David Matthias QC

Practice Profile

David's practice includes commercial, chancery, property and construction law, licensing and all areas of administrative, regulatory and public law. He has a wealth of experience and a strong reputation for advising and conducting major cases in those areas - recently, for example, on behalf of clients including Capita Symonds, Datasharp UK, West Ham United, Westminster City Council, and Casinos Austria International GMBH. His overseas work has included a recent appearance for a consortium of property developers before the Court of Appeal in the Turks and Caicos Islands. David also undertakes Public Access work.

Identified as a "leading junior" in both The Legal 500 UK Edition and Chambers UK Guide, and then as a "leading new silk" ("Newly appointed silk David Matthias QC is lauded as a 'great technical barrister'..." - Chambers UK Guide 2007), David has been consistently praised in subsequent editions of those guides as being "Strong both technically and legally," and "... always prepared to muck in and work hard for the clients...". He is consistently ranked as a leading silk who has "made a name for himself" for being "subtly persuasive in court. His broad practice includes an active public law portfolio, and he has conducted a number of important judicial reviews in the past year."

Areas of Practice

Please click on the following areas of expertise to see more information.

Commercial, Chancery and Property Litigation and Arbitration
Compulsory Purchase and Compensation
Construction Litigation and Arbitration
Employment
Environmental Law
Judicial Review
Licensing
Local Government Law
Planning
Public Procurement
Rating and Valuation
Regulatory
Town and Village Greens

Cases

Recent cases of note include:

R (on application of A3D2) v Westminster City Council [2011] EWHC 1045
R (on application of Albert Court Residents' Association) v Westminster City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 430
Wollenberg v Casinos Austria International GMBH [2011] EWHC 103 (Ch)
R (on application of Hope and Glory PH Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31
Franbar Holdings Ltd v Casualty Plus Ltd [2010] EWHC 1164 (Ch)
Stephen Barclay v Fairfax I.S. PLC [2010] EWHC (Ch)
Beauchamp Pizza Company v Coventry City Council [2010] EWHC 926 (Ch)
Muffin Break and Othrs v Henry Boot Developments [2010] EWHC 358 (Ch)
Cyril Capron v Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands [2010] UKPC 2
R (on application of Vtesse Networks Ltd) v North West Wiltshire [2010] EWHC 3283 (Admin)
R (on application of Benjamin Banks) v Tower Hamlets LBC [2009] EWHC 242 (Admin)
R (on application of Hope & Glory PH Ltd) v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate [2009] EWHC 1996 (Admin)
London Borough of Camden v Makers UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 605 (TCC)
Eastleigh Borough Council v Town Quay Developments [2009] EWCA Civ 1391 and [2008] EWHC 1922 (Ch)
Franbar Holdings Ltd v Patel [2008] EWHC 1534 (Ch)
Makers UK Ltd v Camden LBC [2008] EWHC 1836 (TCC)
R (on application of Westminster City Council) v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate [2008] EWHC 1202 (Admin)
R (on application of S) v Lewisham LBC [2008] EWHC 1290 (Admin)
Desnousse v Newham LBC [2006] EWCA Civ 547
William Verry Ltd v Camden LBC [2006] EWHC 761 (TCC)
R (on application of Blackwood) v Birmingham Magistrates [2006] EWHC 1800 (Admin)

Commercial, Chancery and Property Litigation and Arbitration

David enjoys a high reputation for his commercial, chancery (including company, partnership, agency and contested probate) and property (including land law and landlord and tenant) work. In addition to litigation, as a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators he is a qualified arbitrator and has considerable expertise in that form of dispute resolution.

Commercial

He recently appeared for six companies bringing claims in fraudulent misrepresentation against a leading property developer - Muffin Break and Othrs v Henry Boot Developments [2010] EWHC 358 (Ch), for the largest distributor of office telephone systems in the UK in a major commercial claim against the UK arm of the Nitsuko Corporation of Japan, and for a consortium of property developers bringing claims in breach of contract and proprietary estoppel against the government of the Turks and Caicos Islands, both before the Court of Appeal in the Turks and Caicos Islands and before the Privy Council in London - Cyril Capron v Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands [2010] UKPC 2. In Stephen Barclay v Fairfax v Fairfax I.S. PLC [2010] EWHC (Ch) David acted for the Claimant in his successful commercial agency action against a leading investment bank, and in Wollenberg v Casinos Austria International GMBH [2011] EWHC 103 (Ch) for a major Austrian corporation in a case concerning domestic and international commercial agency agreements. Renoir Consulting v Gould and Stuart concerned the enforcement of restrictive covenants in employment contracts against two senior employees living and working in Malaysia - an action in which David secured an order for a speedy trial from Mann J. in February 2011, and which was subsequently settled satisfactorily on the day of the trial in June 2011.

Arbitration

In terms of arbitration, David has recently appeared for the claimant in an international arbitration concerning a commercial agency dispute over multi-million pound contracts for the supply of helicopters to a foreign state to service its oilfields, and for a local authority in a commercial arbitration where the authority was contesting a three million pound claim from a service provider to which it had outsourced its provision of residential social care homes.

Interim Injunctions

He has considerable experience of securing interim injunctions (including Freezing, Search and Doorstep Orders) which can often prove decisive to the course and outcome of commercial and chancery disputes. For example, in Hunter Kane Ltd v Watkins [2003] EWHC 186 (Ch) and [2003] EWHC 722 (Ch) (a significant case concerning breaches of copyright and of fiduciary duty by a company director) he acted for the claimant company in obtaining urgent Search Orders against the defendant, a former director who had resigned with a view to diverting maturing business opportunities away from the Claimant, and had sought to delete all evidence of his preparations from his computers. He obtained those orders within 24 hours of first being instructed in a very complicated case, and the evidence secured thereby paved the way for complete success in the action. In C.L. v T.C. (anonymity ordered by Hart J.) the claimant (a major company) was being blackmailed by the defendant, a former employee who had taken confidential information and threatened to publish it. David secured an extensive Search Order to secure the stolen information, and further orders preventing the defendant from publishing any information, and securing anonymity for the proceedings.

Chancery

David's chancery practice includes company disputes, such as Franbar Holdings Ltd v Casualty Plus Ltd [2010] EWHC 1164 (Ch) and Franbar Holdings Ltd v Ketan Patel [2008] EWHC 1534 (Ch) - the first derivative action brought under the Companies Act 2006 (also see [2010] EWCA Civ 1618, [2011] EWCA Civ 60, [2011] EWHC 1161 (Ch), and [2011] EWCA Civ 1364) and Uren v First National Home Finance Ltd [2005] EWHC 2529 (Ch), director's disqualification proceedings (see, for example, Re BPR Ltd [1998] B.C.C. 259), contested probate work such as Elsa Allen & Ors v Norman Emery & Anor [2005] EWHC 2389 (Ch), partnership disputes such as Medcalf v Mardell (2000) WL 191139 CA (Civ) , joint venture disputes such as Alan Williams Entertainments Ltd v Hurd and Othrs [2006] EWCA Civ 1637 and Sintra Homes Ltd v Sintra Developments Ltd [2007] EWHC 3071 (Ch), intellectual property actions such as Hunter Kane Ltd v Watkins [2003] EWHC 186 (Ch) and [2003] EWHC 722 (Ch) and Christoffer v Poseidon Film Distributors Ltd [2000] E.C.D.R. 487, and breach of confidence claims. David's expertise in both company law and licensing law came to the fore in Beauchamp Pizza Company v Coventry City Council [2010] EWHC 926 (Ch), the first case to address the tension between section 1028 of the Companies Act 2006 and section 27 of the Licensing Act 2003.

Property - Land Law and Landlord and Tenant

David's property practice includes both land law disputes such as Eastleigh Borough Council v Town Quay Developments [2008] EWHC 1922 (Ch) and [2009] EWCA Civ 1391, and landlord and tenant work (both business and residential) such as Gray v Brown (C.A.) (1993) 25 H.L.R. 144 and R (on application of Chowdhury) v Newham LBC [2003] EWHC 2837 (Admin). He appeared before the House of Lords in a major case concerning the scope of Article 8 of the ECHR in the context of possession proceedings against residential occupiers - Harrow London Borough Council v Tarik Qazi (2004) 1 AC 983; and for all three defendants before the Court of Appeal in the important case of Roma Desnousse v (1) Newham London Borough Council (2) Paddington Churches Housing Association (3) Veni Properties Ltd (2006) QB 831, concerning the applicability of the Protection From Eviction Act 1977 to the actions of local housing authorities under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.

Compulsory Purchase and Compensation

David is experienced in compulsory purchase and compensation. He advises and appears both in the Lands Tribunal and at compulsory purchase public inquiries.

He is currently engaged in advising a metropolitan borough council engaged in a land assembly exercise, with a view to disposing of the land so acquired to a developer for the comprehensive redevelopment of the town centre. This advice concerns inter alia the appropriation of the relevant land including the compulsory purchase of certain land and the compensation implications of so doing.

Construction Litigation and Arbitration

David has a strong construction law practice, and is regularly involved in adjudications, arbitrations and litigation in this field. As a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators he is a qualified arbitrator and has considerable expertise in that form of dispute resolution.
He recently acted for the London Borough of Camden in a major building dispute - London Borough of Camden v Makers UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 605 TCC and [2008] EWHC 1836 TCC, having previously acted for that client in a series of high profile and complicated adjudications, and represented that client before the Technology and Construction Court in an important case concerning the enforceability of adjudicators' awards - William Verry Limited v London Borough of Camden (2006) EWHC 761 (TCC). He acted for Hammersmith Borough Council in a large action in the TCC concerning defective roofing on a major civic building, which he settled successfully last year after a two day informal mediation. In Turner Page Ltd v Torres Design (1998) TLR 499 (C.A.) he acted for a development company successfully bringing a large claim in the Technology and Construction Court against a design consultancy responsible for defects in the renovation and restoration of a large London theatre. In 2010 he acted for West Ham United football club in a dispute concerning the construction of a new stand at their ground.

Employment

David is highly experienced in advising with regard to employment disputes and acting for both employers and employees before the courts and employment tribunals. Major recent cases have included Lesley Gill v Time Out Magazine Ltd, a claim in wrongful dismissal brought successfully in the High Court on behalf of the former managing director of the well known magazine (the case ending on the fourth day of the trial when the defendant company agreed to pay the entire value of the claim plus all the claimant's costs), and Andrew Duncan v Mac Trading Services Ltd, a claim in unfair dismissal brought on behalf of the manager of a company trading on the financial futures market, which was settled in his favour at the hearing in the London Central Employment Tribunal. In 2011 he acted for the deputy chief executive of Microsoft UK in relation to his dismissal from that company.

Environmental Law

David has considerable experience of both prosecuting and defending cases of statutory nuisance, and of acting in civil cases concerning both public and private nuisance. He acted for the local authority in Nottingham City Council v Matthew Zain (2002) 1 WLR 607 (C.A.), a significant test case concerning the availability of injunctive relief under section 222 Local Government Act 1972 and/or section 130 Highways Act 1980, to prevent public nuisance and anti social behaviour in public places.

He has a thorough understanding of acoustics and an expertise in nuisance cases involving disputed acoustic evidence. For example, he acted for the regulatory authority in the magistrates' court, and subsequently the High Court in R (on application of Hope & Glory PH Ltd) v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate [2009] EWHC 1996 (Admin) - an important case on inter alia public nuisance (in the form of noise nuisance) in the context of the Licensing Act 2003.

Judicial Review

David is an established leading practitioner in this field with a high profile public law practice, regularly advising and acting in relation to judicial review and other public law proceedings, and is renowned for the range and breadth of his judicial review experience.

For example, in R (on application of S) v (1) London Borough of Lewisham (2) London Borough of Lambeth (3) London Borough of Hackney & (4) Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWHC 1290 (Admin) David appeared for Lewisham in this important case concerning the determination of responsibilities as between local authorities for the provision of services under the National Assistance Act 1948. He acted for the respondent authority, successfully resisting serious allegations of unlawfulness, misfeasance in public office and contempt of court in relation to its law enforcement functions, in R (on application of Benjamin Banks) v Tower Hamlets LBC [2009] EWHC 242 (Admin). In R (on application of Vtesse Networks Ltd) v North West Wiltshire Magistrates' Court [2009] EWHC 3283 (Admin) he acted for Wiltshire as charging authority in a dispute concerning liability orders for several million pounds in respect of the non-domestic rates sought over several years with regard to the claimant's national network of underground fibre optic cabling, a case involving important issues of non-domestic rating, principles of valuation, the enforcement of liability orders and the effect of European competition law.

He appeared as leading junior before the Court of Appeal in such key housing cases as R v Newhan LBC ex p. Dada [1996] Q.B. 507 (determining the status of unborn children with regard to housing applications), R v Newham LBC ex p. Sacupima & Ors [2001] 1 WLR 563 (C.A.)(defining "homeless" and "suitability"), and R (on application of Bibi and Al-Nashed) v Newham LBC [2002] 1 WLR 237 (C.A.) (concerning substantive legitimate expectation ). David also appeared before the House of Lords in a major case concerning the scope of Article 8 of the ECHR in the context of possession proceedings against residential occupiers - Harrow London Borough Council v Tarik Qazi (2004) 1 AC 983; and for all three defendants before the Court of Appeal in the important case of Roma Desnousse v (1) Newham London Borough Council (2) Paddington Churches Housing Association (3) Veni Properties Ltd (2006) QB 831 (concerning the applicability of the Protection From Eviction Act 1977 to the actions of local housing authorities under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996). In Desnousse v Newham LBC [2006] Q.B. 831 he appeared before the Court of Appeal in a further important case concerning Article 8 of the ECHR in the context of those in occupation of temporary accommodation.

He has appeared in six of the major challenges brought thus far by way of judicial review of decisions made under the Licensing Act 2003. He appeared as leading junior for three major trade associations (BBPA, ALMR and BII) in their successful challenges to the policies of three licensing authorities (R (on application of BBPA & Others) v Canterbury City Council [2005] EWHC 1318 (Admin); [2006] BLGR 596), and in 2006 he acted for Mitchells and Butler in its successful defence of a favourable licensing decision by Birmingham Magistrates - R (on application of Blackwood) v Birmingham Magistrates, Birmingham City Council & Mitchells & Butler Retail Leisure Ltd [2006] EWHC 1800 (Admin) - a case involving the analysis of the interface and tension between the licensing and planning regulatory regimes. In 2008 he acted for Westminster City Council in its challenge regarding the legality of conditions imposed by the magistrate when granting a premises licence following a contested appeal - R (on application of Westminster City Council) v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate & Marc Merran [2008] EWHC 1202 (Admin), and in 2009 he acted for the council in its successful opposition to the judicial review of the magistrate's decision in Hope & Glory PH Ltd v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate [2009] EWHC 1996 (Admin) - an important case on public nuisance in the context of the Licensing Act 2003, and on the role of the Magistrates' Court in licensing appeals. On appeal David succeeded in upholding the decision of Burton J., and secured a definitive ruling from the Court of Appeal on the conduct of licensing appeals and the role of the Magistrates' Court in such appeals - Hope & Glory PH Ltd v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate [2011] EWCA Civ 31. In R (on the application of Albert Court Residents' Association) v Westminster City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 430 he succeeded in a major appeal involving three parties concerning the doctrine of legitimate expectation in relation to the conduct of licensing authorities in the performance of their statutory powers and obligations. In R (on the application of A3D2) v Westminster City Council [2011] EWHC 1045 David was again successful before Cranston J. in this important case concerning cumulative impact policies and the significance of surrendered premises licences.

Further examples, demonstrating the range and breadth of David's judicial review experience, include cases such as R v Northampton Magistrates' Court ex p. Newell (C.A.) (1993) 157 J.P. 869 concerning the committal of a community charge defaulter in his absence, R v Poole Borough Council ex p. Ross (1996) 28 H.L.R. 351 in which he secured an order quashing a decision of the Housing Benefit Review Board, R v Legal Aid Board ex p. Doran QBD 3/7/96 where he brought a successful challenge against the Legal Aid Board, establishing that an objective test should be applied to determine whether a fact was material, R (on application of Rosen) v Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal [2002] EWHC 1323 (Admin) in which he succeeded in having interim decisions of the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal quashed, and R (on application of Tshikangu) v Newham LBC [2001] EWHC 92 (Admin) concerning the setting aside of permission to move for judicial review, and the procedure for securing the hearing of a test case.

Licensing

David has firmly established himself as a leading practitioner in this field, regularly advising and acting for the trade, for local authorities and police authorities, as well as for objectors and trade associations, on major licensing applications and appeals. He has also advised some of the largest licensing authorities in the country on the formulation of their statutory licensing policies, with a view to securing desired outcomes whilst minimising the risk of successful challenge to such policies.

He is instructed by major licensing solicitors, and by some of the busiest licensing authorities in the country. Significant appeals have included Directgain Ltd v Westminster City Council (heard by District Judge Purdy over 4 days in December 2005, concerning an appeal by a major London nightclub - "Cirque at the Hippodrome" - against a refusal to convert under the Licensing Act 2003), Coscutters v Oldham Metropolitan Council (heard by Oldham Justices over 7 days in 2006, in which he acted for the supermarket applicant on its successful appeal against a refusal to grant a premises licence to supply alcohol), Merran v Westminster City Council (heard by District Judge Roscoe over 11 days in 2006, concerning an appeal by a large London nightclub - "Movida" - against a refusal of its variation application), The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v William Lule trading as Pier One Nightspot (heard at Snaresbrook Crown Court in 2008, concerning the validity of closure orders made by the police against a nightclub), Muchfun Properties Ltd v Westminster City Council (heard by District Judge Roscoe over 16 days in 2008, concerning an appeal by an operator against the refusal of a premises licence for a proposed new 1,000 plus capacity nightclub - "Billionaire" - on The Haymarket.), and Hope & Glory PH Ltd v Westminster City Council (heard by District Judge Snow over 7 days in June 2009, concerning an appeal by an operator against a ban on outside drinking at its pub - "The Endurance"). More recent appeals have included Coral v London Borough of Tower Hamlets, an appeal against the refusal of a betting shop licence heard in October 2009, Sunfield Services Ltd v Westminster City Council, an appeal against a review decision heard in Westminster Magistrates' Court over 4 days in 2010, Maddox Club Ltd v Westminster City Council, heard in August 2010, Siostra Estates v Westminster City Council, heard over 4 days in July 2011, and Mayfair Enterprises v Westminster City Council and Estates and Agency Holdings Limited, heard over 9 days before District Judge Snow in October and November 2011, and concerning two appeals, the first against a review decision revoking a premises licence, and the second against a decision refusing to transfer the premises licence in question to another company.

Combining his licensing expertise with a high profile public law practice, he has also appeared in six of the major challenges brought thus far by way of judicial review of decisions made under the Licensing Act 2003. He appeared as leading junior for three major trade associations (BBPA, ALMR and BII) in their successful challenges to the policies of three licensing authorities (R (on application of BBPA & Others) v Canterbury City Council [2005] EWHC 1318 (Admin); [2006] BLGR 596), and in 2006 he acted for Mitchells and Butler in its successful defence of a favourable licensing decision by Birmingham Magistrates - R (on application of Blackwood) v Birmingham Magistrates, Birmingham City Council & Mitchells & Butler Retail Leisure Ltd [2006] EWHC 1800 (Admin) - a case involving the analysis of the interface and tension between the licensing and planning regulatory regimes. In 2008 he acted for Westminster City Council in its challenge regarding the legality of conditions imposed by the magistrate when granting a premises licence following a contested appeal - R (on application of Westminster City Council) v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate & Marc Merran [2008] EWHC 1202 (Admin), and in 2009 he acted for the council in its successful opposition to the judicial review of the magistrate's decision in R (on application of Hope & Glory PH Ltd) v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate [2009] EWHC 1996 (Admin) - an important case on public nuisance in the context of the Licensing Act 2003, and on the role of the Magistrates' Court in licensing appeals. On appeal David succeeded in upholding the decision of Burton J., and secured a definitive ruling from the Court of Appeal on the conduct of licensing appeals and the role of the Magistrates' Court in such appeals - R (on application of Hope & Glory PH Ltd) v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate [2011] EWCA Civ 31. In R (on application of Albert Court Residents' Association) v Westminster City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 430 he succeeded in a major appeal involving three parties concerning the doctrine of legitimate expectation in relation to the conduct of licensing authorities in the performance of their statutory powers and obligations. In R (on application of A3D2) v Westminster City Council [2011] EWHC 1045 David was again successful before Cranston J. in this important case concerning cumulative impact policies and the significance of surrendered premises licences.

David's expertise in both company law and licensing law came to the fore in Beauchamp Pizza Company v Coventry City Council [2010] EWHC 926 (Ch), the first case to address the tension between section 1028 of the Companies Act 2006 and section 27 of the Licensing Act 2003.

David is a contributing author to "Licensed Premises - Law and Practice" published by Tottel, and to "Gambling for Local Authorities, Licensing, Planning and Regeneration" published by The Institute of Licensing. He is a regular speaker at Paterson's annual Licensing Law Conferences.

Local Government

David has a major local government law practice, advising and representing local authorities throughout England and Wales on issues including finance, land transactions, non domestic rating and community charging, vires, the contracting-out of services and partnerships with the private sector, public procurement, election law, social housing, and the drafting of byelaws and policies.

He recently acted for Wiltshire as charging authority in a dispute concerning liability orders for several million pounds in respect of the non-domestic rates sought over several years with regard to the claimant's national network of underground fibre optic cabling, a case involving important issues of non-domestic rating, principles of valuation, the enforcement of liability orders and the effect of European competition law - R (on application of Vtesse Networks Ltd) v North West Wiltshire [2009] EWHC 3283 (Admin); and for a local authority facing a multi million pound claim in a commercial arbitration from a service provider to which it has "out sourced" a major part of its social care provision. David acted for the local authority in Nottingham City Council v Matthew Zain (2002) 1 WLR 607 (C.A.), an important test case concerning the availability of injunctive relief under section 222 Local Government Act 1972 and/or section 130 Highways Act 1980, to prevent public nuisance and anti social behaviour in public places. He also appeared for the local authority before the House of Lords in a major case concerning the scope of Article 8 of the ECHR in the context of possession proceedings brought by local authorities against residential occupiers - Harrow London Borough Council v Tarik Qazi (2004) 1 AC 983. In R (on application of S) v (1) London Borough of Lewisham (2) London Borough of Lambeth (3) London Borough of Hackney & (4) Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWHC 1290 (Admin) David appeared for Lewisham in this important case concerning the determination of responsibilities as between local authorities for the provision of services under the National Assistance Act 1948.

David acted for the respondent authority successfully resisting allegations of unlawfulness, misfeasance in public office and contempt of court in relation to its law enforcement functions in R (on application of Benjamin Banks) v Tower Hamlets LBC [2009] EWHC 242 (Admin). He also acted for the local authority in Eastleigh Borough Council v Town Quay Developments [2008] EWHC 1922 (Ch) and [2009] EWCA Civ 1391, a case involving issues of land law and local authority powers. In R (on application of Albert Court Residents' Association) v Westminster City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 430 he succeeded in a major appeal involving three parties concerning the doctrine of legitimate expectation in relation to the conduct of local authorities in the performance of their statutory powers and obligations.

David has considerable experience of acting for local authorities in relation to social housing. He appeared as leading junior for the local housing authority in such key decisions as R v Newham London Borough Council ex p. Sacupima & Ors [2001] 1 WLR 563 (C.A.) (defining "homeless" and "suitability"), and R (on application of Bibi and Al-Nashed) v Newham London Borough Council [2002] 1 WLR 237 (C.A.) (concerning substantive legitimate expectation in social housing decisions and generally). He represented all three defendants before the Court of Appeal in the important case of Roma Desnousse v (1) Newham London Borough Council (2) Paddington Churches Housing Association (3) Veni Properties Ltd (2006) QB 831, concerning the applicability of the Protection From Eviction Act 1977 to the actions of local housing authorities under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. David advises on the formulation and drafting of policy on behalf of housing authorities, for example he drafted and advised in relation to a new "Choice Based" housing allocation policy on behalf of a consortium of five West London local authorities. In December 2011 he spoke at the "Social Housing: Shaping New Legislation and Case-law into a Lawful and Skilful Allocations Policy" conference, organised by the White Paper Conference Company before an audience of senior social housing lawyers and officers.

Major drafting work for local authorities has included Licensing Policies, Housing Allocation Policies, a scheme of bye-laws to "de-criminalise" a borough council's parking regulation, and the re-drafting of a large London authority's "Scheme of Officer Delegations".

Examples of recent advisory work include advice in relation to public procurement issues under the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 for a major urban regeneration project in the north of England; advice concerning the legality of a major London borough's entire system of parking regulation; advice regarding the disposal of land in connection with a proposed town centre redevelopment; advice concerning a proposed shared service model between two local authorities for the sharing of financial transaction services; and advice regarding the viability of and risks associated with the outsourcing of community care services by a county council.

Planning

David's planning practice includes planning appeals, planning enforcement, outdoor advertising control, associated judicial review and statutory challenges under Part XII of the TCPA 1990.

For example, he acted for Mitchells and Butler in R (on application of Blackwood) v Birmingham Magistrates, Birmingham City Council & Mitchells & Butler Retail Leisure Ltd [2006] EWHC 1800 (Admin) - a case concerning planning conditions and involving an analysis of the interface and tension between the planning and licensing regulatory regimes.

David acted for the local authority in Eastleigh Borough Council v Town Quay Developments [2008] EWHC 1922 (Ch) and [2009] EWCA Civ 1391, a case involving issues of land law and local authority powers, particularly in the context of planning decisions.

He has recently been engaged in advising a major operator concerning its proposed advertising campaigns in connection with events associated with the London Olympics, in the context of the 2007 Regulations and generally.

Public Procurement

David has considerable experience of advising both public authorities and contractors in relation to the EC Public Procurement Rules, and acting for such parties in disputes arising under rules.

Examples of recent work in this area include advice in relation to public procurement issues under the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 in respect of a major urban regeneration project in the north of England, advice relating to the proposed appointment by a local authority of management consultants to provide project management in respect of major council projects over the next five years, and advice to a large London borough regarding the public procurement implications of its proposal to outsource the majority of its social care provision.

David has drafted proceedings on behalf of contractors challenging the conduct and outcome of major tendering exercises, and acted on their behalf in multi party mediations.

Rating and Valuation

David has considerable experience of advising on rating law and appearing before the Lands Tribunal and the courts in rating disputes. His court experience in this field is extensive, stretching from one of the first major cases decided by the Court of Appeal in relation to community charge enforcement - R v Northampton Magistrates' Court ex p. Newell [1992] R.A. 283 - to a recent case in which he acted for the charging authority in a dispute concerning liability orders for several million pounds in respect of the non-domestic rates sought over several years with regard to the claimant's national network of underground fibre optic cabling - R (on application of Vtesse Networks Ltd) v North West Wiltshire [2009] EWHC 3283 (Admin) - a case involving important issues of non domestic rating, principles of valuation, the enforcement of liability orders and the effect of European competition law.

Regulatory

David has a strong regulatory practice, ranging from accidents at work including fatal accidents, to planning enforcement including outdoor advertising control, the control of statutory nuisance and other anti-social behaviour, and professional disciplinary proceedings.

For example, he advised and represented the first defendant company in R v (1) Unusual Rigging Ltd and (2) Earls Court Ltd, an HSE prosecution tried in the Central Criminal Court of the first defendant rigging company and the company owning the Earls Court stadium, concerning a rigger who had fallen to his death through a false ceiling above the main exhibition hall.

David's planning practice includes planning enforcement and outdoor advertising control. He has recently been engaged in advising a major operator concerning its proposed advertising campaigns in connection with events associated with the London Olympics, in the context of the 2007 Regulations and generally.

David has acted for solicitors, teachers and doctors facing professional disciplinary hearings. In addition to advising and representing professionals before their relevant disciplinary tribunals, he has acted for a number on appeals to the High Court against the decisions of tribunals. For example, in In the Matter of a Solicitor [2000] WL 1741498 he appeared before the Queen's Bench Divisional Court on behalf of a solicitor appealing the findings and order of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Law Society. In Re Solicitor (No. 6 of 2001) [2001] EWCA Civ 617 he acted for a solicitor in her partially successful appeal before the Master of the Rolls against findings of practice mismanagement. R (on application of Rosen and Martlew) v Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal [2002] EWHC 1323 (Admin) was a case in which David not only succeeded in challenging the decision of the Tribunal, but in securing an order for costs against it - an order rarely made against a judicial body.

Town and Village Greens and Commons

David has considerable expertise in respect of both the rapidly developing and complex law relating to Town and Village Greens, and the law pertaining to common land. He advises and acts for both landowners and applicants at Town and Village Green inquiries - recently, for example, appearing for Salisbury District Council and subsequently Wiltshire Council as landowner in opposing successfully an application by local residents in respect of several areas of open land surrounding and in the vicinity of Bourne House in Salisbury. He is currently acting for residents in a dispute concerning the status of Clapham Common under the Metropolitan Commons Acts 1866-1898, and advising with regard to the promotion of a private bill in Parliament.

Publications & Professional Associations

Publications

Contributing author to "Licensed Premises - Law and Practice" published by Tottel
Contributing author to "Gambling for Local Authorities: Licensing, Planning and Regeneration" published by The Institute of Licensing

Professional Association
Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb)

Find a Barrister

Use the dropdown list below to find a Barrister or a Practice Area

Find a barrister