Environmental Enforcement

“Six Pump Court is ‘the best regulatory chambers in the UK and remains the professionals’ choice’.

Members continue to be at the forefront of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal cases and also act for major developers, waste industry clients and regulators, as well as appearing on Attorney General’s lists.”

Legal 500 2017 (Tier 1 – Environment)

“It is particularly highly esteemed in the areas of statutory nuisance and environmental tort, and offers “a great spread of skill across all levels of seniority.” Observers note that it is an outstanding set for flood management and species protection cases, and further admire it for its representation of clients in matters concerning climate change, emissions trading, waste and pollution.”

Chambers UK Bar Guide 2017 (Band 1 – Environment)

 

 

Six Pump Court is highly regarded as a specialist chambers in environmental regulation, due to the recognised knowledge and abilities of its regulatory team. Led by Stephen Hockman QC, our team has the depth and expertise necessary to handle any and all environmental cases, whether that be coherent, clear advice during the early stages of a criminal investigations, outstanding skilled advocacy in Court or tactical intelligent representation in judicial review proceedings.

Barristers in chambers routinely provide lectures and training to both solicitors and regulators, on such topics as “advising private equity on environmental liabilities”, “end of waste” and “the practical application of the new Definitive Environmental Sentencing Guideline”. We are contributors to Burnett Hall on Environmental Law and have no less than 12 members appointed to the Attorney General’s List of Specialist Regulatory Advocates, more than any other set of chambers.

For a list of our most recent seminar topics on environmental enforcement, please click here.

For details of our Planning Enforcement work, please click here.

 

Specialist areas

 Waste (including Hazardous Waste)

Water Pollution

Export of Waste Abroad (Transfrontier Shipments of Waste)

Judicial Review and Environmental Regulation

Injunctions, Permit Appeals, Suspension and Enforcement Notices

Enforcement and Interpretation of Environmental Permits

Odour

Confiscation

Fisheries

 

Waste (including hazardous waste)

Recent cases include:

R (Environment Agency) v Walker & Son (Hauliers) Ltd [2014] EWCA Crim 100
Instructed for the Environment Agency as Prosecutor in an appeal against conviction to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, which determined that it is no defence for a landowner to state that he genuinely believed an environmental permit legitimising the operations on site existed.

Environment Agency v Churngold Recycling Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 909
Civil claim arising out of the exercise by the Environment Agency of its powers of search and seizure against a business known as Churngold. Successfully argued in the Court of Appeal that the challenge to the environment agency’s use of its powers was unfounded. The case is a leading authority on the tort of conversion.

R (Environment Agency) v Bloom (Plant) Ltd & Others
Prosecution of several companies and individuals for numerous offences concerning multiple illegal waste sites across the Midlands region. The allegations included the mishandling and storage of asbestos waste generated from construction and demolition and repeated failures to follow environmental regulations.

R (Environment Agency) v Romani & Hire It Ltd
Representing defendant landowner and company in relation to deposit of vast quantity of waste on residential land. Secured acquittals for both defendants at trial following submissions in relation to the application of the Non-Waste Framework Directive exempt activities.

R (Environment Agency & HSE) v Alsagar Contractors
Significant joint EA and HSE investigation and environmental permit revocation appeal concerning the treatment of asbestos waste in waste transfer stations, where members of chambers acted both for the regulators and for the appellant company, . This case has already changed the way these waste transfer stations operate with regards to asbestos and successfully revoked the permit for the EA to operate their waste transfer stations and required all of their sites to be cleaned up.

Environment Agency v Land Network Ltd & another
Members of chambers represented the prosecution and both defendant companies in a large scale hazardous waste case concerning the deposit of waste on land for remediation.

R v Greenwood and Others
Members of chambers both prosecuted and defended in a multi-defendant prosecution concerning the illegal storage and treatment of hazardous wastes at various sites on Teesside.

Back to top

 

Water Pollution

Recent cases include:

R (Environment Agency) v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2013] 1 WLR 3641
Represented the Environment Agency in this long running prosecution of Thames Water following a flooding incident in south London in 2003. The case constituted a test case concerning the deposit of sewage on land. Following the appeal, the Crown Court rejected TWUL’s appeal, maintained the fines and increased the compensation orders paid to residents affected by the flooding which had led to escapes of raw sewerage over a period of 3 months in 2003. The case was referred to the European Court of Justice on a preliminary issue.

R (Environment Agency) v Anglian Water
Prosecution of Anglian Water in relation to Category 1 (i.e. most serious) environmental impact following discharge of raw sewage into river for approximately 12 hours from the overflow at a sewage pumping station controlled by AW. Case involved complex expert evidence concerning the operation of telemetry systems to enable the monitoring of remote operational sites. One of the first serious environmental cases to be sentenced under the new Environmental Sentencing Guideline.

R (Environment Agency) v South West Water
Prosecution of the utility company for breakdowns at three individual sites in Devon and Cornwall, resulting in sewage discharges into the watercourse.

Back to top

 

Export of Waste Abroad (Transfrontier Shipments of Waste)

Recent cases include:

R (Environment Agency) v Ideal Waste Paper Co. Ltd and Newport International
The case concerned the classification of so-called ‘Green List Waste’ and whether paper exported to China by the defendants could be correctly described as such. Representing the defendants in this Court of Appeal case. The case returned to trial in mid 2013 where the prosecution accepted the contentions of the defendant company and offered no evidence. The case has become very significant because of the points taken with regards to the levels of permitted contaminants in ‘Green List Waste’.

R (Environment Agency) v Worldwide Biorecyclables Ltd & Others
The largest prosecution of its kind to date for the illegal export of household waste to Brazil in which 89 shipping containers of waste were repatriated to the UK, together with a complaint from the Brazilian government. Members of chambers were instructed in respect of two companies and their director.

R (Environment Agency) v Packcare Ltd & Others
Members of chambers both prosecuted and defended in this multi-handed prosecution of 4 companies and 8 individuals concerned in the illegal processing and export of contaminated plastic waste to Pakistan, India and Hong Kong.

Back to top

 

Judicial Review and Environmental Regulation

Recent cases include:

Sydenham Scrap Metal Ltd –v- Environment Agency and DEFRA
Acted for the Environment Agency in a judicial review against the regulator’s decision to de-register an exemption used by a company to operate its scrap metal business. The challenge concerned lawfulness of the decision to de-register and wider arguments concerning the transposition of the Waste Framework Directive and interpretation of the Permitting Regulations 2010.

Re: The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme
Statutory Appeal under the Greenhouse Gas Trading Scheme Regulations 2005 against the service by the EA of a civil penalty notice in the amount of £1million. The appeal to the Welsh Ministers (because the refinery is situated in Wales) was heard in September 2012. The person appointed to hear the appeal (David Hart QC) found in favour of the EA on one ground of Murco’s appeal but accepted that the other grounds were matters for the High Court by way of judicial review proceedings. Murco joined the Welsh Ministers as co defendants to the judicial review proceedings commenced in January 2012 against DECC and the EA. The proceedings were ultimately settled.

U v Environment Agency
Judicial review proceedings and urgent interim injunction proceedings brought against the Environment Agency following the issue of a Suspension Notice for alleged breaches of relevant guidance on the storage of wood waste storage leading to a risk of serious pollution.

Costs recovery under COMAH Regulations 1999

Instructed by the Environment Agency in judicial review proceedings that challenged the legitimacy of costs recovery by the HSE for investigations into major accidents and the relevant factors to be taken into account.

Back to top

Injunctions, Permit Appeals, Suspension and Enforcement Notices

Recent cases include:

Environment Agency –v- Waste4Fuel Limited and Bryan Hughes
High Court civil action on behalf of the Environment Agency for an injunction to enforce the terms of a Suspension Notice issued under the Permitting Regulations 2010. Highly controversial site involving the meetings between the Secretary of State and the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency. Likely to lead to further proceedings for the committal of the Second Defendant for contempt of Court.

Back to top

Enforcement and Interpretation of Environmental Permits

Recent cases include:

Environment Agency -v- Moy Park, Heale Farm
Defending at trial a major poultry producer accuse of breaching its environmental permit in a case which involved complex issues of fact and as to the proper construction of permit conditions.

Back to top

Odour

Recent cases include:

R (Environment Agency) v Global Renewables Operations Lancashire Ltd
Instructed on behalf of the Environment Agency following significant and prolonged odour pollution by a multi-billion pound waste treatment facility.

Back to top

Confiscation

Recent cases include:

R (Environment Agency) v Johal
Instructed by the Environment Agency in the trial and subsequent confiscation proceedings of Amrik Johal. Following his conviction for illegal waste operations, his benefit figure was assessed at £3.88 million and available assets valued at £881,000, one of the largest confiscation orders obtained by the Environment Agency to date.

R (Environment Agency) v Loveridge, Loveridge & Smith
Instructed for the Environment Agency in the prosecution of the highest risk site in the country, an unauthorised and highly contaminated end-of-life vehicle operation, in the face of direct threats to the safety of Environment Agency Officers and a threat of arson to their offices. Successful confiscation proceedings followed.

Back to top

 

Fisheries

Recent cases include:

R (Environment Agency) v Phillips
The Environment Agency’s first criminal prosecution brought under the Import of Live Fish Act 1981. Politically sensitive, due to the potential negative impact on the eco-system were non-native fish to escape to the wild.

Back to top

 

Recent Seminars

  • The new Environmental Sentencing Guideline in practice
  • Sentencing in regulatory cases
  • End of waste
  • Environmental liabilities for private equity
  • Common law liabilities and responsibilities for flood damage
  • POCA and environmental enforcement
  • A practical guide to confiscation
  • Confiscation after a regulatory conviction
  • Disclosure in environmental cases
  • Regulation 44 remediation orders
  • Costs recovery in COMAH cases

Back to top

Environmental Law

“It is in a league of its own across the board from junior barrister to senior QC.”

Legal 500 2020

“Hailed as a “first-class chambers for regulatory work,” Six Pump Court possesses a deep bench of eminent silks and juniors active in environmental disputes…Their environmental expertise spans a variety of topics including emissions trading, waste management, flooding and habitat protection. Statutory nuisance cases are a particular strength. Clients note that the chambers “stands out for its specialism in environmental crime.”

Chambers UK Bar Guide 2019 (Band 1 – Environment)

“High-calibre set with a fantastic track record of representing local authorities, developers and regulators in environmental cases.”

Chambers UK Bar Guide 2018 (Band 1 – Environment)

“Six Pump Court is ‘the best regulatory chambers in the UK and remains the professionals’ choice’.

Members continue to be at the forefront of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal cases and also act for major developers, waste industry clients and regulators, as well as appearing on Attorney General’s lists.”

Legal 500 2017 (Tier 1 – Environment)

 

Barristers at Six Pump Court are acknowledged to be at the forefront of environmental law, particularly in the field of prosecuting and defending environmental cases in the criminal courts and cases involving statutory and nuisance.  The combined experience of our environmental law barristers cover every aspect of this highly specialist, complex and ever-changing area of practice, at all levels of seniority and experience.

Our specialist experience covers every aspect of the European and domestic law concerning the regulation of the environment, which includes environmental permitting and regulation of waste, wastewater, pollution prevention and control, water resources, water quality, fisheries, contaminated land, nuclear installations and hazardous substances.  Members of our environmental law team are instructed regularly to advise and appear in cases involving environmental assessment, energy and resources, statutory and common law nuisance, utilities and access to environmental information.

Our environmental law barristers continue to act in leading cases in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and the High Court, whilst also representing industry and regulators at public inquiries and statutory appeals.   Members appear regularly in the criminal courts and are involved in the more complex cases, acting for major developers, the waste industry and regulators.  A large number of members were appointed to the List of Specialist Regulatory Advocates in Environmental Law, five to the “A” List, please click here to view the full list.

Please use the links below to view the full range of our expertise in the areas of Environmental Law:

 

Environmental Regulation

Environmental Assessment

Energy and Natural Resources

Utilities

Statutory and Common Law Nuisance

Access to Environmental Information

 

Environmental Regulation

Six Pump Court is highly regarded as a specialist Chambers in environmental regulation, due to the recognised knowledge and abilities of its regulatory team. Led by Stephen Hockman QC, our team has the depth and expertise necessary to handle any and all environmental cases, whether that be coherent, clear advice during the early stages of a criminal investigation, outstanding skilled advocacy in Court or tactical intelligent representation in judicial review proceedings.

Notable recent environmental regulation work includes:

  • R (Environment Agency) v Walker & Son (Hauliers) Ltd [2014] EWCA Crim 100 – Appeal against conviction to the Court of Appeal confirming that it is no defence for the offender to say that he genuinely believed that a permit existed.
  • Environment Agency v Thames Water Utilities Ltd  [2013] 1 WLR 3641 – Test case concerning the deposit of sewage on land and the scope of the criminal liability for depositing waste on land.
  • Environment Agency v Moy Park Ltd [2013] Trial relating to breach of permit conditions in the agricultural sector.
  • R (on the application of Peel Investments (North) Limited) v Health and Safety Executive [2013] EWHC 1012 (Admin); [2013] Env LR D6 – Judicial review of a decision made pursuant to the Control of Major Accident Hazard Regulations 1999.

Back to top

 

Environmental Assessment

Members of the Planning and Environmental team are widely acknowledged for their expertise and experience in European and domestic law relating to environmental assessment.  This includes cases involving Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of development projects and proposes, Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of plans and programmes and Habitats Regulation Assessments.

A significant proportion of environmental assessment work arises in the context of planning law and practice, both in respect of development management decisions, plan making and the delivery of infrastructure.

Notable recent environmental assessment work includes:

  • R (Mouring) v West Berkshire District Council [2014] EWHC 203 (Admin) -Challenge to approach to the application of the EIA Regulations in an urban development project.
  • R (Padden) v Maidstone Borough Council [2014] EWHC 51 (Admin) – Judicial review of part-retrospective planning permission for EIA development and exceptional circumstances requirement.
  • Heard v Broadland District Council [2012] EWHC 344 (Admin) – strategic environmental assessment of a joint cores strategy; requirement to examine of reasonable alternatives

Back to top

 

Energy and Natural Resources

Members of Six Pump Court have experience of working for and against developers of power stations, wind turbines and various other energy providers.

Notable recent work includes:

  • The existence of nuclear particles on a beach adjacent to the former Dounreay Nuclear facility: Magnohard Limited v United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.
  • Numerous renewable energy projects including wind farms in Yorkshire, Northamptonshire and Cumbria.

Back to top

 

Utilities

The de-nationalisation of utilities has led to the creation of a raft of industry-specific measures, quite independent from safety and competition regulation, to protect consumers from potential misuses of monopolies and near-monopolies.  Members of 6 Pump Court have extensive experience of construing legislation of this type and dealing with enforcement bodies.  Several members of chambers have recently acted for OFGEM in separate proceedings against SSE and Scottish Power for mis-selling.  These proceedings have resulted in a fine of £10.5m against SSE and an agreed settlement figure of £8.5m in the case of Scottish Power.  These cases involved numerous and complex issues concerning the interpretation of the applicable licence conditions, issues of attribution, whistleblower evidence, matters relating to disclosure and the appropriate approach to penalty in cases of widespread and systemic mis-selling.

Back to top

Statutory and Common Law Nuisance

The Environmental Law team at Six Pump Court chambers boasts particular expertise in the field of nuisance law with members of chambers having played a pivotal role in some of the leading recent authorities on nuisance.

Common law nuisance

  • Coventry v Lawrence [2014] UKSC 13 Seminal case on the relationship between planning permission and nuisance. The judgment in this case redefined the law of nuisance.
  • Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Limited [2003] UKHL 66; [2004] AC 42 – The leading case on the liability of public authorities for the tort of nuisance.
  • Dobson v Thames Water A ground-breaking group nuisance action in which resulted in a judgment for damages in favour of those adversely affected by a huge sewage treatment works.

Statutory nuisance

Members of the Environmental Law team are highly experienced in cases involving the service of abatement notices in respect of the statutory nuisances under Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 covering a wide range of statutory nuisances.  We are regularly instructed by local authorities, appellants and defendants in appeals against abatements notices and the prosecution of the offences for contravening or failing to comply with the requirement.

Back to top

Access to Environmental Information

Statutory rights of access to environmental information are an important consideration for many participants in planning or environmental cases. Similarly, responding to requests for information in a lawful and appropriate manner is an important role for all local authorities with responsibility for regulating the environment and land-use planning.

Members of our Planning and Environmental team have significant expertise and experience in the complex legislative provisions relating to access to environmental information and the related freedom of information provisions. Members of chambers advise and appear on behalf of both parties on a regular basis on these matters.

Recent notable work includes:

  • Re: Aarhus Convention (2013) – Representing local residents before the Aarhus Compliance Committee (UN Economic Commission for Europe) in Geneva, alleging that the UK was not in compliance with the Aarhus Convention owing to the failure to offer residents effective participation in planning decisions.

Back to top

Planning Law

“The set’s potent public sector expertise is augmented by its considerable experience of acting on behalf of private clients on a host of matters, including enforcement actions, appeals and judicial reviews.”
Chambers UK Bar Guide (2018)

“Six Pump Court has ‘always been a go-to set for planning matters, with an excellent range of barristers who are ready to help and go beyond the call of duty’. The set was reappointed to the London Boroughs Legal Alliance (LBLA) panel for planning, and members also act for private clients such as landowners, developers and infrastructure providers.”
Legal 500 (2017)

 “The set remains a top choice for local authorities requiring representation in appeals and inquiries, particularly in regard to planning enforcement, local plans and community infrastructure levy matters. This expertise is demonstrated by the set’s appointment to the London Boroughs’ Legal Alliance.”
Chambers & Partners (2016)

“…increasingly recognised as a player in the highly competitive London planning market. The set’s core specialism in regulatory work feeds into its planning offering, and chambers is able to provide well-regarded planning juniors for inquiries and High Court challenges, particularly where matters require expertise in both planning and environment law. The set wins plaudits for the modern, commercial approach of its barristers and its clerks. “I think 6 Pump Court is an exceptionally good chambers to work with,” explained one client, adding: “They manage to balance professionalism with approachability; they take the stuffiness out of what has been over the years a very forbidding environment for some”.”
Chambers & Partners (2015)

 

Planning law barristers at Six Pump Court have a long-standing reputation for providing the highest quality advocacy and advisory services in a friendly and approachable manner.  We place great emphasis on securing realistic and suitable outcomes for all of our clients.

The breadth of Chambers’ areas of specialism, including our highly successful (and ranked) Regulatory and Environmental teams, provides our clients with a depth of talent and experience within Chambers that distinguishes Six Pump Court from other sets planning sets in London.

Our planning law barristers appear regularly in the full range of courts and tribunals engaged in planning law, including inquiries and hearings into planning applications and appeals, enforcement appeals and the examination of local plans, CIL charging schedules and neighbourhood plans. We also appear at inquiries and hearings into proposed compulsory purchase orders, development consents, village greens and other statutory orders concerning highways and Public Rights of Way

Six Pump Court is also recognised for its experience and expertise in related areas of public law and civil litigation, appearing regularly in the Senior Courts at first instance and on appeal. Our planning law barristers have considerable experience of cases involving judicial review and statutory challenges in the Planning Court; appeals by way of case stated in the Divisional Court; and claims for planning injunctions in the Interim Applications Court in Queen’s Bench Division.

Our planning law barristers are instructed by a diverse range of public, private and third sector clients. We act for a large number of local authorities across the country, government departments and other statutory bodies engaged in planning matters, undertaking a diverse mix of plan-making, decision-taking and enforcement work.  Our members also act for a wide variety of developers, businesses and individuals, assisting them to navigate the complexities and uncertainties of the regime of planning control and enforcement in pursuit of realistic and effective outcomes.

Roy Martin QC, Megan Thomas, William Upton, Mark Beard and Richard Banwell are all recommended as specialist planning barristers in the Chambers & Partners UK Bar Guide 2018.

Anne Williams sits as a village green inspector and has been appointed Visiting Professor at the Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning at University College London.  Megan Thomas is a consultant planning inspector.

Please use the links below to view the full range of our expertise in the areas of Planning Law:

Development management

Plan-making

Enforcement

Highways

Development management

Our planning barristers advise and appear in cases involving development proposals of every size and kind; from nationally significant infrastructure projects to householder development and everything in between.  Members of the team have extensive experience of cases involving proposals for residential, commercial and mixed-use development (including tall buildings and urban extensions); retail, leisure and other town centre development; educational, community and other institutional development; transport infrastructure; energy infrastructure; agricultural development; marine planning; waste and minerals planning; and traveller sites.

The Planning barristers at Six Pump Court offer our clients experience and expertise at all levels of seniority in cases engaging all interests of acknowledged planning importance.  Members of our team have experience in cases involving the historic environment; design and townscape character; landscape character; the Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and open spaces; nature conservation; flood risk and coastal erosion; the marine environment; energy and natural resources; residential amenity; noise and disturbance; vitality and viability of town centres; transport, traffic and highways; strategic land supply; development viability; hazardous substances; aviation; national security and defence; waste management; gypsies, travellers and travelling show people; human rights and equalities.

Our planning barristers have particular strength in judicial review and statutory appeals in the High Court concerning challenges to development management decisions taken by local planning authorities and the Secretary of State, or his planning inspectors.  We are instructed by claimants/appellants, local planning authorities and interested persons.  A number of members have experience defending such legal challenges on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Recent notable work in relation to development management include:

  • Baltic Wharf, Maidstone – planning and listed building appeal inquiry into proposals for a retail foodstore-led mixed-use redevelopment of a Grade II listed industrial building on the banks of the River Medway in central Maidstone.
  • Vauxhall Cross London [2013] planning inquiry (tall buildings)
  • Arun District Council v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Green Lodge Homes LLP [2013] EWHC 190 (Admin); [2013] JPL 1011 – complex section 288 challenge to a decision of the Secretary of State to allow a major residential application between Ferring and East Preston.
  • R (Padden) v Maidstone Borough Council & Others [2014] EWHC 51 (Admin) – judicial review of a part retrospective planning permission involving EIA development.  Whether there were exceptional circumstances for grant, whether applicant obtained unfair advantage, whether condition for groundwater scheme to be approved appropriate.
  • R (Mouring) v West Berkshire Council [2014] EWHC 203 (Admin) – judicial review of LPA decision to grant new storage facility building in AONB outside defined settlement.  Whether decision not to require an EIA correctly made as not infrastructure or urban development project or industrial estate project.

Back to top

Plan-making

A significant component of the work undertaken by our Planning Team involves the provision of advice and representation in respect of the preparation, examination and adoption of local plans, neighbourhood plans and other planning policy documents.

Our planning barristers have considerable experience in this area.  William Upton has advised and represented a number of plan-making authorities, including the Greater Norwich Development Partnership on the preparation, examination and adoption of its Joint Core Strategy, including representing the Partnership in the successful legal challenge to part of the Strategy and the subsequent examination of the revisions thereto, which have now been adopted.  William has also advised and appeared on behalf of a number of plan-making authorities, including Norfolk County Council in respect of the examination of its Minerals Site Allocation local plan document.

Mark Beard has also advised and appeared on behalf of Norfolk County Council in respect of the preparation, examination and adoption of its Waste and Minerals Core Strategy and the examination of its Waste Site Allocations local plan document.  Mark is currently instructed by Cheshire East Council to advise the Council on the examination of its Local Plan Strategy and appear at the six-week long hearing sessions held in September and October 2014.

Back to top

Enforcement

Our planning barristers have extensive experience and expertise in the enforcement of planning control.  We are regularly instructed to advise and appear on behalf of local planning authorities, landowners, developers and third parties in complex, contentious and controversial cases involving breaches of planning and the proper enforcement of planning control in the public interest.  Our Planning Team offers experience and expertise in planning enforcement at all levels of seniority.  Junior members of the Team are regularly instructed in enforcement notice appeal inquiries and have very considerable experience of cases involving unauthorised conversion of single dwellings to flats and the notorious and widespread occurrences of unauthorised development in London to provide ‘beds in sheds’. We have many longstanding relationships with local planning authorities and provide advice and representation in urgent, complex and controversial planning enforcement cases.

Our planning barristers have considerable experience of cases involving the use of injunctions to enforce proper planning and listed building control and related committal proceedings when the terms of an injunction are breached.  Mark Beard is widely recognised as an expert on the use of planning injunctions and is regularly instructed by local planning authorities in urgent applications for planning injunctions in the High Court, particularly but not exclusively in respect of unauthorised traveller site development.

Richard Banwell is acknowledged as an expert in planning enforcement cases involving unauthorised waste development and recently represented the Environment Agency in a complex committal application for breach of the terms of an injunction.

Our planning barristers have very considerable experience prosecuting and defending in planning and listed building enforcement cases in the criminal courts and the use of confiscation orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002

David Travers QC, Edward Grant and Emmaline Lambert are the co-authors of a new book ‘Planning Enforcement‘ published by Wildy, Simmons and Hill in February 2014.

Recent notable planning and enforcement work includes:

  • Sanger and Sanger v London Borough of Newham [2014] EWHC 1922 (Admin) – enforcement notice prosecution under section 179 TCPA 1990; date for determining availability of defence under section 179(7).
  • Epping Forest DC v Culligan [2013] EWHC 4054 (QB) – committal application for breach of section 187B injunction; contemnors committed to prison.
  • R v Johnson (John Phillip) [2012] EWCA Crim 580 – criteria in sentencing for offences involving the demolition of a non-listed building in a conservation area

For details of our Environmental Enforcement work, please click here.

Back to top

 

Highways

Our planning barristers at Six Pump Court are regularly instructed in cases involving a combination of highways and planning regulation, including proposals for large-scale development and their impact on the strategic and local road network, the stopping up and diversion of public highways, pavement cafes, pavement crossovers to residential and commercial premises, highway safety and maintenance and other related areas.

Members of the team advise on issues arising from legal Agreements made under section 38 and section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 and their enforcement as well as the Private Street Works Code.

Our planning barristers are well experienced in cases involving Public Rights of Way including disputes over their existence, scope, obstruction and proposals to modify Definitive Maps under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.  We advise and appear on behalf of our clients at all stages of the statutory process to modify Definitive Maps, including advising on evidence, order making procedures, statutory presumptions and the complex legislative provisions and jurisprudence relevant in this context.

We advise and appear on behalf of highways and registration authorities, landowners, applicants and users of the Public Rights of Way network at public inquiries and in the courts with original and appellate jurisdiction. This also includes applications to register and disputes involving Town or Village Greens.

We advise and appear in criminal, civil and public law proceedings relating to the maintenance of footpaths and cases involving the general duty of the Highway Authority to protect and promote the rights of Highway users.

There is a unique degree of experience within the Planning team at 6 Pump Court advising and litigating in relation to the introduction, modification and enforcement of controlled parking zones.

Back to top

Domestic Abuse and Protective Orders

“6 Pump Court’s group has ‘a breadth and depth of knowledge’ in both children and finance matters. Areas of expertise range from complex TOLATA claims to international children relocation cases”.

Legal 500 (2015)

All too frequently family disputes include allegations of domestic abuse. We are experienced in obtaining protection for victims of abuse and also in ensuring that clients do not suffer as a result of false allegations.

Our barristers have expertise in cases under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and under the Family Law Act 1996.

Fact-finding at an early stage in both children and financial cases may have a significant impact on the outcome of those other proceedings.

 

Our recent cases include:

  • Acting in numerous fact findings, including representing victims of rape and other offences of violence, often where the perpetrator had previously been acquitted in the Crown Court.
  • Acting for a father where the mother wrongly accused the father both of assaulting her and sexually assaulting the child. Following a fact finding hearing in which the court found against the mother the child was moved to live with her father.

Court of Protection

“6 Pump Court’s group has ‘a breadth and depth of knowledge’ in both children and finance matters. Areas of expertise range from complex TOLATA claims to international children relocation cases”.

Legal 500 (2015)

The modern Court of Protection came into effect as a result of the Mental Capacity Act. The Court of Protection makes personal welfare, health care and financial decisions on behalf of someone who lacks capacity to make specific decisions for him/herself (“Patient”).

Members of the family team at Six Pump Court are able to represent patients, family members, local authorities and other interested parties in a range of applications before the Court of Protection including the following:

 

  • Powers of Attorney including Objections to Registration
  • Appointment of Deputies
  • Statutory Wills
  • Deprivation of Liberty and Place of Residence
  • Personal Welfare

Care and Adoption

“6 Pump Court’s group has ‘a breadth and depth of knowledge’ in both children and finance matters. Areas of expertise range from complex TOLATA claims to international children relocation cases”.

Legal 500 (2015)

Care and Adoption orders are the most draconian orders available to the courts since the abolition of the death penalty. The risk is permanent removal of a child from their family and expert representation is essential.

Our public law practitioners have substantial experience in the most difficult cases including:

  • Representing parents accused of serious physical, sexual and emotional child abuse
  • Neglect
  • Fabricated illness
  • Acting for parents with learning disabilities involving the Official Solicitor
  • Contact with children in care
  • Adoption including parental rights
  • Secure accommodation
  • Wardship and inherent jurisdiction
  • Disclosure
  • Publicity
  • The role of grandparents and other family members in care cases
  • Special guardianship finances

Chambers has a strong criminal team and we are very often instructed by the police and CPS to deal with intricate matters of disclosure in child abuse cases.

 

Our recent cases include:

  • Re B (Paternal Grandmother: Joinder as party) [2012] EWCA CIV 737 – representing Grandmother in Court of Appeal who had been given leave in consolidated Private Law proceedings but refused leave in the Public Law matter.
  • Involved in the leading case on non-disclosure in a matter relating to alleged “honour” based violence, A v A Local Authority [2009] EWCA Civ.
  • Acting for the child in a care case involving injuries to a baby, in which the first instance findings of NAI were overturned on appeal on the ground that the judge had reversed the burden of proof. Re M (a child) [2012] EWCA 1580.
  • Successfully opposing plans for adoption in a case involving parents suffering from a disability and where the child suffered from the same disability. Both the Local Authority and Guardian supported adoption. Child remained with parents under a supervision order.
  • Successfully challenging medical opinion in a case involving osteopenia of prematurity when 4 experts from different specialties supported findings of non-accidental injury.
  • Successfully obtained the return of children to a father following an abusive episode by the mother and thereafter a managed return of the mother to the home.
  • Successfully challenging the Local Authority and Guardian in a case involving extreme domestic violence contrary to the expert opinion.
  • Involved in a case involving the Official Solicitor where there was a concern that disclosure to a parent of an expert’s report would trigger an adverse reaction whilst caring for the child.
  • Involved in numerous cases where parents and other family members have been permitted to take on the care of children following initial unfavourable assessments.
  • Involved in a dispute in the High Court concerning whether a Local Authority can exercise PR under an interim care order to prevent the parents circumcising their son for religious reasons.
  • Acting for father with severe learning disabilities accused of sexual abuse and neglect of children with learning disabilities. Both father and one adult child were represented by the Official Solicitor. Consideration was given to the different decision making processes by the Official Solicitor in child care and protected adult situations. High Court.
  • Acting for mother in 5 day fact finding where she was found to have inflicted a number of injuries to her daughter over a sustained period of time.

International and Child Abduction

“6 Pump Court’s group has ‘a breadth and depth of knowledge’ in both children and finance matters. Areas of expertise range from complex TOLATA claims to international children relocation cases”.

Legal 500 (2015)

When a child is unlawfully removed from England and Wales or where there is an imminent risk of removal our expert family team understand the need for urgent specialist action.

We can assist in the following cases:

  • Applications under the Hague Convention. Time limits in such cases must be strictly observed and failure to do so could preclude an immediate return of the child
  • Cases involving non-Hague convention countries
  • Removal from the jurisdiction
  • Relocation within England and Wales
  • Child abduction
  • Emergency remedies for ‘seek and find’ orders and passport orders when child has been abducted

We also represent parents and other interested parties in international contact disputes and cases under Brussels II.

We are seeing an increasing numbers of clients who are seeking our advice on the following:

  • The legal effect of an overseas marriage, including forced marriage
  • The legal effect of an overseas divorce
  • The correct forum for financial relief following an overseas divorce

 

Our recent cases include:

  • Acting for a Polish father living in England where there has been a breach of the father’s rights under the Human Rights Act by the Polish authorities that had resulted in a failure to implement the terms of the Hague Convention.
  • Advising on the legal effect of a sharia divorce (Talaq) in Northern Iraq where both parties lived abroad. And considering whether such a divorce offends public justice and should not be recognised.
  • Representing a husband in case where parties had married and divorced in Iran. The case considered the effect of court orders made in Tehran concerning a dowry.
  • Acting for a mother seeking to relocate with child to South Africa.

Private Children Act Cases

“6 Pump Court’s group has ‘a breadth and depth of knowledge’ in both children and finance matters. Areas of expertise range from complex TOLATA claims to international children relocation cases”.

Legal 500 (2015)

We understand how difficult it can be to ensure that children are protected from the upheaval that can follow a relationship breakdown.

Our specialist child law barristers undertake the whole range of private law applications including:

  • Child arrangements orders detailing where children live and how they divide their time (formerly residence and contact orders)
  • Contact disputes
  • Applications by grandparents and other family members for contact and other orders
  • Cases involving issues of domestic abuse
  • Special Guardianship
  • Education and health disputes
  • Internal relocation
  • Same sex parent disputes
  • Applications by step parents

 

Our recent cases include:

  • Re G [2014] EWCA Civ 336 – representing the appellant, the biological parent of twins, in a same sex parental responsibility dispute before the Court of Appeal. The respondent was the twins’ birth mother. Conception pre-dated the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 and, as such, the appellant could not obtain parental responsibility without either the respondent’s consent or a shared residence order.
  • Re B [2014] EWCA 1015 – evidence being used in private fact finding hearings from non-subject children in the Court of Appeal.
  • Re K (A Child) (2014) EWCA Civ 905 – committal applications to enforce contact orders. Successfully represented a father in contempt proceedings arising in a long running habitual residence case where a child had been left with paternal relatives abroad.
  • Re L-W (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 1253the seminal authority on enforcement applications in Children Act proceedings.
  • Representing a step father in a residence application following the death of the subject child’s mother against the natural father. Step father successful.
  • Representing a parent in a tragic case following the death of one of the party’s children. Resolved with shared care.
  • Representing a parent in a bitter and long running partnership breakdown resulting in the refusal of a parental responsibility order.
  • Representing special guardians to restrict the contact of a natural parent.
  • Representing on numerous occasions, victims in fact finding hearings in relation to rape and other serious offences including arson and aggravated burglary with a baseball bat – often obtaining findings following acquittals at the Crown Court.
  • Representing a mother who developed severe bi-polar disorder after birth of child where there was evidence that the father was seeking to manipulate her so as to obtain residence. Ultimately the mother’s health precluded her caring for the children.
  • Representing a mother who removed her children from South Africa without the father’s consent where her defence to their return was economic hardship. Having considered the opportunities available to the children, the father agreed to their residence in England.
  • Representing a father in contact proceedings where the mother stated that his homosexuality posed a risk to the children. The children were supported to have a full relationship with their father notwithstanding the mother’s hostility.
  • Representing a mother in disputed residence/contact proceedings where the father was in the process of gender reassignment.

 

Family Finances

“6 Pump Court’s group has ‘a breadth and depth of knowledge’ in both children and finance matters. Areas of expertise range from complex TOLATA claims to international children relocation cases”.

Legal 500 (2015)

 

Our Family Law barristers represent and advise a wide range of clients from those of modest means to high net worth individuals. Although typically we represent wives and husbands following the breakdown of their relationship, we are also increasingly representing cohabitees and same sex couples in the same situation, children or parents making applications for financial provision under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 (often for help with the costs of attending university) and third parties, including companies and trustees, who intervene in financial cases. Some of our family law barristers have also been instructed by the official solicitor where a party lacks capacity.

We have particular experience in the following areas:

• Business assets, including farms
• Trust assets, both on and offshore
• Cases involving serious misconduct
• Bankruptcy
• Hidden assets
• Freezing orders
• Short marriages
• Maintenance, both spousal and for children
• Jurisdictional disputes and forum shopping
• Financial relief after overseas divorce
• Variation and setting aside of orders
• Enforcement of orders
• Pre- nuptial and separation agreements
• Civil partnership disputes
• Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989
• Child Support
• TOLATA/ Cohabitant disputes
• Claims under the Inheritance Act
• Appeals
• Mediation

 

Our recent cases include:

  • R v R [2013] EWHC 4244 (Fam) – representing husband where wife applied for freezing order under s.37 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and inherent jurisdiction of the court in respect of a family business. Consideration given by the President in relation to restraint of trade provisions.
  • Representing successfully various husbands in variation applications where their former wives had commenced cohabitation but refused to agree a reduction in maintenance.
  • Representing wife where husband’s conduct was taken into account. Husband serving long sentence for various serious offences, including a serious sexual offence against the wife. The wife received virtually all the capital.
  • Representing wife who received 100% of the remaining capital following the husband’s wild dissipation of capital during a trial separation.
  • Acting for wife caring for child where the main asset was the husband’s personal injury award in respect of an accident that left him paralysed before the marriage. Personal injury damages were not excluded from consideration by the court.
  • Acting for husband where his pre-marital assets had merged with a large insurance payment received by his wife for serious injuries suffered in a terrorist attack. The wife’s damages formed part of the matrimonial pot and were not ring-fenced.
  • Representing wife in relation to enforcement of overseas child maintenance arrears. Consideration given to reciprocal maintenance enforcement arrangements.
  • Representing wife where husband sold former matrimonial home and falsely stated he had lost the proceeds gambling. Subsequent disclosure from the casino proved this was untrue and husband was committed to prison for contempt.

Sports Injuries

Members have experience in sports cases from football “bad tackle” cases through to more unusual cases arising out of the conduct of referees and the conduct of micro-light festivals. The ranges of sports covered include gymnastics, dry slope skiing, cricket and speedway.

Such cases can and do arise in a range of situations in which Members have experience; those include informally arranged events, through to more formal and better organised events and events at school. In the case of school cases, wider areas such as CCF activities have been the subject of cases.

Members have both lectured on sports law and written articles such as for Westlaw.