Explore every episode of the podcast The Landmark Listen

Fiona Scolding KC and Galina Ward KC review recent cases in education law and provide insight and practical tips for both public bodies and individuals litigating in this area.

The second episode considers how the courts are approaching attempts to enforce the statutory requirements that cash strapped local authorities are increasingly failing to meet, including the ongoing debate about the boundary between education and social care and how to approach recommendations made under the National Trial (R (LS) v LB Merton [2024] EWHC 584 (Admin)), the circumstances in which a mandatory order will be made requiring the LA to provide what is specified in an EHCP (R (HXN) v London Borough of Redbridge [2024] EWHC 443 (Admin)), and the time limits for statutory assessment following a successful appeal (R (W) v Hertfordshire CC [2023] EWHC 3138 (Admin).

Fiona Scolding KC and Galina Ward KC review recent cases in education law and provide insight and practical tips for both public bodies and individuals litigating in this area.

Fiona and Galina have between them been involved in litigating almost every facet of education law. In the first episode they discuss the approach of the courts in recent cases under the Human Rights Act and Equality Act in the context of the Michaela School prayer ban, including the extent to which the ability to pray in school engages Article 9 of the ECHR, justification for any interference with that right, and whether the ban was discriminatory (R (TTT) v Michaela School [2024] EWHC 843 (Admin)) , as well as the application of the PSED when preparing EHCPs (R (AI) v LB Wandsworth & Secretary of State for Education [2023] EWHC 2088) and the need (or otherwise) for medical evidence to trigger a requirement for reasonable adjustments (Bristol University v Abrahart [2024] EWHC 299).

Part 2 will be released next week. 

The Brook House Inquiry was a public inquiry instigated following revelations by Panorama of abuse potentially amounting to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment. Alex Goodman KC and Stephanie Harrison KC have between them been involved in most of the leading cases on immigration detention over the past twenty years. They discuss the Brook House Inquiry and the history of the detention of immigrants in the UK. Essential listening for anyone interested in human rights or immigration. 

Justin Bates, Harriet Wakeman, and Barney McCay discuss the case of R (Imam) v Croydon LBC which is being heard at appeal in the Supreme Court on 4 and 5 May in this ten-minute video.
 
The Landmark barristers are acting pro bono for Crisis (instructed by Giles Peaker at Anthony Gold Solicitors) in the appeal. Crisis, the UK national charity for homelessness, is acting as intervenor. The appeal concerns the nature of the duty owed by local housing authorities to homeless people under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996, (i.e. the provision of “suitable” housing) and how to enforce a breach of the duty.

The appeal will have significant ramifications for those living in temporary accommodation, many of whom are already negatively impacted by being housed there. Crisis has been granted permission to intervene in order to assist the Supreme Court in understanding the potential impact of its decision in this case on those living in temporary accommodation, and to provide wider context to the appeal.

Alex Goodman KC discusses campaigning and the law with people who have shaped our society and shaped our law.

In this first episode, he talks to Harriet Wistrich, Founding Director of the Centre for Women’s Justice, about her 25 years of work campaigning for women’s rights and for reform of the Met Police. They discuss campaigning through a look at the Black Cab rapist litigation, the law relating to women who kill their partners, immigration detention and others. 

The series is produced by Landmark Chambers’ Public Interest Law Group.

Landmark barristers review the key factors in R (Day) v Shropshire Council in which judgment will be handed down on Wednesday 1 March 2023.

The case is a challenge to the grant of planning permission on land that was part of a recreation ground and raises the question: 

When a local authority disposes of land which is subject to a statutory trust for public recreational purposes and fails to comply with the relevant statutory requirements, does that trust continue or end; and, in either case, what are the legal implications for the authority and the disponee?

Alex Goodman and Kimberley Ziya acted for the Claimant (the Appellant in the Supreme Court).

Landmark barristers review the key factors in the upcoming Jepsen & Ors v Rakusen Supreme Court case.

The judgment of this case will be handed down on Wednesday 1 March 2023.

Can a Rent Repayment Order only be made against an immediate landlord or can a superior landlord also be liable?

Tom Morris appeared for the respondent landlord in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Upper Tribunal and First-tier Tribunal.

Justin Bates and Charles Bishop made written submissions on behalf of Safer Renting, which intervened in both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.

This is a critically important test case which will have significant effects on the private rented sector.  It turns on whether a rent repayment order under the Housing and Planning Act 2016 can be made against the superior landlord of an occupier of housing, or only the occupier’s immediate landlord. The effect of the Court of Appeal’s decision was that landlords can rely on ‘rent-to-rent’ companies to shield themselves from rent repayment orders being made against them.

Landmark barristers sum up the key issues in the upcoming case of Aviva v Williams which was heard by the Supreme Court in December 2022. Since this video was recorded the Supreme Court has announced that judgment will be handed down on 8 February 2023. 

What is the scope of the tribunal’s jurisdiction when it comes to apportioning residential service charges? This case has a focus on Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in particular, 27A6 which states:
(6)  An agreement by the tenant of a dwelling (other than a post-dispute arbitration agreement) is void in so far as it purports to provide for a determination—
(a)  in a particular manner, or
(b)  on particular evidence,
of any question which may be the subject of an application under subsection (1) or (3).

Simon Allison and Brooke Lyne represent the Respondents, with Justin Bates and Rupert Cohen representing the intervener.

Planning barristers Jenny Wigley QC and Zack Simons discuss how they prepare their teams (and themselves) for planning inquiries – from the early stages, through to drafting statements of case, assembling a team, finalising proofs of evidence and preparing for cross-examination.

The discussion includes practical tips for practitioners in both the public and private sectors – from those with years of inquiry experience to first-timers. It also considers the implications of virtual inquiries for how these cases are prepared and managed.

Landmark barristers Stephen Whale and Matthew Dale-Harris provide a podcast that covers the Government’s recent Nature Recovery Green Paper on protected sites and species.

The discussion addresses the protection of wildlife sites, delivering “30 by 30”, protecting species and delivering nature recovery.  Stephen and Matthew consider, amongst other issues, the implications for environmental law and planning law of the proposed fundamental changes to the EIA and HRA regimes, the possible disappearance of terms such as SAC, SPA and SSSI, dormant SSSI consents, the role of woodlands in nature recovery and the likely streamlining of the numerous Arms Length Bodies.

Stephen Whale and Matthew Dale-Harris, as well as other Landmark Barristers, offer further information on National Parks, AONBs, planning law and rights of way in their book “A Practical Guide to Planning Law and Rights of Way in National Parks, the Broads and AONBs”. For more information on their book, please follow this link.

The DEFRA consultation exercise on the green paper closes on 11 May 2022, and you may participate in this via: Nature Recovery Green Paper: Protected Sites and Species - Defra - Citizen Space 

Landmark barristers Stephen Whale and Matthew Dale-Harris provide a podcast that covers the recent developments in the following topics: The Glover Report, National Parks and AONBs, the Government’s response to the Landscapes review and the DEFRA consultation exercise.  They also discuss the proposed renaming of ‘Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ to ‘National Landscapes’.

The discussion on the Government’s response highlights the experience of NPs and AONBs during the lockdowns, the Government’s commitment to protecting 30% of the U.K.’s land by 2030 and the 25-year environment plan, and the complexity of interactions between people and nature.  Furthermore, housing in NPs and AONBs is discussed, emphasising the imminent importance of a minimum 10% Biodiversity Net Gain as a pre-condition for planning permission.

Stephen Whale and Matthew Dale-Harris, as well as other Landmark barristers, offer further information on AONB, National Parks and Planning Law in their book “A Practical Guide to Planning Law and Rights of Way in National Parks, the Broads and AONBs”.  For more information on their book, please follow this link.

The DEFRA consultation exercise on the Government’s response to the Landscapes Review closes on 9 April 2022 and you may participate in this by following this link.


Acronyms:

AONB = Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
LPA= Local Planning Authority
NPA = National Park Authority
NPPF = National Planning Policy Framework
SAC = Special Area of Conservation
SPA = Special Protection Area
SSSI = Site of Special Scientific Interest
TRO = Traffic Regulation Order

Landmark barristers David Blundell QC, Miranda Butler and Richard Turney have produced a podcast on standing in light of the very recent, and extremely significant, decision of the Divisional Court in the Good Law Project's challenge to the Government’s practice in making appointments to important public health agencies during the Covid-19 pandemic. 

This podcast gives an overview of the approach to standing in judicial review; a detailed overview of the decision in the Good Law Project challenge; and case law on the link between standing and timing in judicial review.

Planning barristers Sasha White QC and Anjoli Foster discuss their experiences of holding planning inquiries online and share their views on whether inquiries and conferences should continue to be held online or whether we should return to the times of these being held completely in person.

The discussion touches on the implications for the quality of advocacy, the presentation of evidence and the questioning of witnesses, accessibility, cost and - importantly - whether the advent of more online interactions might help to advance equality within the profession given that less travelling and less staying away from home makes it easier to juggle caring responsibilities at home and other commitments.