Leon Glenister

Public and Administrative

The core of Leon’s practice involves public law and judicial review. He is widely recognised as one of the leading barristers in this area, ranked as a leading practitioner 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 was described in the Legal 500 as “one of the best public lawyers of his generation”. He has been shortlisted twice for Junior of the Year in Public Services and Charities at the Legal 500 UK Bar Awards.

Leon is appointed to the Attorney General’s A Panel of Counsel, the most senior panel acting for central government. However, he strictly maintains a balanced practice, acting for and against public bodies, as well as for interveners. His work covers the breadth of public law, including (but not limited to) cases involving a commercial aspect, ombudsman decisions, regulation, discrimination, consultation, local government, human rights and civil liberties.

He is co-author of NHS Law and Practice (LAG, 2024); and the ‘No-nonsense Noddy Guide to SEN Law’, a free guide to special educational needs law. He is a contributing author to 'Children's Social Care Law' (LAG, 2018) and 'Adult Social Care Law' (LAG, 2019).

Relevant cases

• Successfully defending a judicial review claim challenging the lawfulness of the guidance on the length of a school week, in the context of a special school temporarily reducing its hours (R (CHO) v Governors of Lonsdale School and ors [2026] EWHC 166 (Admin))
• Successfully acting for the appellant in setting aside a decision that a young person did not require a 52 week residential special school placement (HJ v Birmingham City Council [2025] UKUT 323 (AAC))

• Successfully resisting a judicial review against a school’s decision to permanently exclude a pupil, which considered the interaction between the legal frameworks for exclusion and child criminal exploitation (R (RWU) v A Governing Body [2025] EWCA Civ 147).

• Successfully resisting a judicial review regarding an important argument on statutory interpretation in the teaching regulatory framework (R (Aquilina) v Secretary of State for Education [2024] EWHC 1998 (Admin)).
• An appeal on the relevancy of a child’s views on the educational placement named in their Education, Health and Care Plan (TM and SM v Liverpool City Council [2024] UKUT 201 (AAC)).
• A challenge to a local authority’s implementation of social care recommendations made by the FTT (R (LS) v LB Merton [2024] EWHC 584 (Admin)).
• Successfully acting in the Court of Appeal 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 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)).
• 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)).
• 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)).
• 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 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).
• 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)).
• 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).
• 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).
• An appeal to the Supreme Court on the scope of PIP entitlement (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v MM [2019] UKSC 34).
• 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 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 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 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)).
• 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.
• Challenging a school’s decision to withdraw admission of a student (R (LH) v X School [2017] EWHC 1985 (Admin)).
• Acting for the Registrar General in relation to the registration of a birth following the use of donor sperm (Application K [2017] EWHC 50 (Fam)).
• 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 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)).
• 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.
• 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)).
• 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)).
• Challenging the decision of Lambeth Council to regenerate Cressingham Gardens Estate (R (Plant) v Lambeth London Borough Council [2016] EWHC 3324 (Admin); R (Bokrosova) v LB Lambeth [2015] EWHC 3386 (Admin)).
• 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)).
• A challenge regarding 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)).

Education

Leon is one of the foremost education barristers at the UK Bar. He is ranked as a leading practitioner in ‘Band 1’ (the top tier) in both of the legal directories, Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500. He is described in this area as “capable far beyond his call, resilient, unflappable”; having a “superb ability to present complex technical issues clearly and persuasively” and a “lovely manner with clients and experts”; and “absolutely on it”. He was shortlisted for Junior of the Year in Public Services and Charities at the Legal 500 UK Bar Awards.

He is instructed in complex and high profile cases across the education sector, and is instructed by all sides: education institutions (all types of schools, universities, nurseries), accreditation bodies, regulators, parents, students, and he regularly acts for the Department for Education. His cases regularly concern statutory duties, public law issues, discrimination, funding and special educational needs. He is also instructed to undertake investigations, both at a school and council level, including the Independent Review on the Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment process at Hertfordshire County Council (report available here).

He is the co-author of the ‘No-nonsense Noddy Guide to SEN Law’, a free legal guide to special educational needs and the leading legal resource on special educational needs law.

Relevant cases

• Successfully defending a judicial review claim challenging the lawfulness of the guidance on the length of a school week, in the context of a special school temporarily reducing its hours (R (CHO) v Governors of Lonsdale School and ors [2026] EWHC 166 (Admin))
• Successfully acting for the appellant in setting aside a decision that a young person did not require a 52 week residential special school placement (HJ v Birmingham City Council [2025] UKUT 323 (AAC))
• Successfully resisting a judicial review against a school’s decision to permanently exclude a pupil, which considered the interaction between the legal frameworks for exclusion and child criminal exploitation (R (RWU) v A Governing Body [2025] EWCA Civ 147).
• Successfully resisting a judicial review regarding an important argument on statutory interpretation in the teaching regulatory framework (R (Aquilina) v Secretary of State for Education [2024] EWHC 1998 (Admin)).
• An appeal on the relevancy of a child’s views on the educational placement named in their Education, Health and Care Plan (TM and SM v Liverpool City Council [2024] UKUT 201 (AAC)).
• A challenge to a local authority’s implementation of social care recommendations made by the FTT (R (LS) v London Borough of Merton [2024] EWHC 584 (Admin)).
• Acting for the Secretary of State in a judicial review challenging a determination of which local authority was responsible for a particular child.
• 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 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)).
• Acting in relation to a series of challenges by universities against decisions not to re-award initial teacher training (ITT) accreditation.
• 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, 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 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 County Council v Secretary of State for Education [2020] EWHC 1675 (Admin).
• 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 London Borough of 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 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).
• Challenging a 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)).
• 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 for parents in a challenge against Somerset County Council’s funding cuts for special educational need provision, as reported on the BBC.
• An appeal on the jurisdiction of the FTT to make costs orders (UA v London Borough of Haringey [2016] UKUT 0087 (AAC)).
• 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)).

Healthcare

Leon has a particular specialism in NHS law, healthcare and related areas. He is the co-author of the leading text in the area, NHS Law and Practice (LAG, 2024). He was shortlisted for Junior of the Year in Public Services and Charities at the Legal 500 UK Bar Awards.

He has acted in a number of leading cases involving the NHS, including regularly at appellate level, for example challenges involving the scope of the right to autonomy in the context of medical treatment, the purchase of GP surgeries by a company controlled by US-based Centene Corporation, the accountable care organisation contract, reconfiguration of health services in Oxfordshire, and in the litigation concerning Alfie Evans.

He maintains a balanced practice in the area, regularly acting for commissioners, healthcare providers, patients and other interested persons. His work includes, but is not limited to, commissioning, continuing care disputes, reconfiguration of NHS services, disputes on the responsible commissioner, primary care contracting and the reconfiguration of services.

Relevant cases

• 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 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 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)).
• 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 recognised as a leading barrister in planning and environmental law and was shortlisted as Junior of the Year in Planning and Land Use at the Legal 500 UK Bar Awards. He is described by the legal directories in this area as “extremely efficient and bright”; having an “excellent manner with clients”; an “excellent advocate”; and a “real pleasure to work with”.

He is particularly sought after for his specialism in High Court challenges, as well as other advisory work. His cases are often complex and high profile, usually involving engagement with public law principles. He has recently acted in the ‘bridge to nowhere’ case and the challenge to PINS’ use of appeal planning officers; and is currently instructed in the challenge to the Local Plan for Manchester and surrounding areas and the challenge to the permission for development on the Bristol Zoo site.

Relevant cases

• Challenging the grant of planning permission to redevelop the Bristol Zoo site (Save Bristol Gardens Alliance Ltd v Bristol City Council [2025] EWHC 3191 (Admin)).
• Successfully resisting a challenge to the ‘Places for Everyone’ local plan, the joint development plan document for Greater Manchester and surrounding areas (Save Greater Manchester Green Belt Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2025] EWHC 2742 (Admin)).
• 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 Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [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 District Council [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 Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [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 Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [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 (London Borough of 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 Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2019] EWHC 1987 (Admin)).
• Acting for a rule 6 party at a four-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 Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2019] EWHC 1862 (Admin)).
• Acting for the developers at a six-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 Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [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 Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [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 Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [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)).