge to the first horizontal fracking wells in the UK. The claim involved, amongst other things, air quality and climate change issues and whether the Environmental Impact Assessment was flawed. The claimants argued that the Secretary of State had not properly taken into account the climate change effects of the proposed fracking. It was also argued that the Secretary of State was not sufficiently cautious about other safety issues.
• Since April 2021, Yaaser has frequently been involved in challenges brought by energy companies against protestors carrying out direct action in or in the vicinity of oil refineries and terminals.

Human Rights and Civil Liberties

Yaaser is a specialist human rights barrister who has been involved in a wide range of cases involving issues relating to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights.

His recent cases include:

Free speech and protest: Yaaser acted for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in the Supreme Court challenge to the Abortion Service (Safe Access Zones) Bill, which makes it a criminal offence to protest within 100m of an abortion clinic. The Attorney General had argued that this was a breach of Articles 9, 10 and 11 ECHR. The case was reported on the BBC, the Guardian and the Independent. Yaaser also acted in the Sarah Everard vigil ban, which was a challenge to the decision of the Metropolitan Police to prohibit a vigil in Clapham Common, following the murder of Sarah Everard in March 2021, on the basis of the lockdown restrictions in place at that time. The case was reported on the BBC, Channel 4 and Sky News.

Yaaser is also 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 has been involved in approximately 20 protest hearings since 2022.

Abortion: Yaaser has acted in most of the important challenges on abortion issues over the last few years in England and Northern Ireland. This includes:

• Acting for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in the successful challenge to the failure of the Government to secure that abortion services are, in fact, available to women and girls in Northern Ireland following legalisation of abortion in the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020. Press reports of that challenge can be found on the BBC.
• A Court of Appeal challenge to the Abortion Act 1967 by claimants arguing that the primary legislation is a breach of their human rights insofar as it permits the abortion of foetuses with Down’s Syndrome at any point before birth. The case was reported on ITV News, The Independent, Sky News, BBC News, and The Guardian.
• A Court of Appeal challenge to the decision during the COVID-19 pandemic to permit both abortion pills to be taken at home for early medical abortions.
• Acting for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission as intervener in a Court of Appeal challenge by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children that measures taken by the Secretary of State to try to secure an abortion service in Northern Ireland are unconstitutional. The case was reported on BBC news and ITV News.

COVID-19: Yaaser acted in many cases involving challenges to restrictions imposed or other decisions made in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This included:

• The High Court challenges to the COVID-19 regulations requiring those who worked in social care and in the NHS to have been vaccinated against the virus.
• The test case challenging the Government policy in the first-wave of lockdown to transfer those in hospital to care homes.
• A number of challenges to decisions to put specific countries on the international travel Red list (e.g. Pakistan and Bangladesh), the failure to grant medical exemptions to those flying back from Red list countries who would otherwise have to quarantine in designated hotels, and the failure to grant fee waivers to those with financial hardship who have had to pay the cost of staying in those hotels.

Right to a fair trial (Article 6 ECHR): Yaaser acted in the Supreme Court challenge to the Gang Injunctions regime imposed by the Policing and Crime Act 2009 and whether it was compatible with Article 6 ECHR. He has also acted in the Court of Appeal challenge of JHB v DBS in which the Court of Appeal is considering whether an individual placed on the Disclosure and Barring Service’s lists, pursuant to the provisions in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, has an appeal on factual issues in the Upper Tribunal.

Right to life (Article 2 ECHR): Yaaser acted in the test case challenging the Government policy in the first-wave of lockdown to transfer those in hospital to care homes. One of the issues involved was whether the Government had breached the systems or operational duty in Article 2 ECHR by transferring individuals in hospitals to care homes without a requirement for testing or quarantining. He also acted in a challenge to the Government’s failure to update its air quality strategy to take into account the fact that poor air quality was exacerbating the impacts of COVID-19.

Inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3 ECHR): Yaaser acted for the AIRE Centre in AM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD involving 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). This was covered on the BBC, the Guardian and the Daily Mail. He also acted for the AIRE Centre in Hafeez v United Kingdom, which was an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights relating to an extradition request by the USA. It was argued that extradition of H would breach his Article 3 ECHR right to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment as he would be at risk of getting a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. The issue was whether the US mechanisms of Presidential clemency and compassionate release were sufficiently objective and fair.

Immigration

Yaaser has acted in a number of significant cases including:

• 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).
• The Supreme Court case of 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). This was covered on the BBC, the Guardian and the Daily Mail.  
• He was also instructed in the Court of Appeal case of R (Williams) v SSHD on whether requiring destitute children to pay a fee before obtaining British citizenship was ultra vires the primary legislation and/or a breach of Article 8 and/or 14 ECHR. This was a precursor to the R (PRCBC) v SSHD case which was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court.
• Re Chuinneagain’s Application for Judicial Review: A challenge by an Irish citizen, born and living in Northern Ireland, to the provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981 that confer British citizenship on her by birth without her having any choice and require a fee to be paid to renounce her British citizenship. This was said to be a breach of her human rights, in particular Article 8 ECHR.
• R (Elmalhouf) v SSHD: A High Court claim involving an ex-diplomat from Libya (member of the International Maritime Organisation based in London), his immigration status, and whether the Secretary of State had wrongfully retained his and his family’s passports for several months. This case followed Estrada v Al-Juffali [2016] 3 WLR 243 and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Bagga [1991] 1 QB 485.

Local Government including Local Government Finance

Yaaser has worked for a number of local governments on a broad range of public law issues. This has involved ongoing advice and representation on long-standing issues as well as one-off assistance. He regularly advises on issues relating to State aid, elections, community care, planning, education, housing and property issues.

His notable cases include:

• Lambeth LBC v SSCLG (2019) – Supreme Court case on whether an entirely new condition could be implied into a planning permission.
• Advising local authorities on when they can issue directions to stop events taking place in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
• R (Sandwell MBC) v Secretary of State for Education [2019]: Acting for the Council in a judicial review of the Secretary of State’s allocation of Basic Need Funding for 2020/21. This relates to the amount of capital funding granted to local authorities to provide for increases in students. The Council claimed that the nil allocation awarded by the Secretary of State was unlawful. The claim was worth over £10m.
• Advising a local authority on the legality of holding a referendum on a local issue at the same time as the local elections [2019]. This also involved issues relating to purdah.
• Acting for Sheffield City Council against tree protestors: Since March 2017, Yaaser has been advising and representing Sheffield City Council following direct action by protestors attempting to prevent the felling of trees on the highways. His assistance can be split into various phases:
  • There was, initially, an interim injunction application in the High Court. This was followed by a three-day trial in the High Court on issues of trespass and nuisance on the public highway and Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly) ECHR. Following the hearing, an injunction was granted. This case was widely covered in the national press, including on the BBC and ITV and in the Guardian.
  • Yaaser continues to advise and act for Sheffield City Council following alleged breaches of the injunction by protestors. This has culminated in several committal applications in the High Court; proceedings have been brought against individuals who continue to carry out direct action to prevent tree-felling notwithstanding the injunction prohibiting this. This has been in the national press, including in the Guardian.
  • Yaaser acted in the High Court proceedings for renewal of the injunction in summer 2018.

• R (Kerry) v SSHCLG (2020): High Court challenge to the refusal of planning permission for a rabbit farm near Hambleton Peninsula. Yaaser acted for Rutland County Council.
• R (Edward) v Royal Borough of Greenwich (2017): Yaaser acted for Greenwich in a High Court committal hearing. The claimant sought permission to commit two of Greenwich’s officers for making a false statement of truth in a previous judicial review.
• Assisting Wiltshire Council (2017): Yaaser was instructed by Wiltshire Council to assist defending a proposed judicial review of its complaints process and governance issues.
• R (Edward) v Royal Borough of Greenwich (2016): Yaaser acted for Greenwich in a High Court judicial review of decisions made with respect to housing allocation (Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996) and homelessness (Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996). The case included arguments on procedural unfairness, irrationality, breach of a legitimate expectation, unlawful deviation from policy, breaches of the Equality Act 2010 and various breaches of the ECHR.
• Ogunfeitimi v Royal Borough of Greenwich (2016): Yaaser acted for Greenwich in a Housing Act appeal on whether the claimant was eligible for housing assistance. The claimant raised arguments on the interests of her children and Article 8 ECHR.
• R (Jalal) v Royal Borough of Greenwich (2016): Yaaser acted for Greenwich in a High Court judicial review on whether a duty was owed to the claimant’s children as “children in need” (s17 of the Children Act 1989) and whether taking the accommodation away violated the claimant’s Article 8 ECHR right.
• Civil restraint order: Yaaser has advised a local authority in relation to the merits and prospects of obtaining a civil restraint order against a particular individual.

Yaaser regularly gives talks and training to local authorities, including recently a webinar on remote decision-making by local authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

NHS, Health and Community Care

Yaaser is a specialist barrister with particular expertise in the NHS, health and community care.

On abortion, he has acted in most of the important challenges over the last few years in England and Northern Ireland. This includes:

• Acting for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in the successful challenge to the failure of the Government to secure that abortion services are, in fact, available to women and girls in Northern Ireland following legalisation of abortion in the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020. Press reports of that challenge can be found on the BBC.
• A Court of Appeal challenge to the Abortion Act 1967 by claimants arguing that the primary legislation is a breach of their human rights insofar as it permits the abortion of foetuses with Down’s Syndrome at any point before birth. The case was reported on ITV News, The Independent, Sky News, BBC News, and The Guardian.
• A Court of Appeal challenge to the decision during the COVID-19 pandemic to permit both abortion pills to be taken at home for early medical abortions.
• Acting for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission as intervener in a Court of Appeal challenge by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children that measures taken by the Secretary of State to try to secure an abortion service in Northern Ireland are unconstitutional. The case was reported on BBC news and ITV News.

On regulation and commercial interests, he is instructed in a challenge brought by sections of the pharmaceutical industry relating to the pricing of branded medicines to the NHS. In R (BGMA) v SSHSC, the British Generic Manufacturers Association (BGMA) is challenging the Government’s decision to agree the next voluntary pricing scheme for branded medicines with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry only and not also with the BGMA. The voluntary scheme is an agreement, which manufacturers and suppliers of branded medicines can enter into, that controls the prices that can be charged to the NHS.    

He was also instructed in R (Good Law Project) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, involving a challenge to the Government’s approach to medicines shortages following Brexit. Regulation 9 of the Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2019 allows the Government to issue Serious Shortage Protocols where shortages of medicine are foreseen. This allows pharmacists unilaterally to substitute a different medicine or strength, quantity or pharmaceutical form of a medicine prescribed by a doctor. The challenge was brought on the basis that the Government did not have the power to do this, no equality impact assessment was carried out and the informal, private consultation undertaken was inadequate. The case was reported in the Guardian and in The Times.

On consenting issues, he acted in the High Court challenges to the COVID-19 regulations requiring those who worked in social care and in the NHS to have been vaccinated against the virus.

On data protection issues, he advised clients on the implications and lawfulness of the General Practice Data for Planning and Research Directions 2021, which required the sharing of sensitive GP patient data with NHS Digital and, potentially, third parties.

On issues affecting hospital property, he has advised and acted in cases in relation to evicting patients from their hospital beds and removing protestors preventing development. For example, he acted for Velindre NHS Trust in obtaining an injunction against protestors who were preventing the Trust from building its new cancer centre.   

On issues relating to community care, he acted in the test case challenging the Government policy in the first-wave of lockdown to transfer those in hospital to care homes. The issues involved whether the Government had breached the ECHR rights, or otherwise acted unlawfully, by transferring individuals in hospitals to care homes without a requirement for testing or quarantining.

Yaaser is a contributor to Adult Social Care Law (2018, LAG) and Children Social Care Law (2018, LAG).

Social Security

Yaaser regularly acts in appellate social security matters.

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. This was argued to be discriminatory and a breach of Article 8/A1P1 and 14 ECHR. 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. The case was covered on the BBC and the Mirror.

He has also been acting for the AIRE Centre in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal challenges to the availability of Universal Credit for those who have Pre-Settled Status in R (Fratila) v SSWP and AT v SSWP.

Yaaser acted in Kader v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, which involved an appeal on whether refugees’ ineligibility for the Sure Start Maternity Grant, if their first child was born abroad, amounted to discrimination under EU law and the ECHR.

He also acted in R (TP and AR) v SSWP in the first successful challenge to Universal Credit. The case involved a judicial review of Universal Credit and its discrimination against severely disabled persons contrary to Article 14 ECHR together with Article 1 Protocol 1 and Article 8 ECHR. This case was covered in the Guardian, the Independent and the Mirror.

Property

Yaaser is a specialist barrister with expertise in protest law and property. He has a background in both property law and human rights law, meaning that he is uniquely well-placed to act in claims relating to protest injunctions.

Yaaser is the author of the free online book Manual on Protest Injunctions: Practice, Procedure and Persons Unknown (2023), the only book dealing with this topic.

He has been instructed in around 20 protest and trespass hearings since 2022 and has also advised extensively on these issues, including in relation to claims brought by:

• Local authorities
• NHS trusts
• Universities
• Park authorities
• Security companies
• Energy companies.

Planning

Yaaser is a specialist planning barrister with experience in the infrastructure, energy, waste, commercial/retail and residential sectors. This experience overlaps with his expertise in the same sectors on public law and property law matters, giving him unique insight into these areas.

He regularly appears in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court as well as at Inquiries and hearings. He has been appointed to the Attorney General’s B Panel of Counsel. He is also called to the Northern Ireland Bar.

Yaaser is a contributing author to the Planning Encyclopedia.

Some of his recent matters include:

• Infrastructure: Yaaser acted for Network Rail in obtaining the Transport and Works Act Order for the East-West Rail scheme. He has also acted for Network Rail in obtaining the permission for the Cambridge Re-Signalling Scheme. Separately, he acted in the challenge to the proposed expansion to Heathrow Airport in the form of a third runway.
• Energy: Yaaser regularly deals with clients in the energy sector. He 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. He has also been instructed in challenges to decisions to permit fracking wells.
• Waste: Yaaser recently acted in a challenge by a commercial operator to a permit granted to a large energy from waste plant in the area of Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, Northern Ireland.
• Commercial, Retail and Residential: Yaaser regularly advises on commercial, retail and residential issues. He was instructed in the leading Supreme Court case of Lambeth LBC v SSCLG relating to the interpretation of planning conditions. He was also instructed in the Court of Appeal challenge to the redevelopment at Old Truman Brewery on Brick Lane. He has recently acted for a local authority at inquiry in an appeal of a decision refusing permission for over 200 dwellings.

Commercial/Retail

Yaaser regularly acts in general commercial matters for a wide variety of commercial clients, including being involved in high profile cases. He has recently been involved in the following matters:

• Lambeth LBC v SSHCLG – Supreme Court case on whether an entirely new condition can be implied into a planning permission.
• Acting for the developer in a Court of Appeal challenge to the permission granted to the Old Truman Brewery on Brick Lane, London, for redevelopment of the area – R (Spitalfields Historic Building Trust) v Tower Hamlets LBC.
• Acting for a commercial operator in Paul Newman New Homes v SSHCLG, a Court of Appeal challenge to the proper interpretation of paragraph 11 of the NPPF (2018) and, in particular, the circumstances in which the tilted balance is and is not engaged.
• A challenge to the decision to grant planning permission for the new Chelsea FC stadium: R (AB) v LB of Hammersmith and Fulham and Fordstam Ltd.
• A High Court challenge to the refusal to grant planning permission to a rabbit farm near Hambleton Peninsula: R (Kerry) v SSHCLG.

Energy

Yaaser regularly deals with clients in the energy and renewables sector not just on planning matters, but also on public law and property law issues. This gives him a particular insight into working in this sector.

His recent planning matters include the following:

• Acting 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. The High Court hearing was reported on the BBC and the Financial Times.
• Challenges to decisions permitting fracking wells. In R (Preston New Road Action Group) v SSCLG and Cuadrilla [2018] EWCA Civ 9, was a Court of Appeal challenge to the first horizontal fracking wells in the UK. The claim involved, amongst other things, air quality and climate change issues and whether the Environmental Impact Assessment was flawed. The claimants argued that the Secretary of State had not properly taken into account the climate change effects of the proposed fracking. It was also argued that the Secretary of State was not sufficiently cautious about other safety issues.
• Ofgem and electricity transmission infrastructure: Involving an application by a third party for electricity transmission infrastructure and other issues related to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and Development Consent Orders.

Environment

Yaaser has been instructed in some very high profile environmental matters in a broad range of areas, including fracking, Premiership football stadiums, building on public parks and land appropriation. He has particular experience in air quality and climate change issues.

His notable cases include:

• Heathrow Airport 3^rd Runway challenge (2019): High Court judicial review of the proposed expansion to Heathrow Airport in the form of a third runway. Yaaser acted for the Second Interested Party, Arora Group, one of the principal landowners at and around Heathrow Airport. There were various challenges to the proposal, including on noise, air pollution and climate change grounds as well as on competition law grounds. National media coverage of the case can be found in the Guardian, the BBC and the Financial Times.
• Upton Historic Parkland Conservation Group v SSCLG (2019): Yaaser acted for the successful Claimant, resulting in the quashing of a decision by an Inspector that granted prior approval to the developer to change an agricultural barn into flexible commercial use. This had been applied for under the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, Schedule 2, Part 3, Class R. The High Court found that the Inspector had applied the wrong test.
• R (Preston New Road Action Group) v SSCLG and Cuadrilla (2018): A Court of Appeal challenge to the first horizontal fracking wells in the UK. The claim involved, amongst other things, air quality issues and whether Environmental Impact Assessment was flawed.
• R (AB) v LB of Hammersmith and Fulham and Fordstam Ltd (2017): A challenge to the decision to grant planning permission for the new Chelsea FC stadium. This was based on air quality, procedural fairness and a challenge to the conditions in the planning permission.
• R (Burton) v SSCLG and Cuadrilla (2017): A challenge to a decision made in relation to fracking sites in Lancashire. A decision by the Secretary of State that a further inquiry should take place to reinvestigate highway safety issues was challenged as unlawful.
• Building on open space (2017): Yaaser assisted a local community in Newcastle in relation to a permission for development on their neighbouring open space.
• R (Moore) v SSCLG (2016): Judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to grant consent to a local authority to appropriate allotment land for redevelopment. The decision was challenged on the bases of irrationality, misdirection, A1P1 ECHR and legitimate expectations. Yaaser appeared in the High Court for the National Allotment Society (interested party).

Infrastructure

Yaaser has a particular interest in infrastructure and his practice reflects that. He has recently been involved in the following matters:

• East-West Rail scheme: This is a £1bn project in which Yaaser successfully acted for Network Rail in a Transport and Works Act inquiry that spanned ten weeks in relation to the reinstatement and upgrading of the train line between Oxford and Cambridge, including new stations and platforms on the route.
• Cambridge Re-Signalling scheme: Yaaser acted for Network Rail in promoting a £200m project scheme to renew the signalling systems and upgraded 7 level crossings in the Cambridge area.
• Cambridge South station Transport and Works Act Order: Yaaser acted for AstraZeneca who, although in principle welcomed the scheme, objected to various aspects of the application.
• Heathrow Airport 3^rd Runway challenge: Judicial review of the proposed expansion to Heathrow Airport in the form of a third runway. There were various challenges to the proposal, including on noise, air pollution and climate change grounds as well as on competition law grounds. National media coverage of the case can be found in the Guardian, the BBC and the Financial Times.

Planning Enforcement and Injunctions

Yaaser frequently advises on and appears at enforcement matters in inquiries, hearings, the Magistrates’ Court and the Crown Court.

His notable cases include:

• London Borough of Brent v (1) BSH 3 Ltd (2) Hallmark Estates Ltd (2017): A claim where the local authority argued that the defendants’ had failed to comply with improvement notices (Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004) and were, therefore, guilty of criminal offences. Yaaser succeeded in proving that the local authority had acted ultra vires and that there was a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the notices.
• London Borough of Brent v Clear Channel UK Ltd (2017): Yaaser appeared in Willesden Magistrates Court on behalf of the defendant. The local authority argued that the defendant, an advertising company, had failed to comply with an Advertisement Removal Notice.
• Gardeners Farm Inquiry (2016): Appearing on behalf of Maldon District Council at an inquiry in an appeal against an enforcement notice issued by the local authority. The issue was whether a building had been used as a self-contained dwelling for at least four years.
• R v Lashmar (2016): A claim in Chelmsford Crown Court where the local authority argued that the defendant had failed to comply with enforcement notices and had, therefore, committed criminal offences.
• Ghetia Ltd v London Borough of Newham (2016) – The appellant appealed a notice (s215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) related to the appearance of its shop following redevelopment of Romford Road.

Residential

Yaaser regularly acts in, and advises on, challenges to planning decisions for applicants, local authorities and the Secretary of State. He also has significant experience on issues ranging from CIL liability to affordable housing.

His notable cases include:

• Lambeth LBC v SSCLG (2019) – Supreme Court case on whether an entirely new condition can be implied into a planning permission. Yaaser is acting for a local authority.
• Paul Newman New Homes v SSHCLG (2020): Court of Appeal challenge to the proper interpretation of paragraph 11 of the NPPF (2018) and, in particular, the circumstances in which the tilted balance is and is not engaged.
• R (Kerry) v SSHCLG (2020): High Court challenge to the refusal to grant planning permission to a rabbit farm near Hambleton Peninsula. Yaaser acted for Rutland County Council.
• R (Crantock Parish Council) v Cornwall City Council (2018): Acting for the Parish Council in relation to a challenge to a large residential scheme in Crantock.
• Acting for the Secretary of State on various challenges to residential schemes in Central Bedfordshire (2018).
• Acting for Aldi in a High Court challenge brought by a rival supermarket to a development in Swindon.
• R (Fishron Properties Ltd) v Basingstoke and Deane BC (2017): Judicial review of a decision by the local authority to dispose of a site to a third party (hotel) with an exclusivity clause that hotel use not be allowed for any other lease in the area. The case also involved potential breaches of the Competition Act 1998.
• Challenge to Garden Villages (2017): Challenging the Government’s decision to award funding to one of the 14 proposed new garden villages. This focused on the lack of housing need and flaws in the draft Local Plan relied upon by the Government.
• No McDonald’s Resident Action Group Inquiry (2016): Sole counsel in a two-week inquiry 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.
• Land at 349 Glovershaw Lane (2016): Sole counsel for the applicant at a hearing in a claim that a parcel of land of interest to the applicant should be from the register of common land as it was wrongly registered as common land several decades ago.
• Sheffield City Council v Oakleigh Homes 2013 Ltd (2016): A claim involving enforcement of payments agreed with developers in s106 agreements.

Community Infrastructure Levy and s106 contributions: Yaaser regularly advises on CIL liability, s106 contributions, pooling restrictions and related issues. In his most recent CIL appeal, Yaaser successfully saved a housebuilder £165,000.

Environment

Yaaser is a specialist barrister with expertise in environmental law and all of its constituent parts, including matters relating to climate change, air quality, ecology, energy, habitats, waste and marine issues.

He has been instructed in some very high-profile environmental matters in a broad range of areas, including gas storage, the Heathrow 3^rd runway, fracking and Premiership football stadiums.

His recent matters include the following:

• Heathrow Airport 3^rd Runway challenge: Judicial review of the proposed expansion to Heathrow Airport in the form of a third runway. There were various challenges to the proposal, including on noise, air pollution and climate change grounds as well as on competition law grounds.
• Acting for the developer in a challenge brought by Friends of the Earth to the marine 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. The High Court hearing was reported on the BBC and the Financial Times.
• Challenges to decisions permitting fracking wells. In R (Preston New Road Action Group) v SSCLG and Cuadrilla [2018] EWCA Civ 9, was a Court of Appeal challenge to the first horizontal fracking wells in the UK. The claim involved, amongst other things, air quality and climate change issues and whether the Environmental Impact Assessment was flawed. The claimants argued that the Secretary of State had not properly taken into account the climate change effects of the proposed fracking. It was also argued that the Secretary of State was not sufficiently cautious about other safety issues.
• Challenging the Government’s Clean Air Strategy on the basis of the evidence showing a link between poor air quality and COVID-19 incidence and mortality: R (Good Law Project) v SSEFRA.
• Advising on the licensing of rocket launches under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and their lawfulness under the OSPAR Convention.
• A challenge to the decision to grant planning permission for the new Chelsea FC stadium: R (AB) v LB of Hammersmith and Fulham and Fordstam Ltd. This was largely based on air quality grounds.
• Acting in a challenge before the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee on a complaint made about the English system on costs caps in environmental challenges.
• Acting for Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council, Northern Ireland, in a challenge brought against a historic planning permission obtained for quarrying works at Craigall Quarry in Kilrea, Coleraine.

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

Highways and Rights of Access

Local Government

Public Interest Litigation