Source: https://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/people/yaaser-vanderman/
Timestamp: 2019-07-22 18:31:41
Document Index: 348062088

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'art 6', 'art 7', 'art 7', 'art 6', 'art 7', 'art 6', 'art 7', 'EWCA ', 'art 3', 'art 1']

Yaaser Vanderman | Landmark Chambers | Barristers Chambers London
Email: YVanderman@landmarkchambers.co.uk
Public law, Human Rights and EU law :
Energy, Infrastructure and Commercial
Immigration, Asylum and Citizenship
Residential and General Planning
Supreme Court hears case on whether relief from forfeiture is available for licences
Supreme Court hears important case on interpretation and implication in respect of planning permissions.
High Court quashes Secretary of State prior approval decision challenged by Upton Historic Parkland Conservation Group
Public Inquiry into East-West Rail 2 scheme
Sheffield City Council v Fairhall & Others and Persons Unknown [2018] EWHC 1793
Universal Credit rollout declared discriminatory against Severely Disabled Persons – R (TP and AR) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2018] EWHC 1474 (Admin)
Gang Injunction regime found compliant with Article 6 ECHR by Court of Appeal
Court of Appeal gives green light to exploratory fracking in Lancashire
Sheffield tree protestor receives suspended custodial sentence – Sheffield City Council v Payne [2017] EWHC 2692 (QB)
Sheffield Tree Protesters in Contempt Proceedings – Sheffield City Council v Teal and Payne [2017] EWHC 2692 (QB)
Sheffield City Council v Fairhall and others [2017] EWHC 2121 (QB)
R (Edward) v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2017] EWHC 1112 (Admin)
R (PNRAG and Frackman) v SSCLG and Cuadrilla [2017] EWHC 808 (Admin)
R (Williams) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 98
R (Moore) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: [2016] EWHC 2736 (Admin)
Joyce and Jones v Birmingham City Council and CC of Merseyside
Yaaser’s practice covers public law and human rights, planning and environmental law and property law (in particular, trespass). He regularly appears at the appellate level; in 2019 he will appear in the Supreme Court in three cases. He has been appointed to the Attorney General’s C Panel of Counsel.
Clients have stated that he is “extremely capable” and have commented on his “exemplary…energy and commitment” and “very approachable style”. Yaaser is ranked as the 4th highest barrister under 35 in the 2019 Planning Magazine Law Survey.
He studied undergraduate law at Clare College, Cambridge University before completing postgraduate law degrees at Keble College, Oxford University (BCL) and Harvard Law School (LLM). He was also the 2012 Eldon Law Scholar of Oxford University.
Yaaser also spent a year as the Judicial Assistant to Lord Toulson and Lord Hughes in the Supreme Court, where he worked closely with the Justices on a wide variety of cases.
He previously worked at the South African Human Rights Commission, Harvard Law School’s Human Rights Clinic and the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute.
Yaaser is regularly instructed on high profile cases. These include:
R (Good Law Project) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2019]: Yaaser is acting for the Claimant in this landmark challenge to the Government’s approach to medicines shortages following Brexit. The challenge is brought on the basis that the Government does not have the power to make Serious Shortage Protocols, which allows pharmacists unilaterally to substitute a different medicine or strength, quantity or pharmaceutical form of a medicine prescribed by a doctor. National media coverage on the case can be found in the Guardian and in The Times.
R (TP and AR) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2018] EWHC 1474 (Admin): Acted for the claimants in the first successful challenge to Universal Credit. The case involved a judicial review of Universal Credit and its discrimination against severely disabled persons contrary to Article 14 ECHR together with Article 1 Protocol 1 and Article 8 ECHR. This case has been widely covered in the national press, including in the Guardian, the Independent and the Mirror.
Heathrow Airport 3rd Runway challenge [2019]: High Court judicial review of the proposed expansion to Heathrow Airport in the form of a third runway. Yaaser acted for the Second Interested Party, Arora Group, one of the principal landowners at and around Heathrow Airport. There were various challenges to the proposal, including on noise, air pollution and climate change grounds as well as on competition law grounds. National media coverage of the case can be found in the Guardian, the BBC and the Financial Times.
Lambeth LBC v SSCLG (2019) – Supreme Court case on whether an entirely new condition can be implied into a planning permission. Yaaser is acting for a local authority.
Sheffield City Council v Fairhall and others [2017] EWHC 2121 (QB): High Court claim to restrain the Sheffield tree protestors based on Article 10/11 ECHR (freedom of expression and assembly) and subsequent committal proceedings. This case was widely covered in the national press, including on the BBC and ITV and in the Guardian.
R (Preston New Road Action Group) v SSCLG and Cuadrilla [2018] EWCA Civ 9: A Court of Appeal challenge to the first horizontal fracking wells in the UK, including climate change and planning issues. This case was widely covered in the national press, including on the BBC and in the Times and the Guardian; and,
East-West Rail scheme (2019): Yaaser is acting for Network Rail in a 40-day planning inquiry in relation to the proposed train line between Oxford and Cambridge.
Yaaser’s practice covers the breadth of public law issues, including civil liberties, commercial/regulatory law, healthcare, environmental law, education, housing, social security, local government and immigration, asylum and citizenship claims. He has been appointed to the Attorney General’s C Panel of Counsel.
Jones v Birmingham City Council [2018] EWCA Civ 1189: Appearing in the Court of Appeal in a human rights challenge to the compatibility of “Gang Injunctions” and the new ASBO regime with the right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the ECHR). This case was covered on the BBC.
Sheffield City Council v Fairhall and others [2017] EWHC 2121 (QB): High Court claim to restrain the Sheffield tree protestors, based on Article 10/11 ECHR. This case was widely covered in the national press, including on the BBC and ITV and in the Guardian. Yaaser has appeared in several further committal hearings arising from matters occurring after the injunction.
R (Preston New Road Action Group) v SSCLG and Cuadrilla [2018] EWCA Civ 9: A Court of Appeal challenge to the first horizontal fracking wells in the UK. This case was widely covered in the national press, including on the BBC and in the Times and Guardian;
R (Williams) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] 1 WLR 3283: Appearing for the claimant in the Court of Appeal on whether requiring destitute children to pay a fee before obtaining British citizenship is ultra vires and/or a breach of Article 8 and/or 14 ECHR.
Yaaser is a contributor to Adult Social Care Law (2018, LAG) and Children Social Care Law (2018, LAG). He regularly contributes to academic discussion on the development of public law and has been published on several occasions in the Judicial Review and Public Law journals. He regularly gives talks on public law issues.
Yaaser is a member of ALBA, JUSTICE and he is a Chair of the Executive Committee of the Young Public Lawyers Group.
Prior to joining Chambers, Yaaser worked at the following organisations:
Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School;
South African Human Rights Commission;
Liberty; and,
International Bar Association (Human Rights Institute).
Much of Yaaser’s work touches on civil liberties and human rights. This ranges from the right to protest to the right to be free from discrimination. He has extensive academic and practical experience on these matters, having worked at the Human Rights Clinic whilst at Harvard Law School, the South African Human Rights Commission, Liberty and the International Bar Association (Human Rights Institute).
Joyce v Birmingham City Council (SSHD intervening) [2018] EWCA Civ 1189: Court of Appeal human rights challenge to the compatibility of “Gang Injunctions” and the new ASBO regime with the right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the ECHR). The claimants argued for a declaration of incompatibility (s4 of the Human Rights Act 1998). Relying on cases such as R (McCann) v Manchester Crown Court [2003] 1 AC 787 (HL), it was claimed that the civil standard of proof expressly required by the legislation breached Article 6 ECHR. This case was covered on the BBC.
Sheffield City Council v Crump (2018): Three committal applications in the High Court with respect to alleged breaches of an injunction by Sheffield tree protestors. The Council brought proceedings against individuals who had continued to carry out direct action to prevent tree-felling notwithstanding an injunction prohibiting this.
Sheffield City Council v Teal and Payne [2017] EWHC 2692 (QB): Committal application in the High Court with respect to alleged breaches of an injunction by Sheffield tree protestors. The case was in the national press, including in the Guardian.
Sheffield City Council v Fairhall [2017] EWHC 2121 (QB): Three-day High Court trial for an injunction against Sheffield tree protestors. The case involved direct action by protestors attempting to prevent the felling of trees on the highways in Sheffield. The case involved issues of trespass and nuisance on the public highway and Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly) ECHR. This case was widely covered in the national press, including on the BBC and ITV and in the Guardian.
Yaaser continues to contribute to discussion on the development of civil liberties law and has had the following articles published in leading public law journals:
“The right to protest and direct action” [2017] JR 338 and,
“The right to a fair trial in Tariq v Home Office: taking blind shots at a hidden target” [2012] JR 70.
Yaaser has been instructed in some very high profile claims in a broad range of areas, including fracking.
R (Preston New Road Action Group) v SSCLG and Cuadrilla [2018] EWCA Civ 9: A Court of Appeal challenge to the first horizontal fracking wells in the UK. The claim involved, amongst other things, air quality and climate change issues and whether the Environmental Impact Assessment was flawed. The claimants argued that the Secretary of State had not properly taken into account the climate change effects of the proposed fracking. It was also argued that the Secretary of State was not sufficiently cautious about other safety issues.
R (Eider Power Reserve Ltd) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (2018): A High Court challenge to the payment structure of the electricity Capacity Market. The claim was based on unlawful discrimination, breach of A1P1 ECHR, legitimate expectations and State aid issues.
Vtesse v VO (2018): A challenge to the rating valuation of Vtesse’s fibre network, including whether BT’s network had received State aid.
R (Burton) v SSCLG and Cuadrilla (2017): A High Court challenge to a decision made in relation to fracking sites in Lancashire. A decision by the Secretary of State that a further inquiry should take place to reinvestigate highway safety issues was challenged as unlawful.
R (Moore) v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 2736 (Admin): Judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to grant consent to a local authority to appropriate allotment land for redevelopment. The decision was challenged on the bases of irrationality, misdirection, A1P1 ECHR and legitimate expectations. Yaaser appeared in the High Court for the National Allotment Society (interested party).
Yaaser has a keen interest in healthcare issues and his practice covers a whole range of related areas. This includes consent issues, whether NHS bodies have acted within their powers, contractual issues and human rights claims.
R (Good Law Project) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (2019): Yaaser is acting for the Claimant in this landmark challenge to the Government’s approach to medicines shortages following Brexit. Regulation 9 of the Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2019 allows the Government to issue Serious Shortage Protocols where shortages of medicine are foreseen. This allows pharmacists unilaterally to substitute a different medicine or strength, quantity or pharmaceutical form of a medicine prescribed by a doctor. The challenge is brought on the basis that the Government does not have the power to do this, no equality impact assessment was carried out and the informal, private consultation undertaken was inadequate. National media coverage on the case can be found in the Guardian and in The Times.
Advising on issues relating to the practice of using mesh to treat women with Stress Urinary Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse [2019].
Advising clients on eligibility for Continuing Healthcare and, more generally, on the National Health Service Commissioning Board and Clinical Commissioning Groups (Responsibilities and Standing Rules) Regulations 2012, the 2009 Complaint Regulations and the Ombudsman procedure.
Hearings before Pharmacy Appeals Committee (2018).
Medical tests and consent (2017): Involving a challenge to testing of certain disorders by NHS trusts and the manner in which they reveal the result. The claim involves issues of consent, the common law right of self-determination to make medical decisions and data protection.
Evicting patients from hospital beds (2017): A claim to evict from hospital a patient that refused to leave – involving Article 8 ECHR issues (right to privacy).
Contractual issues (2017): Based on the proper construction of a hospital’s lease with the relevant NHS body, the issue was whether the NHS body was able to sublet the property to a third party. This involved construction of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and the Health and Social Care Act 2012 West Essex Primary Care Trust Property Transfer Scheme 2013.
Yaaser is a contributor to Adult Social Care Law (2018, LAG) and Children Social Care Law (2018, LAG).
He has given talks on healthcare issues to leading firms and is also a contributor to Landmark’s Healthcare blog. His paper on freeing up beds in hospitals can be found here.
Yaaser regularly advises on, and acts in, social security and benefits cases. He is currently involved in a high-profile challenge to Universal Credit and its effect on severely disabled persons.
R (TP and AR) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2018] EWHC 1474 (Admin): Acted for the claimants in the first successful challenge to Universal Credit. The case involved a judicial review of Universal Credit and its discrimination against severely disabled persons contrary to Article 14 ECHR together with Article 1 Protocol 1 and Article 8 ECHR. This case has been widely covered in the national press, including in the Guardian, the Independent and the Mirror. On the facts of this case, the claimants suffered a significant decrease in entitlements following their transfer from legacy benefits to Universal Credit.
Universal credit case (2017): Instructed in relation to a local authority’s decision to transfer an individual from legacy benefits to Universal Credit. The transfer was triggered by his forced relocation to another property resulting in a significant reduction in his monthly benefits. The Secretary of State subsequently reversed its decision.
EU pension entitlement (2017): Involving spousal entitlement to an EU pension. This centred on the meaning of Annex VIII of Regulation No 31 (EEC) laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community.
Yaaser has a substantial interest in education issues. His recent cases include:
R (Sandwell MBC) v Secretary of State for Education [2019]: Acting for the Council in a judicial review of the Secretary of State’s allocation of Basic Need Funding for 2020/21. This relates to the amount of capital funding granted to local authorities to provide for increases in students. The Council claimed that the nil allocation awarded by the Secretary of State was unlawful. The claim was worth over £10m.
Challenges to decisions made by the Education and Skills Funding Agency.
Advising one of the largest suppliers of summer school education on their Tier 4 sponsor status.
He has given talks on education issues, including on Fundamental British Values.
He was formerly a Governor at his local school.
Yaaser does housing work in both the County Court and High Court. He has dealt with all types of challenges to decisions made under Part 6 (allocation of housing) and Part 7 (homelessness) of the Housing Act 1996. Yaaser brings particular expertise to this area, having cross-cutting experience in related property work on landlord and tenant disputes.
Kirkham v Royal Borough of Greenwich (2018): Housing Act appeal in relation to Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.
R (Edward) v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2017] EWHC 1112 (Admin): High Court committal hearing. The claimant sought permission to commit two of Greenwich’s officers for making a false statement of truth in a previous judicial review.
R (Edward) v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2016] EWHC 3410 (Admin): High Court judicial review of decisions made with respect to housing allocation (Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996) and homelessness (Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996). The case included arguments on procedural unfairness, irrationality, breach of a legitimate expectation, unlawful deviation from policy, breaches of the Equality Act 2010 and various breaches of the ECHR.
Ogunfeitimi v Royal Borough of Greenwich (2016): Housing Act appeal on whether the claimant was eligible for housing assistance. The claimant raised arguments on the interests of her children and Article 8 ECHR.
R (Jalal) v Royal Borough of Greenwich (2016): High Court judicial review on whether a duty was owed to the claimant’s children as “children in need” (s17 of the Children Act 1989) and whether taking the accommodation away violated the claimant’s Article 8 ECHR right.
Yaaser has appeared at all levels up to the Court of Appeal in asylum, immigration and citizenship cases. He has most recently appeared on behalf of Kurdish, Sierra Leonean and Ahmadi asylum seekers. Yaaser has also advised businesses on immigration sponsorship and Tier 4 issues.
R (Williams) v SSHD [2017] 1 WLR 3283: Two-day hearing in the Court of Appeal on whether requiring destitute children to pay a fee before obtaining British citizenship was ultra vires the primary legislation and/or a breach of Article 8 and/or 14 ECHR. The substantive hearing was preceded two weeks earlier by a preliminary hearing in the Court of Appeal. At this preliminary hearing, it was decided that the substantive hearing should go ahead notwithstanding that the claimant himself had now obtained citizenship.
R (Elmalhouf) v SSHD (2017): High Court claim involving an ex-diplomat from Libya (member of the International Maritime Organisation based in London), his immigration status, and whether the Secretary of State had wrongfully retained his and his family’s passports for several months. This case followed Estrada v Al-Juffali [2016] 3 WLR 243 and R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Bagga [1991] 1 QB 485.
CS (Morocco) v SSHD (2017): Appearing in the Upper Tribunal in a case involving Zambrano issues where a third country national parent of an EU citizen child engages in criminal conduct.
Yaaser has worked for a number of local governments on a broad range of public law issues. This has involved ongoing advice and representation on long-standing issues as well as one-off assistance.
Advising a local authority on the legality of holding a referendum on a local issue at the same time as the local elections [2019]. This also involved issues relating to purdah.
Acting for Sheffield City Council against tree protestors: Since March 2017, Yaaser has been advising and representing Sheffield City Council following direct action by protestors attempting to prevent the felling of trees on the highways. His assistance can be split into two phases:
There was, initially, an interim injunction application in the High Court. This was followed by a 3-day trial in the High Court on issues of trespass and nuisance on the public highway and Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly) ECHR. Following the hearing, an injunction was granted. This case was widely covered in the national press, including on the BBC and ITV and in the Guardian;
Yaaser continues to advise and act for Sheffield City Council following alleged breaches of the injunction by protestors. This has culminated in several committal applications in the High Court; proceedings have been brought against individuals who continue to carry out direct action to prevent tree-felling notwithstanding the injunction prohibiting this. This has been in the national press, including in the Guardian.
Yaaser acted in the High Court proceedings for renewal of the injunction in summer 2018.
R (Edward) v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2017] EWHC 1112 (Admin): Yaaser acted for Greenwich in a High Court committal hearing. The claimant sought permission to commit two of Greenwich’s officers for making a false statement of truth in a previous judicial review.
Assisting Wiltshire Council (2017): Yaaser was instructed by Wiltshire Council to assist defending a proposed judicial review of its complaints process and governance issues.
R (Edward) v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2016] EWHC 3410 (Admin): Yaaser acted for Greenwich in a High Court judicial review of decisions made with respect to housing allocation (Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996) and homelessness (Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996). The case included arguments on procedural unfairness, irrationality, breach of a legitimate expectation, unlawful deviation from policy, breaches of the Equality Act 2010 and various breaches of the ECHR.
Ogunfeitimi v Royal Borough of Greenwich (2016): Yaaser acted for Greenwich in a Housing Act appeal on whether the claimant was eligible for housing assistance. The claimant raised arguments on the interests of her children and Article 8 ECHR.
R (Jalal) v Royal Borough of Greenwich (2016): Yaaser acted for Greenwich in a High Court judicial review on whether a duty was owed to the claimant’s children as “children in need” (s17 of the Children Act 1989) and whether taking the accommodation away violated the claimant’s Article 8 ECHR right.
Civil restraint order: Yaaser has advised a local authority in relation to the merits and prospects of obtaining a civil restraint order against a particular individual.
Yaaser is engaged in animal rights’ issues and has worked closely with Cruelty Free International.
Animal testing: Advising on the legality of regtox testing.
Greyhounds: Advising on the regime dealing with the welfare of greyhounds.
Chimpanzees shipped to the UK: Instructed by an animal rights NGO in relation to an urgent judicial review against the Animal and Plant Health Agency and Secretary of State of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. This was in relation to a decision to grant seven import permits for the import of seven chimpanzees from Georgia, USA to a zoo in Kent. The claim involved the UN Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species, the EU Regulation putting this into effect (Council Regulation 338/97) and the domestic legislation dealing with enforcement (Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1997).
Yaaser’s practice covers the breadth of planning and environmental work. He has appeared in the Court of Appeal and High Court as well as at several Inquiries and hearings. He has been appointed to the Attorney General’s C Panel of Counsel. Yaaser is ranked as the 4th highest barrister under 35 in the 2019 Planning Magazine Law Survey.
Yaaser has a particular interest in infrastructure. He is also often instructed to advise on the merits of challenging planning decisions as well as CIL, s106 contributions, affordable housing and enforcement issues. In addition, he has worked on compulsory purchase cases and State aid issues.
R (Preston New Road Action Group) v SSCLG and Cuadrilla [2018] EWCA Civ 9: A Court of Appeal challenge to the first horizontal fracking wells in the UK. The claim involved, amongst other things, air quality issues and whether Environmental Impact Assessment was flawed.
R (Crantock Parish Council) v Cornwall City Council (2018): Acting for the Parish Council in relation to a challenge to a large residential scheme in Crantock.
Acting for the Government on various challenges to residential schemes in Central Bedfordshire.
R (AB) v LB of Hammersmith and Fulham and Fordstam Ltd (2017): A challenge to the decision to grant planning permission for the new Chelsea FC stadium. This was based on air quality, procedural fairness and unlawful conditions.
R (Fishron Properties Ltd) v Basingstoke and Deane BC (2017): Judicial review of a decision by the local authority to dispose of a site to a third party (hotel) with an exclusivity clause that hotel use not be allowed for any other lease in the area. The case also involved potential breaches of the Competition Act 1998.
Yaaser is a member of UKELA and frequently gives talks on planning and environmental issues.
Yaaser has a particular interest and expertise in infrastructure.
East-West Rail scheme (2019): This is a £1bn project in which Yaaser is acting for Network Rail in a 40-day planning inquiry in relation to the reinstatement and upgrading of the train line between Oxford and Cambridge, including new stations and platforms on the route. It involves various issues including:
Transport impacts;
Engineering and construction issues; and,
R (Preston New Road Action Group) v SSCLG and Cuadrilla [2017] Env LR 33 (QBD): A High Court challenge to the first horizontal fracking wells in the UK (currently on appeal to the Court of Appeal). The claim involved, amongst other things, interpretation of various local development plan policies and paragraph 109 NPPF. It also involved procedural fairness issues following deviation from the statement of common ground.
R (Burton) v SSCLG and Cuadrilla (2017): A challenge to a decision made in relation to fracking sites in Lancashire. A decision by the Secretary of State that a further inquiry should take place to reinvestigate highway safety issues was challenged as unlawful.
Ofgem and electricity transmission infrastructure (2016): Involving an application by a third party for electricity transmission infrastructure and other issues related to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and Development Consent Orders.
Yaaser has been instructed in some very high profile environmental claims in a broad range of areas, including fracking, Premiership football stadiums, building on public parks and land appropriation. He has particular experience in air quality and climate change issues.
Upton Historic Parkland Conservation Group v SSCLG (2019): Yaaser acted for the successful Claimant, resulting in the quashing of a decision by an Inspector that granted prior approval to the developer to change an agricultural barn into flexible commercial use. This had been applied for under the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, Schedule 2, Part 3, Class R. The High Court found that the Inspector had applied the wrong test.
R (AB) v LB of Hammersmith and Fulham and Fordstam Ltd (2017): A challenge to the decision to grant planning permission for the new Chelsea FC stadium. This was based on air quality, procedural fairness and a challenge to the conditions in the planning permission.
Building on open space (2017): Yaaser assisted a local community in Newcastle in relation to a permission for development on their neighbouring open space.
Yaaser regularly acts in, and advises on, challenges to planning decisions. He also has significant experience on issues ranging from CIL liability to affordable housing.
Acting for Aldi in a High Court challenge brought by a rival supermarket to a development in Swindon.
Challenge to Garden Villages (2017): Challenging the Government’s decision to award funding to one of the 14 proposed new garden villages. This focused on the lack of housing need and flaws in the draft Local Plan relied upon by the Government.
No McDonald’s Resident Action Group Inquiry (2016): Sole counsel in a 2-week inquiry for the No McDonald’s Kenton Residents’ Action Group (Rule 6 party) between McDonald’s and Newcastle City Council. It related to a proposed development near one of the biggest secondary schools outside of London. The claim involved issues of transport safety, design and health policy.
Land at 349 Glovershaw Lane (2016): Sole counsel for the applicant at a hearing in a claim that a parcel of land of interest to the applicant should be from the register of common land as it was wrongly registered as common land several decades ago.
Sheffield City Council v Oakleigh Homes 2013 Ltd (2016): A claim involving enforcement of payments agreed with developers in s106 agreements.
Community Infrastructure Levy and s106 contributions: Yaaser regularly advises on CIL liability, s106 contributions, pooling restrictions and related issues.
Yaaser frequently advises on and appears at enforcement matters in inquiries, hearings, the Magistrates’ Court and the Crown Court.
London Borough of Brent v (1) BSH 3 Ltd (2) Hallmark Estates Ltd (2017): A claim where the local authority argued that the defendants’ had failed to comply with improvement notices (Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004) and were, therefore, guilty of criminal offences. Yaaser succeeded in proving that the local authority had acted ultra vires and that there was a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the notices.
London Borough of Brent v Clear Channel UK Ltd (2017): Yaaser appeared in Willesden Magistrates Court on behalf of the defendant. The local authority argued that the defendant, an advertising company, had failed to comply with an Advertisement Removal Notice.
Gardeners Farm Inquiry (2016): Appearing on behalf of Maldon District Council at an inquiry in an appeal against an enforcement notice issued by the local authority. The issue was whether a building had been used as a self-contained dwelling for at least four years.
R v Lashmar (2016): A claim in Chelmsford Crown Court where the local authority argued that the defendant had failed to comply with enforcement notices and had, therefore, committed criminal offences.
Ghetia Ltd v London Borough of Newham (2016) – The appellant appealed a notice (s215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) related to the appearance of its shop following redevelopment of Romford Road.
Yaaser’s has specialist expertise in property law and human rights issues, particularly relating to trespassers, Persons Unknown and occupational rights. He regularly advises, and appears in court, on these matters. He has also advised on and appeared unled in several committal applications in the High Court.
Acting for Sheffield City Council against tree protestors: Since March 2017, Yaaser has been advising and representing Sheffield City Council following direct action by protestors attempting to prevent the lawful felling of trees on the highways. His assistance can be split into three phases:
There was, initially, an interim injunction application in the High Court. This was followed by a 3-day trial in the High Court on issues of trespass and nuisance on the public highway and Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly) ECHR. Following the hearing, an injunction was granted: Sheffield City Council v Fairhall. This case was widely covered in the national press, including on the BBCand ITV and in the Guardian;
Yaaser continues to advise and act for Sheffield City Council following alleged breaches of the injunction by protestors. This has culminated in 8 committal applications in the High Court before Males J, in most of which Yaaser has acted unled; proceedings have been brought against individuals who continue to carry out direct action to prevent tree-felling notwithstanding the injunction prohibiting this. These have included Sheffield City Council v Teal and Payne, Sheffield City Council v Crump and Sheffield City Council v Brooke. These have been in the national press, including in the Guardian.
Acting for City Pride Ltd against urban explorers (2019): In March 2019, Yaaser was instructed in relation to injunctions against Persons Unknown who were trespassing on the Landmark Pinnacle building site in Canary Wharf. This building will be one of the tallest residential towers in London and the trespassers were scaling the tallest crane in Europe for their urban exploration activities.
Acting for Arch Co (2019): In May 2019, Yaaser was instructed in relation to injunctions against Persons Unknown who were trespassing and conducting music raves in railway arches in London. Arch Co had previously purchased the railway arches for £1.5bn from Network Rail.
Harvard Law School – LLM
Oxford University, Keble College – BCL (Distinction)
Cambridge University, Clare College – MA (Hons) in Law (Double First)
Cambridge-Harvard Exchange Scholar
Eldon Law Scholar (most promising Oxford University graduate intending to practise at the Bar)
Commercial Remedies highest mark in the year (Oxford University)
William Senior Prize for Law (highest in Clare College)
James William Squire Scholar (Cambridge University)
Foundation Scholar (Honorary) (Cambridge University)
Human Rights Lawyers Association Bursary Award
International Bar Association Educational Trust Scholar
Phoenicia Scholar (Bar European Group Conference)
ALBA Scholar (ALBA summer conference)
2017 “Right to Protest and Direct Action” [2017] JR 338
2017 “Freeing up beds in hospitals – can a hospital patient be evicted?”
2016 “Substantive Legitimate Expectations” [2016] 3 Judicial Review 174
2013 “RT and KM v Secretary of State for Home Department – Problems with core/margin
reasoning in claims of persecution” [2013] Judicial Review 26
2012 ‘The Right to a Fair Trial in Tariq v Home Office: taking blind shots at a hidden target’
[2012] Judicial Review 70
2012 ‘Ultra Vires Legitimate Expectations: an argument for compensation’ [2012] Public Law
2011 ‘Patmalniece and Lord Walker’s Dissent: does he have a point?’ published on UK
Supreme Court Blog (run by Matrix Chambers and Olswang)
Persons Unknown And Human Rights After Ineos Quia Timet Injunctions And Beyond
Fundamental British Values: What are they and how does one respect them?
Procedural Fairness – Planning Appeals