COVID-19: Guidance Tracker

Stuart Jessop

Call: 2002


Stuart is a highly regarded and experienced regulatory and public Law specialist. His public law work is wide ranging and includes judicial review, other administrative law, inquests, licensing, planning, highways, infrastructure, transport, and local government generally. His regulatory law experience is also substantial and varied and includes most areas of regulation but particularly in the following disciplines: animals, environmental, environmental health, food, health and safety, licensing, planning and trading standards. The independent legal directories say this about him:

Calm, confident, measured and reassuring, he has an impressive memory and excellent recall of the papers. He offers incisive advice and, as well as being an excellent lawyer and strategist, he is also someone who is emotionally intelligent.

Chambers UK Bar Guide [2020]

“An extremely personable, efficient and hardworking advocate.”

“Has an excellent eye for detail and provides advice expediently.”

Legal 500 [2020]

“He simply never fails to impress me with his forensic attention to detail and flexible dynamic thinking.”

“He can come in last minute and turn a case around for his client.”

Chambers UK Bar Guide [2019]

“Advises in a number of high-profile projects.”

Legal 500 [2019]

“He can have a case file for five minutes and know it inside out straight away. He doesn’t get caught out by curve balls.” “The advice he gives to clients is clear and concise.”

Chambers UK Bar Guide [2018]

“Organised and quick-thinking.”

Legal 500 [2017]

“He is exceptionally personable and garners the trust of his clients”

Legal 500 [2016]

“Excellent at identifying issues and setting out the way forward.”

Legal 500 [2015]

Invariably, he acts either alone or as leading counsel, against other experienced counsel or Queen’s Counsel in matters of complexity and importance. He is frequently instructed by companies of various sizes and in many different sectors, trade unions, trade associations, local authorities and regulators. Much of his work involves significant issues of law and or fact and invariably very technical expert evidence. His work takes him to a variety of courts. He is often in the criminal courts in both criminal and civil regulatory matters. His experience practising in serious criminal law for many years and his general regulatory expertise means he understands these courts and criminal regulatory proceedings generally. Stuart is instructed in many criminal regulatory cases where proceedings are commenced under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and Stuart has a particular specialism in these types of cases.

He also frequently appears in both the First Tier Tribunal and the Upper (Administrative Appeals) Tribunal and the High Court in judicial review, case stated and other statutory appeals. Stuart regularly appears before the licensing sub-committee and planning committee and before the planning inspector in public inquiries and hearings. He has experience of the county courts but his focus on where civil cases involve one of his core specialisms.

His areas of specialism are listed alphabetically below.

Click onto the specific subject area below or scroll down to see all practice specialisms:-


Administrative and Public Law (including Local Government)



Food Law

Health and Safety (including Inquests)



Trading Standards


Appointed to the List of Specialist Regulatory Advocates in Health & Safety and Environmental Law (List A) prosecuting the most serious offences.


BSc (Hons) Psych (1st)
Professional Licensing Practitioners Qualification (PLPQ)
Professional Certificate in Data Protection (PC.dp)


Prince of Wales Scholarship


Other Roles

Tribunal chair on appeals made by members of the Showman’s Guild.


Author of “A Practical Guide to Hackney Carriage Licensing in London
Co-author of “A Practical Guide to Environmental Enforcement” (To be published Summer 2020)


Administrative and Public Law (including Local Government)

Stuart’s practice is almost exclusively focused on cases which have, at their heart, decisions by public bodies, affecting companies, other organisations or individuals in different ways. He acts for companies, individuals and public bodies. He is regularly instructed to advise and act in relation to the bringing or resisting of judicial review claims, statutory appeals and appeals by way of case stated, as well as acting and advising in other public and administrative law matters generally. His judicial review practice covers a wide spectrum of decisions in a broad range of specialisms. Many of his cases are concerned with claims by companies against decisions by regulators as well as cases involving decisions made by local authorities and by the police. Areas covered include commercial judicial review, local government powers and governance, planning, environment, environmental health, highways, health and safety, food, animals, anti-social behaviour, housing, regulatory law, police powers and criminal justice and human rights. He has a specialism where cases involve regulatory and or criminal justice issues within public law proceedings, including judicial review or appeals by way of case stated in respect of decisions of regulators or courts and tribunals in regulatory proceedings. This can include decisions by regulators or local authorities in respect or permits, licences, planning permissions, regulatory enforcement or prosecutions as well as other decisions of public bodies and connected matters. He has a firm knowledge of the powers of regulators and law enforcement agencies as well as of local government.

Stuart regularly advises in respect of local authority policies, powers and duties both for Councils and for organisations and individuals affected by those powers and policies. His local government experience is broad. He is instructed in housing, anti-social behaviour, licensing, planning and environment, food safety, health and safety, environmental health and is knowledgeable in local authority powers and decision-making.

Recent cases include:

Ward and others v Food standards Agency [2020]: judicial review of the lawfulness of the regulator’s decision to suspend three slaughtermen’s certificates of competence until the conclusion of criminal proceedings. Stuart represents the claimants in this on-going claim. Permission to proceed granted at a recent oral hearing.

Aboutboul v LB of Barnet [2020] EWHC 285 (Admin): case stated and then application for permission to bring claim for judicial review. Stuart represented the Respondent local authority in this appeal against the decision of a magistrates’ court in convicting the Appellant for failing to comply with a planning enforcement notice. The case concerned whether the notices were nullities and the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.

R (On the application of Chesterfield Poultry Ltd) v Sheffield Magistrates’ Court [2019] EWHC 2953 (Admin): Stuart represented the company in its challenge to bring a prosecution under the Welfare at the Time of Killing (England) regulations 2015 arguing that the proceedings were out of time.

R (On the application of Beth Golding) v Crown Court sitting at Maidstone v Chief Constable of Kent [2019] EWHC 2029 (Admin): Stuart acted for the interested party, the Chief Constable of Kent. The claim was for judicial review of the crown court’s decision to make a civil destruction order of a pit-bull dog. Stuart successfully argued that the decision was not unlawful.

R (On the application of United Cabbies Group (London) Ltd) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court v TFL v LTDA v Uber London Ltd [2019] EWHC 409: Stuart represented (led by a Q.C.) the United Cabbie’s Group Ltd in their judicial review of the Chief Magistrates’ decision to grant them a new operator’s licence.

Farmer’s Fresh Ltd v FSA [2020] Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals): an appeal from the FTT (GRC) concerning whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an enforcement notice where it has already been withdrawn. Appeal on-going.

Balacescu v FSA [2020] Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals): appeal against the FTT’s decision to refuse an extension of time to appeal against a decision by the regulator to revoke a slaughterman’s licence.

BSG Ltd v LB of Harrigey ]2019] Stuart drafted grounds of claim for a judicial review against the decision of the local planning authority to serve a planning contravention notice under the Town and Country planning act 1990, on a landlord requiring information, when such a requirement was made after the landlord had entered not guilty pleas in respect an alleged breach of a planning enforcement notice. The authority decided to then withdraw the notice.

RH Meats Ltd v FSA [2019]: stuart advised and drafted grounds of claim in this judicial review against the FSA’s alleged policy in respect of the duties of official veterinarians after contracted hours had expired.

Judicial review: Advising a resident’s group on the merits of bringing a judicial review against the local authority’s refusal to enforce against an unlawful development of a school on consecrated ground.

Case stated: Advising a local authority in respect of a decision by a magistrates’ court not to grant a Hygiene Emergency prohibition Order where it claimed there was no jurisdiction to do so. Stuart was able to produce authority for this decision being wrong and advised asking the court to remake the decision which was done. It did and granted the order.

Statutory Appeal to the High Court: Stuart was instructed to advise the local authority on an appeal by a large corporate (represented by Q.C.) against the making of a Road Traffic Order implementing a large Low Emission Zone in London.

Judicial review: advising a local authority in its response to a claim for judicial review of its selective housing licensing policy.

Advising a local authority on obtaining an injunction for anti-social behaviour against a vexatious resident conducting a course of harassment against the head of a school.

Judicial Review of a local authority’s decision to refuse to grant a licence for the Claimant’s music festival shortly before it was due to take place. Stuart acted on behalf of the Festival organiser.

Judicial Review of the Food Standards Agency’s decision not to grant approval for the Claimant’s abattoir on animal welfare grounds. Stuart acted for the company.

Judicial Review by a claimant seeking to challenge the local authority’s delegated power to bring a prosecution for a breach of planning enforcement notice and the significance of a failure to give reasons for prosecuting the director of the company. Stuart successfully represented the local authority at the oral permission hearing.

Acting for a local authority in resisting a claim for Judicial Review in respect of a certificate of lawful use in the context of consideration as to whether there had been compliance with a planning enforcement notice.

Advising a police force on the scope and meaning of section 196C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of a request by a local planning authority for police assistance on conducting planning enquiries on a site where other agencies were also present purporting to be acting under the Act.

A challenge to a magistrates’ court’s decision to allow an application by the defence in an environmental prosecution to stay the proceedings on the basis that the original proceedings had been dismissed for want of a prosecutor and the new proceedings were therefore unlawful.

A case concerning the power of the magistrates’ court to re-open civil proceedings in that court.

Advising a property development company on the merits of challenging a Breach of Condition Notice by way of Judicial Review

Advising an objector to a grant of planning permission the merits of challenging the decision alleged to be contrary to the local plan, by way of Judicial Review.

Advising and representing a taxi Association in a challenge to a licensing authority’s proposed policy on granting new PHV and taxi licences.



Stuart is regularly instructed to represent slaughterhouses, slaughtermen and farmers in cases concerning the Welfare at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015, the Mandatory use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses (England) Regulations 2018, The Animal Welfare Act 2006 and other related EU and domestic legislation. He acts for companies and individuals who are embers of the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers (AIMS). Such cases are often heard in the First Tier Tribunal (General regulatory Chamber) and on appeal to the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals) as well as in criminal cases in the magistrates’ court and on appeal to the crown court or High Court by way of a case stated. He is currently instructed in a case before the Upper Tribunal concerning the issue of an enforcement notice and whether the FTT has jurisdiction to hear such a case in circumstances where the notice has been withdrawn. He is also instructed in several appeals against the suspension and or revocation of the certificates of competence of slaughtermen at abattoirs before the FTT.

In one on-going case he represents three slaughtermen in their claim for judicial review against a decision by the Food Standards Agency to suspend their certificates on a holding basis whilst a decision is taken in respect of criminal proceedings. He is also currently instructed in several criminal prosecutions, defending slaughtermen and abattoirs alleged to have committed animal welfare offences. In a recent well published case Stuart represented an abattoir charged with welfare offences where an animal activist organisation has secretly placed covert cameras inside the premises. Stuart was able to show that the cameras had been placed illegally and that the circumstances created unfairness so that the footage from the cameras should be excluded from evidence in the trial. The defendants were then acquitted. Although most of his work in this area has been representing those who work with animals Stuart has previously worked for the FSA and is able to take instructions from local authorities where they have jurisdiction to enforce.

In addition to this work, Stuart if known for his knowledge of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Dogs Act 1871 and other related legislation. He has acted for police forces and individuals in applications for destruction orders and other applications and proceedings under dangerous dogs legislation generally. In a recent case Stuart was instructed by Kent Police to defend a judicial review of a civil destruction order in respect of a pit-bull dog in the High Court, see the case of R (On the application of Beth Golding) v Crown Court sitting at Maidstone v Chief Constable of Kent [2019] EWHC 2029 (Admin).

All of this work involves very technical legal arguments often stemming from European Union law and also invariably the need to cross exam veterinary experts on technical scientific issues. Stuart is well placed to deal with these aspects of this type of work.

Recent examples include:

R v C: currently defending a large poultry company in a prosecution where it is alleged that 5000 chickens were allowed to die in hot weather.

R v F Farm: Successfully defended an abattoir in allegations that it allowed staff to be cruel to sheep undergoing slaughter. Stuart raised doubts about the reliability of video footage from unlawfully placed covert cameras in the abattoir and was able to have the footage excluded from the trial. The prosecution then offered no evidence.

W and others v FSA: a claim in the High Court for a judicial review of the decision to suspend three slaughtermen’s certificate of competence to carry out their jobs. Permission initially refuse then Stuart successfully argued at a oral hearing that the claim should proceed. Stuart is also representing the men in the concurrent appeal against the decision to the FTT.

SB v FSA: [2020] representing this abattoir owner in his appeal to the FTT against the FSA’s decision to revoke his certificate of competence.

Farmer’s Fresh Ltd v FSA [2020] Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals): an appeal from the FTT (GRC) concerning whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an enforcement notice where it has already been withdrawn. Appeal on-going.

Balacescu v FSA [2020] Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals): appeal against the FTT’s decision to refuse an extension of time to appeal against a decision by the regulator to revoke a slaughterman’s licence.

JB v FSA [2020]: representing this abattoir in its appeal to the FTT against the service of a Welfare Enforcement Notice. The legal issue concerns what amounts to a reasonable demand for the production of the animal operating procedures.

R v N Ltd [2019]: representing abattoir in a prosecution for welfare offences

M v APHA : advising in respect of a decision by the Animal and Plant Health Agency to suspend a licence granted to a driver involved in the transport of animals.

R (On the application of Beth Golding) v Crown Court sitting at Maidstone v Chief Constable of Kent [2019] EWHC 2029 (Admin): Judicial review of Crown court’s decision to grant a destruction order under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Stuart represented the Interested Party (Chief Constable)

Peterborough Borough Council v K [2018]: Successfully defended a farmer charged with numerous animal welfare offences.

G v Dangerous dogs [2019]: advice to dog owner in respect of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the Dogs Act 1871

Dangerous Dogs Act and Dogs Act applications for orders [2016-2020]: numerous cases acting on behalf of the police and individuals in applications for dog destruction orders.

R v R [2018]: appeal against conviction for this food business operator who had allegedly caused a cow unnecessary suffering after it had fallen in his abattoir on way to be slaughtered. Expert evidence was served to show that there was no breach of animal welfare and that his actions were necessary to prevent suffering and serious injury to his staff and others working there. The case was withdrawn by the prosecution.



Stuart is a specialist environmental practitioner. He is appointed to the A list of the Specialist regulatory panel for the Environmental Agency prosecuting the most serious of environmental offences. He is the co-author of a book on environmental enforcement law to be published summer 2020 and regularly speaks on environmental law.

He covers most environmental issues but has a interest in, environmental enforcement, waste, water, contaminated land, climate change, species and habitats, environmental impact assessments, and nuisance.

Recent cases include:

B&W lounge v London Borough [2020]: appeal against an abatement notice for nuisance caused by noise

Advising a local authority on its legal duties and obligations in respect of a very large-scale development on contaminate land and nuisance from escaping gasses [2019-2020].

Advising a local authority on its obligations in respect of contaminated land [2019]

Prosecuting a waste company alleged to have allowed an oil spill to pollute a river [2020]

Defending a school in a prosecution by a water company for offences under the Water industry Act 1991 [2020]

Defending a school in proceedings for an abatement order under section 80 Environmental protection Act 1990 [2019]

Defending a waste company in respect of the unlawful depositing of controlled waste [2019]. Successful in reducing the amount of fine imposed on appeal.

Nuisance: representing a local authority in defending this appeal against the service of an abatement notice on a dairy and milk producer {2018].

Nuisance: successfully represented this restaurant and bar in challenging the service of an abatement notice [2018].

Nuisance: successfully represented a well know London pub in its challenge to the service of an abatement notice [2018].

Defending a waste company charged with waste offences and subsequent Proceeds of Crime proceedings [2018].


Food Law

Stuart is ranked as a leading junior by the Legal 500 legal directory in consumer law, mainly for his food law practice. Advice and representation are provided in cases relating to all breaches of the food safety and hygiene laws including prosecutions and other non-criminal proceedings in respect of the service of notices, under the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013. His work covers criminal proceedings, civil proceedings in the criminal courts, the tribunals, the High Court and advisory work. He has a deep understanding of European and domestic legislation which underpins work in this area. He is a member of the Food Law Group and lectures widely on Food Law. He is often asked to advise companies and regulators in respect of investigations by local authorities or the Food Standards Agency or on the regulatory aspects of civil proceedings. He is a specialist in all areas of food law, and other connected matters such as laws and regulations concerning health and nutrition claims, packaging and labelling, food information, human medicines, and animal welfare and proceedings under the Welfare at the Time of killing Regulations. He acts for both the regulator and the regulated and has represented or acted against some well-known food business operators in the past.

Recent cases include:

FSA v H [2020]: successfully defended this company in a prosecution brought by the FSA under the Food safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013.

Bury BC v BD [2019]: successfully defended this meat wholesaler against alleged offences under the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013, of placing unsafe foods on the market and traceability.

FSA v J [2020]: currently defending this abattoir in a prosecution for alleged breaches of EU legislation is respect of food hygiene.

FSA v C [2019]: defending this company in respect of food hygiene allegations at its poultry production plant.

London Borough of Waltham Forest v L: currently prosecuting this individual food business operator for food safety offences [2020].

London Borough of Waltham Forest v Two Companies [2020]: successfully advised on an application to obtain an Emergency Hygiene prohibition Order (HEPO) refused by the magistrates’ court. Stuart advised asking them to revisit the decision with supporting authority to say it was unlawful, thus avoiding a costly case stated appeal.

Food Company v LB of WF [2020]: currently advising in resisting this appeal to the FTT by a company served with a notice under the Food Information Regulations [2014] and the food Information to Consumers (FIC) Regulations EC No 1169/2011, concerning information on packaging.

FSA v manager: on going advice in respect of a very large-scale investigation into alleged food fraud at a substantial food manufacturer [2019 – 2020]

P Foods Ltd [2019]: advising food manufacturer on regulatory aspects of a civil claim for breach of contract.

London Borough v Iceland Superstores [2018]: prosecuting for hygiene offences.

Borough Council v School: advising on food hygiene offences where the FBO was part of the relevant County Council [2018]. Powers of local authorities and issues of bias considered.

NMT v FSA [2018]: successfully appealed the regulator’s decision made under Article 31(2) (c ) EU Regulation 882/2004, not to grant conditional or full approval for the operation of the Appellant’s abattoir. Case also went to JR on a connected matter.

LB of Hillingdon v Poundland [2018]: acted for the local authority in this prosecution and sentence for offences under the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013.

Borough Council v Brewery [2018]: successfully represented this company and its two directors in a prosecution for food safety offences.

LB of Ealing v T [2017]: prosecution involving contamination of foods with salmonella.

6 OZ Burger Ltd v Portsmouth City Council [2017]: regulation 8(10) of the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013. This involved the service of a Hygiene Emergency Prohibition Notice (HEPN) in relation to the serving of ‘pink’ burgers and the LA seeking a declaration that, at the time the notice was served, the health risk condition (that there was an imminent risk to health) was satisfied.

Advice to a chain of bars in London regarding an interview by the local authority investigating allegations of Food Hygiene breaches. A detailed written response was drafted, and the matter resolved successfully [2017].

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency v C: representing this company in an investigation by the regulator under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 [2017].

Oxfordshire CC v D Ltd: defending a company in respect of allegations that it placed misleading information on labels on health supplements and made misleading claims about the products [2017].


Health and Safety (including Inquests)

Stuart is appointed on the A list of Specialist Regulatory Advocates for Health and Safety. He prosecutes and defends in the most serious of cases. He is often asked to advise at the investigative stages in relation to Inspector’s powers, questioning, providing information and other issues and can deal with the service and appeal of notices. He has expertise in and experience of dealing with the various regulations that arise in such proceedings and has dealt with cases arising in the construction and manufacturing industries and in retailing, hospitality and others. He is also instructed to advise and represent clients at inquests. Stuart lectures on health and safety generally and has provided several seminars on the sentencing guidelines to business and local authorities.

Recent cases include:

HSE Inspector v H ltd [2020]: prosecution of this company for breaches of section 2 and 3 Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, for an explosion causing life threatening injuries.

Council v Restaurant [2020]: on-going prosecution for health and safety offences and offences in respect of a restaurant involving sections 2 and 3 of the HSWA 1974, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSWR 1999) and the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) 1998.

HSE v Boat Company [2020]: representing and advising this company in respect of an investigation into a serious injury occurring at the company’s factory.

Advising a local authority on its powers and obligations in respect of a large derelict site where significant amounts of asbestos was located [2019].

HSE v C: sentence for a company that pleaded guilty to several serious breaches under the Act as well as fire safety breaches.

HSE v B: Represented the defendant on his plea to offences under the HSW Act and offences under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.

London Borough of Enfield v M Ltd [2019]: prosecution of a company (regarding chemicals in plastic toys) under the REACH Regulations, EC Regulation 1907/2006.



Stuart is ranked as a ‘leading junior’ in Licensing by The Legal 500 for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018/19, 2020 and in Chambers and Partners for 2019 and 2020. Chambers and Partners [2020] says this about his licensing practice:

Respected barrister who predominantly represents operators as well as local residents in licensing appeals. Jessop also handles SEV, taxi, HMO and alcohol licence matters. Sources are impressed with his regulatory expertise and the pragmatic approach he takes to his cases.”

He is a member of the Institute of Licensing (IOL) and is holder of the Professional Licensing Practitioners Qualification (PLPQ). Stuart is well known as a licensing specialist and has real depth and breadth of experience in all licensing matters, including but not exclusively; alcohol and entertainment, gambling, taxis and PHV’s, SEV’s, SIA licensing, special treatments, firearms, slaughtermen and certificates of competence, as well as cases involving alleged breaches in relation to HMO licences. In Taxi and PHV licensing he has acted for the United Cabbies’ Group, the United Taxi Action Group, and other taxi associations in respect of taxi and PHV licensing law and practice. He appeared in the UCG’s judicial review, in 2019, against the decision of the Chief magistrate to grant Uber London Ltd its licence in 2018. Recently, he acted for the London Borough of Enfield in two applications by a large festival organiser to hold festivals and other entertainment on a continuing basis on a substantial derelict site. Tottenham Hotspur Football Club were the main objector. He appears both at licensing sub-committee review hearings in a range of licensing cases, appeals to the magistrates’ and crown courts and also at appeals and by way of case stated and in judicial review proceedings and is frequently asked to advise on all licensing matters, including local government licensing policy and relevant legislation. He represents companies, trade associations, individuals, local licensing authorities and other responsible authorities. He is a regular lecturer on all licensing matters and author of a book on Hackney Carriage licensing in London.

Recent cases include
  • Legal adviser to the LB of Enfield in two separate applications for a licence for festivals. Tottenham FC were the main objector along with the Metropolitan Police.
  • N v Council: Appeal against a decision by the licensing authority to revoke this premises licence due to immigration offences. Successfully negotiated a consent order restoring the licence.
  • Objector v Platinum Lace: (Westminster Licensing Sub-committee) Represented an objector to the renewal of the SEV’s licence.
  • Objector v Windmill Club (Westminster Licensing Sub-committee): Successfully represented the objectors in opposing the sexual entertainment venue’s application to renew its licence. The case was widely reported in the national press.
  • LB of Barking and Dagenham v The Co-op Food Ltd: defending allegations of underage sales of alcohol. Prosecution withdrawn.
  • R (On the application of United Cabbies Group (London) Ltd) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court v TFL v LTDA v Uber London Ltd [2019] EWHC 409: Stuart represented (led by a Q.C.) the United Cabbie’s Group Ltd in their judicial review of the Chief Magistrates’ decision to grant them a new operator’s licence.
  • A casino v Gambling Commission: Led by Q.C. instructed after largest fine ever imposed by the Gambling Commission imposed. Detailed written submissions made and the Commission reduced the proposed fine by ten million pounds.
  • One Stop Shops Ltd v Liverpool CC: appeal against a refusal to grant a premises licence.
  • A v Council: successfully appealed decision of licensing authority to revoke premises licence for immigration offences.
  • Advising a well know national chain of fast food restaurants on the correctness of the local licensing authority’s stance that a full fresh premise licence application rather than a variation was necessary after the restaurant had undergone structural change.
  • Taxi association: advised on potential challenges to the authority’s policy and decisions in respect of means of payment for fares, the lawfulness of Uber’s operations, plying for hire and other significant licensing matters
  • S v. L.B. of Newham: Appeal against a refusal to grant a new licence in CIZ
  • B v London Borough of Redbridge: Appeal against removal of DPS
  • T v TFL: Advising regarding an appeal against the refusal of a Hackney Carriage Licence
  • DD v. LB of Southwark: Appeal against the suspension of a bar’s premises licence for public nuisance
  • W Berks v J: Appeal to the crown court on behalf of a local authority in taxi licensing case concerning the authority’s policy on wheelchair access.
  • D Hackney Driver’s and PHV Driver’s Association v. Dacorum Borough Council: Successfully represented the association in opposing the introduction of a policy which would have lowered the entry test requirements for new licensees in the borough.
  • Residents v M Restaurant and LB Southwark: Successfully represented the residents in their review of the premises licence for a restaurant.
  • Ali v. Sheffield City Council: successful in acting for the local authority in opposing this appeal of a decision to revoke the appellant’s PHV licence.
  • C v. Canterbury City Council: successfully acted for the applicant for a new premises licence which was opposed by the Licensing Authority.
  • NT Ltd v London Borough of Havering: represented this fast food premises in its appeal against the licensing authority’s decision to revoke its licence for repeated immigration offences, and was successful in quashing the decision and having costs partially awarded against the Council.
  • The C v Canterbury City Council: appeal against the decision of the licensing sub-committee to reduce the operating hours of this bar. The matter was settled to the satisfaction of the Appellant.
  • Advising a London borough on applications it received for the renewal of sexual entertainment venues.
  • SB v FSA: [2020] representing this abattoir owner in his appeal to the FTT against the FSA’s decision to revoke his certificate of competence.
  • Balacescu v FSA [2020] Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals): appeal against the FTT’s decision to refuse an extension of time to appeal against a decision by the regulator to revoke a slaughterman’s licence.
  • London Borough of Camden v D: Successfully defending a landlord against a prosecution under the Housing Act alleging that his property was an HMO without being licensed as such. Stuart was able to argue that the property was not, in law, an HMO and that therefore no offence had been committed.
    Click here for news item
    Click here for coverage in Local Government Lawyer
  • Advising a local authority on its policy for managing and regulating selective licences and the limits to charges for such a process.


Stuart’s main interest lies in Town and Country Planning and Enforcement. He regularly advises and appears at inquiries in such matters. His enforcement works covers the full range of expertise required to practice in this area including representation at hearings and inquiries and in the High Court and extends to cases where there has been a breach of planning control resulting in a criminal prosecution. Stuart is ideally placed to deal with the overlap between planning and criminal law and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which these cases often involve, due to his substantial experience in both legal disciplines.

Recent cases include:

  • Planning Inquiry: currently acting for waste operator in an appeal against three enforcement notices in respect of land within the Green belt. A substantial case where Stuart is leading another junior counsel.
  • Prosecution and Proceeds of Crime in respect of an offence under section 179 TCPA 1990.
  • Advising a local planning authority in respect of advertising control
  • Advising a local planning authority in respect of permitted development and water regulation.
  • Planning Inquiry: Mirza v LB Barking and Dagenham: Inquiry concerning an enforcement notice in respect of the change of use from part storage and retail use to a retail furniture business.
  • Re K: Advice concerning service under section 329 TCPA 1990 within the context of an appeal to the High court by way of case stated.
  • Planning Inquiry: Ali v LB Newham: Challenge to an enforcement notice on the grounds that the change of use was immune from enforcement action.
  • Planning Inquiry: LB Brent: Challenge to an enforcement notice served in relation to car parking around Wembley Stadium on the grounds of immunity and other grounds.
  • Planning Inquiry: Acting for the local Planning Authority in respect of an enforcement notice alleging a material change of use.
  • F v LB Hammersmith and Fulham: Advising in respect of a Planning Inquiry and whether there were any merits of an appeal to the High Court.
  • R v Elmbridge Borough Council: Advising a resident on challenging the legality of a decision to grant planning permission.
  • Mirza v LB of Newham [2017] EWCA Crim 929: An appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of the defence under section 179(3) Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
  • LB of Newham v Mirza (Snaresbrook Crown Court): successfully represented the Defendant at her sentencing and in POCA proceedings, helping to secure a relatively low fine and confiscation order.
  • LB of Hillingdon v H: represented the Defendant in a prosecution under section 179 TCPA 1990. The Defendant changed his plea to guilty and reached agreement on a confiscation figure whilst securing a relatively low fine.
  • LB of Hackney v Manorgale Ltd: a successful prosecution under section 179 TCPA 1990 involving a legal argument as to the effect of an enforcement notice where there has been a subsequent grant of planning permission.
  • LB of Hackney v Reichman: a successful prosecution under section 179 TCPA 1990 involving lengthy legal argument as to the correct construction of the requirements of an enforcement notice where there has been an amendment by the planning inspector.
  • LB of Hackney v Scharf: successful prosecution under section 331 and 179 TCPA 1990 for a breach of an enforcement notice. The Defendant had challenged the Council’s power to prosecute in the High Court by way of judicial review but was unsuccessful. He was then convicted in the criminal proceedings as the director of the company that owned the property in question.
  • LB of Hackney v. L: POCA proceedings resulting from large scale breaches of TCPA
  • LB of Newham v. S: POCA proceedings from beach of TCPA
  • Advising regarding alleged offences under the Building Regulations and the legal definition of ‘Caravan’.


Trading Standards

Stuart has a long history of providing representation and advice to businesses and local authorities in relation to a wide variety of trading standards and consumer protection cases. Many cases have concerned trademark infringement and others under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations and Fraud. He has a wealth of experience defending and prosecuting cases involving infringements to copyright or trademarks. He has lectured widely on the subject and has recently acted in cases where large scale breaches of the law resulted in proceedings against individuals and companies. He is therefore fully conversant with subsequent Proceeds of Crime applications that often follow such cases.

Prosecuting a company and director under the REACH provisions for dangerous levels of Phthalates in children’s toys.

West Berkshire District Council v Andrews: Offences under the CPUTR (Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations).

West Berkshire District Council v. A: Trademark offences.

West Berkshire District Council v. R: Offences under CPUTR and fraud.

West Berkshire District Council v. C: Offences under CPUTR

Birmingham City Council v. C and T: Consumer Credit Act offences.

Birmingham City Council v. S and S: Consumer Credit Act offences.

Birmingham City Council v. T and others: Consumer Credit Act offences.

Birmingham City Council v. J: Consumer credit Act offences.

Birmingham City Council v G: Financial Services and Markets Act prosecution regarding unauthorised lending.

Hillingdon v ZL: Defending in the sentence and POCA proceedings of this prosecution for Trademark offences.

Advising a company which provides devices to assist the elderly and disabled, on an investigation by Trading Standards for offences under the CPUTR and also in respect of a restraint order made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.



Stuart Jessop is qualified to accept direct instructions from members of the public under the Public Access Scheme.

Information about the Public Access Scheme and how it works can be found on our Public Access page.

Certain specific Public Access services are subject to price and service transparency regulatory requirements. By clicking the link below you will be directed to the required information for those specific categories of work in respect of which Stuart accepts instructions.

Licensing Applications for Business Premises

latest news