Ian Rogers has a broad public law practice, with particular expertise in human rights, EC and employment law. Much of his work is in the commercial sphere.

• British American Tobacco UK Ltd and others v Secretary of State for Health  [2016] for the annulment of the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015
• R(Wheeler) v Prime Minister [2008] ACD 70, appearing for Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary in the challenge to the refusal to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty
• R(Accenture and Barclays Bank) v HMRC [2009] STC 1503, whether outsourcing of 1400 employees fell within the VAT Staff Hire Concession; interpretation of Employment Agencies Act 1973 and authorities on the “control” test in employment law
• Actions against Spain, challenging the LRAU / LUV (dubbed the Valencian ‘Land Grab’ law by the press) in the European Court of Human Rights: group litigation regarding the compatibility with the right to property (A1P1 ECHR) of Spanish planning law
• R(Veolia) v Notts County Council, Times 15.10.09, absence of commercial confidentiality exception in s15 Audit Commission Act; disclosure of £850 million Waste PFI Contract
• Pattni v Nasir Ali and Dinky International SA [2007] 2 AC 85, Privy Council, whether the Isle of Man courts should recognise a Kenyan judgment relating to a US$14 million contract for the sale of shares in a Manx company operating Kenyan duty free complexes
• R(Hafner) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Phillips LCJ, Silber J) [2009] 1 W.L.R. 1005; R(Hafner) v Home Secretary [2007] 1 WLR 950 and mutual assistance proceedings pursuant to a request from Australia concerning Article 8 ECHR confidentiality rights;
• Stojevic v Financial Supervision Commission of the Isle of Man (Privy Council): appearing on behalf of discretionary beneficiaries of a trust concerning assets alleged to be the fruits of fraud arising out of the US$94 million Komercni Banka High Court litigation; raising issues under Articles 6,13, 34 and A1P1 of the ECHR
• R(Barnet) v Parking Adjudicator (Admin Court) [2007] RTR 14: appearing on behalf of the Parking Adjudicator in numerous test cases; this case upheld the Parking Adjudicator’s decision that all parking tickets must bear a date of contravention and date of issue Lee
• Ling Low v Home Secretary [2009] 2 CMLR 22; 21.10.09 CA, claim of derivative rights of residence in support of Irish company’s freedom to provide services under Article 49 EC; claim of illegally present third country nationals to be posted workers
• Yukos Oil Co v Russia (ECHR application No 14902/04) multi-billion dollar dispute concerning corporate tax and expropriation in the European Court of Human Rights
• Seaside v Steam Packet Co and Department of Transport, appearing for Attorney-General of the Isle of Man, claims of breach of Articles 28 and 29EC (MEQR) arising from alleged monopoly of ferry services, CA, on appeal to Privy Council
• Warner v Verfides [2009] Bus LR 500, engagement of privacy rights in application of trustee in bankruptcy for documents from a corporate services provider; meaning of “correspondence” in Article 8 ECHR
• R(Ashton) v Police Medical Appeals Board [2009] ICR 51, interpretation of Police Pensions Regulations, conflicting Administrative Court decisions on the point

Member of the Attorney-General’s A Panel of Treasury Counsel prior to taking Silk.

One of the Bar’s foremost litigators in EU law, Ian is one of a handful of silks consistently ranked as a leading Tier 1 EU law silk by the Legal 500. Praised for his “rapier intellect on European matters”, he applies his “strategic ability” and “solutions-driven” approach in thematic litigation over many years, in multiple proceedings and across different jurisdictions. In the field of EU tobacco control, for example, he successfully defended the £11 billion tobacco plain packaging legislation (Admin Court, CA, Supreme Court, CJEU), the tobacco display ban (UK and EFTA courts), the cigarette vending machine ban in Sinclair Collis (Admin Court, CA, Supreme Court), the snus ban (CJEU) and the Tobacco Products Directive (CJEU) – and advanced the UK’s position in references from Norway, France, Germany and Iceland.

“Intellectually very strong.” He has “an incisive mind and an in-depth grasp of European matters.” – Chambers UK

‘‘Has a reputation as a seasoned advocate in both European and domestic courts.’’– Legal 500

Dual qualified with the Bars of England/Wales and Ireland, he continues to advise clients on EU law matters in all sectors who may require advice and representation before the CJEU.

SPOTLIGHT ON EU RELATIONS LAW

Ian is well-positioned for the many opportunities and challenges facing his clients, now that the UK has left the EU and established a new framework for UK-EU relations. Ian’s EU relations work to date includes:

• • advice on internal competence and devolution matters following repatriation of EU Commission powers in the UK following Brexit;
  • advice on continuity of international transport between the UK and EU;
  • observations in the CJEU on the Withdrawal Agreement and the jurisdiction of the CJEU in matters concerning the EU budget and the    Commission and CJEU’s powers and jurisdiction in such matters after 2020;
  • advice on UK and EU international law obligations under the WTO and TRIPS;
  • advice on threatened judicial review concerning “no deal” preparations;
  • advice on departing EU staff rights (Ian has also for many years advised on EU staff cases in relation to appeals to the EU Civil Service Tribunal, including advices to the College of Staff Representatives of the EIB).

CASE STUDY – discrimination against atypical workers 

Ian drafted the first of the judicial pension claims in 2007, claiming that the exclusion of fee paid part-time judges from the scope of the Part-time Workers Regulations should be set aside as incompatible with EU law. A test case brought by a differently represented judge proceeded to the Supreme Court but he had lost at the hearing below. Ian was then instructed by the Council of Immigration Judges to advise on the possibility of intervening in the Supreme Court and to consider whether any new arguments could be identified. Ian drafted detailed written interventions and appeared in the Supreme Court oral hearings, representing some 800 judges. In particular, he introduced into the proceedings two new legal arguments, not made to the courts below which reversed the course of the litigation.

First, he analysed the policy reasons underlying the area of law, drew an analogy with the fixed-term workers legislation and case law, creating new arguments which could apply, by analogy, to the part-time workers context. He set out a ‘law in context’ comparison of the two areas to show why the same result should logically be reached. The fixed-term workers context had not been considered in the proceedings below. He referred to an ECJ authority which held that similarly worded provisions of the fixed-term workers directive were directly effective. The Ministry of Justice then conceded that the rights accorded by the part-time workers directive were also directly effective, contrary to its previous position.

Secondly, he introduced the Del Cerro Alonso line of authority into the proceedings, arguing that it substantially limited the breadth of discretion left to Member States in the directive. The Supreme Court described the new argument (adopted by the Appellant) as the “high point” of the Appellant’s case.

Pensions for fee paid judges were secured after three Supreme Court hearings and one ECJ hearing. Ian subsequently devised a novel low-cost scheme for judges to settle protective claims for a pension, and drafted about 80 similar claims for individual judges affected by these proceedings. It is the largest group litigation handled by the employment tribunal system and is estimated to lead to £1 billion in payments to judges who were denied pensions in breach of EU law.

Cases

• Case C-213/19 European Commission v UK, Grand Chamber of the CJEU: four year infraction proceedings for alleged failure of customs controls to combat fraudulent undervaluation of Chinese textiles seeking €2.7 billion and interest –the final hearing of a UK case before the transitional period ended.
• Advice to a Member State on a threatened billion euro infraction.
• C-151/17 Swedish Match v Secretary of State for Health and New Nicotine Alliance (reference from UK court) (No 2): successfully defended UK ban on snus, challenged as a breach of the proportionality principle and right to property.
• C-220/17 Planta Tabak v Land Berlin: resisted arguments that the prohibition of trade marks amounted to a deprivation of property, as raised by the Berlin Administrative Court
• C-288/17 Federation des fabricants de cigares, BAT France v Premier Ministre (No 1 and No 2): tobacco industry challenges to lawfulness of French plain packaging measures, abandoned following submission of UK observations on both references from the Conseil d’Etat in 2018 and 2019.
• R(British American Tobacco UK Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health (the “plain packaging” case) [2018] QB 149 (Admin Court, CA, Supreme Court refused permission and CJEU reference): successful defence of UK legislation in £11 billion dispute, one of the most significant claims ever brought against the UK Government.
• Scotch Whisky Association v The Lord Advocate and The Advocate General for Scotland [2017] UKSC 76 and Case C-333/14 Scotch Whisky, CJEU (“minimum alcohol pricing”): advised the AG for Scotland and Department of Health for three years, including in the CJEU proceedings and at the Supreme Court hearing.
• Case C-547/16 Philip Morris v Secretary of State for Health: successfully defended the Tobacco Products Directive and established Member States’ competence to introduce plain packaging (see Case Study within Public Law section)
• Case C-358/14 Poland v Parliament & Council: Polish direct action challenging the EU’s ban on menthol cigarettes on grounds of a breach of the right to property under the EU Charter
• Case C-477/14 Pillbox 38 (UK) Ltd t/a Totally Wicked: upheld regulation of e-cigarettes alleged to be incompatible with the right to equal treatment (as compared to other comparable products which were not subject to such regulation) and the right to property
• Miller v Ministry of Justice, ET (2014): test case to determine principles applicable to the vast number of judicial pension claims derived from EU rights.
• Department of Constitutional Affairs v O’Brien [2013] UKSC 6 [2013] 1 W.L.R. 522: two further hearings of the Supreme Court – secured pensions for fee paid part-time judges; Recorders held to be “workers”; resisted the defence of objective justification in relation to the discrimination between full-time and part-time workers in the provision of pensions.
• Seaside v Steam Packet Co and Department of Transport (2009-13) [2009] MLR 192: licensed by Isle of Man courts for EU expertise, appeared for the Attorney-General of the IOM in (1) doleance proceedings before the Deemster (2) appeal before the IOM Staff of Government Division (3) Privy Council (4) further doleance proceedings. Monopoly of ferry services – a challenger company denied access to the IOM’s linkspan to operate rival ferry service claimed this was a breach of EU free movement of goods . Question of when the grounds for an EU law challenge arise; when a challenge on EU law grounds may be struck out for delay; whether an excessive pricing of services challenge may be brought under EU free movement of goods, when the competition and freedom to provide services of the TFEU provisions do not apply in IOM.
• EFTA: Case E-2/12 HOB-vín ehf v The State Alcohol and Tobacco Company of Iceland, EFTA Court: refusal by a state monopoly retailer to sell Danish alcopops due to imagery on the packaging which was attractive to children; compatibility with free movement of goods; conditions for State liability.
• EFTA: Case E-16/10 Philip Morris Norway AS v Norway, EFTA Court: whether a visual retail display ban is compatible with the free movement of goods; application of the proportionality principle in a public health case.
• C-393-10 O’Brien v Ministry of Justice CJEU: interpretation of “worker”and “employment contract or employment relationship” concepts; application of the Del Cerro Alonso line of authority in the part-time worker context.
• Lee Ling Low v Home Secretary [2010] 2 CMLR 34, Admin Court and CA: resisted claim of derivative rights of residence in support of Irish company’s freedom to provide services under Article 49 EC; claim of illegally present third country nationals to be EU “posted workers”.
• O’Brien v Ministry of Justice [2010] UKSC 34 – intervention on behalf of Council of Immigration Judges (see Case Study, below)
• R(Wheeler) v Prime Minister [2008] ACD 70, Divisional Court, appearing for Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary in resisting the challenge to the refusal to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty

Ian is an accomplished employment law advocate with experience ranging over ten years in employment tribunals and the Employment Appeals Tribunal. In addition to familiar unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, redundancy and discrimination claims which make up a large part of employment practice, Ian has considerable expertise and experience in advising on TUPE (including contracted-out service provision changes), employment contract disputes (including restrictive covenants, breach of confidentiality clauses, share option schemes, discretionary bonus clauses, garden leave), equal pay, exclusion of part-time workers from pension schemes and disciplinary proceedings. Clients rely upon his pragmatic and thorough approach to problem-solving, whether advising in conference or in writing, particularly at the early stages of a dispute or before issues in the workplace escalate. His knowledge of EU law is also an advantage in the many areas of European-inspired employment legislation.

Cases

• Mrs Betts and others v Boots: advising Boots in group litigation test case relating to complaints of exclusion of part-time workers from the company pension scheme amounting to indirect discrimination against women, following the Preston v Wolverhampton litigation
• Braddick v Robson Rhodes: represented and advised throughout substantial sex discrimination proceedings. Settlement reached before three week hearing started. Instructed by senior director and general manager against global firm of accountants
• Michaeljohn Management Ltd v MinxatNickyClarke: successfully representing Defendant booking agents who had set up a business with the hair stylist, Nicky Clarke, in a lengthy trial concerning restrictive covenants and implied duties of fidelity
• X firm v Y solicitor: represented firm of solicitors in successfully defending unfair dismissal claim brought by a solicitor. Whether solicitor had resigned or been dismissed by exchange of correspondence and conduct
• Advisory work for a FTSE-100 company concerning proposed withdrawal of a share option scheme and effects on employee’s contractual rights
• Youds and Dudley v Bank of Montreal: litigation concerning discretionary bonus clauses in bankers’ contracts of employment Nesbitt v Kent Constabulary: Represented police force in resisting sex discrimination claim brought by an officer
• Theodosopoulou v Bank of Cyprus (EAT): successfully represented bank on appeal concerning a ‘heat of the moment’ dismissal Advisory work for a local authority

Ian acts for a wide range of clients in domestic and international human rights proceedings. He has a particular interest in the way in which the autonomous human rights jurisdiction in the United Kingdom and its underlying principles have developed since the introduction of the Human Rights Act. Human rights issues are found in cases across the legal spectrum and clients therefore benefit from his significant practical experience in diverse areas of law.

Cases

• Actions against Spain, challenging the LRAU / LUV (dubbed the Valencian ‘Land Grab’ law by the press) in the European Court of Human Rights: group litigation regarding the compatibility with the right to property (A1P1 ECHR) of Spanish planning law
• R(Hafner) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] 3 All ER 382 (Admin Court): representing a Swiss lawyer and law firm in judicial review proceedings concerning Australia’s requests for mutual legal assistance in obtaining evidence from the UK, The Bahamas, the Isle of Man, Switzerland and Jersey, raising Article 8 ECHR confidentiality issues. The first reported case on the role of the Secretary of State under sections 13 to 15 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003
• R(Hafner) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court: Judicial Review concerning the role of a nominated court in mutual assistance proceedings where Article 8 rights to confidentiality are asserted by a person about whom questions are asked by the foreign requesting state
• R v Home Secretary, ex parte Mohammed Khan: Judicial Review of certificates made under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 for deportation to Afghanistan. Arguments concerning article 2, 3, physical and moral integrity protected by article 8 and the right to respect for family life under article 8 ECHR
• Yukos Oil Co v Russia (ECHR application No 14902/04) multi-billion dollar dispute concerning corporate tax and expropriation in the European Court of Human Rights
• Stojevic v Financial Supervision Commission of the Isle of Man (Privy Council): appearing on behalf of discretionary beneficiaries of a trust concerning assets alleged to be the fruits of fraud arising out of the US$94 million Komercni Banka High Court litigation; raising issues under Articles 6,13, 34 and A1P1 of the ECHR
• Columbo Investments v Financial Supervision Commission of the Isle of Man (Privy Council): challenge to winding up petition on public interest grounds involving A1P1 ECHR issues
• Mark Sangster and Randall Dixon v The Queen (Privy Council, on appeal from CA of Jamaica) [2002] UKPC 58
• Hossein v Trinidad & Tobago (Privy Council)
• Wilson v Trinidad & Tobago (Privy Council)
• NatWest v McCarty: one of the first trials in the UK concerning the horizontal effect of Article 8 ECHR following the HRA. Human rights of the children occupying the home to be taken into account, exercise of discretion under s36 Administration of Justice Act 1970 in such a way that there would not be a disproportionate interference with the education of the children
• Barclays v Alcorn: undue influence trial and human rights defences to possession order; application of HRA proportionality test where unnecessary to sell the entire property to satisfy mortgagee’s debt; issue as to whether property could be divided into two homes and one sold to satisfy debt

“Has a reputation as a seasoned advocate in both European and domestic courts.” – Legal 500, 2018

“He admirably manages the stress of litigation proceedings on his client’s behalf.” – Legal 500, 2017

A large proportion of Ian’s work begins in the Administrative Court with a judicial review application, where he may be acting on behalf of government ministers, public bodies, those seeking to challenge their decisions or interested parties. He has consistently been ranked as a “Leading Silk” in Administrative and Public Law (Legal 500).

His public law practice is broad, but he is particularly highly regarded for his expertise in innovative and cutting edge “commercial public law” cases – applying public law principles to commercial disputes (including in offshore jurisdictions).

He has successfully defended challenges to the vending machine ban, retail tobacco display ban, the Tobacco Products Directive, e-cigarette regulation and “plain packaging” (with two of those matters ending in the Supreme Court, and others involving multiple appearances in European courts). He advised the UK Government on minimum alcohol pricing, including in the Supreme Court and CJEU. All of these matters began or concluded in public law judicial review proceedings. He also acted in the Client Earth litigation, and has been instructed in various judicial review applications and threatened judicial review challenges to the Government’s decisions on caste discrimination legislation since 2016.

Much of his body of work involves “classic” public law principles. In the civil enforcement of parking regime (and the related bus lane and road user charging schemes), Ian has undertaken almost all of the leading test cases, having worked closely with the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and Parking Adjudicator, as well as local authorities, over many years. The resulting judgments have provided greater legal certainty to an area of law which affects millions of motorists and administrative decisions on a daily basis. They also illustrate how it is possible for some tribunals to assist the Administrative Court in obtaining vital clarification of the law, compatibly with public law principles on the conduct of tribunals in judicial review proceedings.

Constitutional law and, in particular, the devolution settlement in Wales, is a further specialisation.

‘‘He is very informative, patient and accommodating.’’ Legal 500

“He is very personable, which clients like, and he has a very nice manner in court. He is very good at getting the judge onside in a nice, low-key manner.” Chambers UK

Current/recent advisory work includes: potential judicial review proceedings in relation to post-Brexit manufacturing industry regulations; threatened proceedings against a national parliament; a dispute concerning quasi-public law duties of sports regulatory bodies between the governing body and its clubs.

Cases

• R(BAT) v Secretary of State for Health [2018] QB 149, Admin Court, CA, Supreme Court (refused permission and reference to CJEU): 7 day judicial review proceedings before Green J, 4 day appeal, with a large volume of evidence (27 witness statements, 30 expert reports); successfully defended the UK “plain packaging” legislation, estimated to result in a £25 billion public health benefit.
• Tann v Secretary of State for Health [2018] QB 149: provisions which regulated tipping paper (the paper around cigarette filters) held to be proportionate.
• R(Widow of Carl Sargeant) v First Minister of Wales: investigation of the former First Minister of Wales into his own conduct following the tragic death of the Welsh Minister.
• Scotch Whisky Association v The Lord Advocate and The Advocate General for Scotland [2017] UKSC 76 – minimum alcohol unit pricing.
• R(Ram) v Culture Secretary, Phillips J: test judicial review seeking to require the Government to recognise caste as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the Equality Act. Ian has advised on caste discrimination, Equality Act issues and various related judicial reviews in this area for several years.
• R(Client Earth) (No 2) v DEFRA [2016] EWHC 3613 (Admin): appearing in Administrative Court concerning the UK’s timetable for revised air quality plans following the Supreme Court and earlier High Court hearings.
• R(Hackney Drivers Association) v Parking Adjudicator [2013] RTR 34, Admin Court – clarification of two issues left open by two of Ian’s earlier test cases in R(Barnet) v Parking Adjudicator [2007] RTR 14, Jackson J and Herron (below) concerning defects in the wording of penalty charge notices
• R(Herron & Parking Appeals Ltd) v Sunderland City Council, Admin Court and CA [2012] 1 All ER 709: judicial review sought to invalidate all controlled parking zones covering an entire city as opposed to small areas (eg Sunderland and Bristol); CA applied the public law doctrine of substantial compliance to the mandatory duties of local authorities to use prescribed traffic signs and road markings.
• R (Sinclair Collis) v Secretary of State for Health [2012] QB 394, Admin Court, CA, Supreme Court rejected interim stay and refused permission) – judicial review of legislation banning cigarette vending machine; leading decision on principles of proportionality and margin of appreciation.
• Pontypool RFC v Welsh Rugby Union [2012] EWHC 1919 (QB): five day hearing for Pontypool RFC – quasi-public law duty of fairness where Pontypool were excluded from the Premiership when the size of the league was reduced.
• Imperial Tobacco v Secretary of State for Health, Admin Court, Ouseley J (2010-12): one of The Lawyer’s Top 10 Cases of the Year, successfully resisted the tobacco industry’s judicial review of primary and secondary legislation prohibiting the display of tobacco in shops. Proceedings were discontinued shortly before the final hearing; the Supreme Court rejected a Scottish challenge based on the same arguments.
• Camden v Parking Adjudicator, Admin Ct [2011] PTSR 1391: successfully defended the Parking Adjudicator’s position in a judicial review concerning the power of the council to recover a parking penalty when it unlawfully levied a credit card fee; the power of the adjudicators to decide a “collateral challenge” outside the statutory grounds of appeal. This was the first case to interpret the new statutory traffic management scheme.
• R(Low) v Home Secretary [2010] EWCA Civ 4, Admin Court and CA, Supreme Court refused permission and CJEU reference: successfully defended 23 judicial review applications, determining 650 further cases, confirming the lawfulness of the Home Secretary’s decisions not to regularise the status, to detain and remove.
• R v Family Health Services Appeal Authority, ex parte Boots (Lloyds Pharmacy as Interested Party): successfully represented the largest community pharmacy operator in the UK in a dispute over competing applications for the right to operate pharmacies.
• Acting for the Police Medical Appeals Board in some ten judicial reviews in relation to decisions as to pension entitlement for police officers under the Police Pensions Regulations 1987, including R(Ashton) v Police Medical Appeals Board [2009] ICR 51.
• Suisse Security Bank & Trust Ltd v Governor of the Central Bank of The Bahamas [2006] UKPC 11: advisory work on Privy Council appeal against decision of Bahamian Judge on statutory review to uphold Governor’s revocation of a banking licence.

European Law: “He is fantastic: he produces good advocacy and is experienced.” “Ian is amazingly knowledgeable in his field.” .” – Chambers UK, 2024

Leading silk in Administrative and Human Rights: “Ian provides prompt, helpful and practical advice, and is very user-friendly.” – Legal 500, 2024

Leading silk in EU Law – Legal 500, 2024

European Law: “He’s focused, extremely bright and hard-working, as well as being a pleasure to work with. He gets into the details and turns materials around quickly whilst never losing sight of the overall strategy.” – Chambers UK, 2023

Leading silk in Administrative and Human Rights: “He is very informative, patient and accommodating.” – Legal 500, 2023

Leading silk in EU Law – Legal 500, 2023

European Law: “He has great advocacy skills and deep understanding of European law.” “The quality of his written work is exceptionally good, and he is approachable for solicitors in need of advice.” – Chambers UK, 2022

Leading silk in Administrative and Public law (including elections) – Legal 500, 2022

Leading silk in Civil Liberties and Human Rights (including actions against the police) – Legal 500, 2022

Leading silk in EU Law – Legal 500, 2022

European Law: “Incredibly intelligent and solutions-driven, and offers a helpfully varied body of experience.” – Chambers UK, 2021

Leading silk in Administrative and Public law – Legal 500, 2021

Leading silk in Civil Liberties and Human Rights (including actions against the police): ‘‘Excellent on his feet and is very adept at taking clients through sensitive and complex matters. He is very hands on and is always thinking ten steps ahead.’’ – Legal 500, 2021

Leading silk in EU Law: ‘‘Professional, thorough and involved.’’ – Legal 500, 2021

European Law: “Solution-driven and very approachable,” Rogers is able to “analyse complex facts, consider the legal position and provide advice that is very practical. He doesn’t just tell the client what the law says, but translates it into what steps the company needs to take.” “Key to his effectiveness is his strategic ability and thorough analysis of the facts.” – Chambers UK, 2020

Leading silk in Administrative and Public law: ‘‘Professional, thorough and involved.’’ – Legal 500, 2020

Leading silk in Civil Liberties and Human Rights (including actions against the police): ‘‘Has a rapier intellect on European matters.’’ – Legal 500, 2020

Leading silk in EU Law: ‘‘Professional, thorough and involved.’’ – Legal 500, 2020

European Law: “Intellectually very strong.” He has “an incisive mind and an in-depth grasp of European matters.” – Chambers UK, 2019

Leading silk in Civil Liberties and Human Rights (including actions against the police): ‘‘Has a reputation as a seasoned advocate in both European and domestic courts.’’ – Legal 500, 2018

Leading silk in EU Law: ‘‘His gentle demeanour means working with him is a delight, and he manages the stress of proceedings on his client’s behalf admirably by way of his natural empathy.’’ – Legal 500, 2018

European Law: “He is very good at controlling a vast volume of expert evidence.” – Chambers UK, 2018

Leading silk in Civil Liberties and Human Rights (including actions against the police): ‘‘He admirably manages the stress of litigation proceedings on his client’s behalf.’’ – Legal 500, 2017

Leading silk in EU Law: ‘‘Thorough, assured, methodical and hugely knowledgeable.’’ – Legal 500, 2017

European Law: “He offered commercially minded advice in what was a very delicate situation, and he quickly identified the fatal flaws in our opponent’s case.” – Chambers UK, 2017

Leading silk in Civil Liberties and Human Rights (including actions against the police): “Extremely well-informed on European law.” – Legal 500, 2016

Leading silk in EU and Competition: “Immensely thorough; he combines highly effective analysis with original thinking.” – Legal 500, 2016

European Law: “He is very personable, which clients like, and he has a very nice manner in court. He is very good at getting the judge onside in a nice, low-key manner.” – Chambers UK, 2016

”Has significant knowledge of the European Convention on Human Rights.” Leading Silk in Civil Liberties and Human Rights. – Legal 500, 2015

”He has an unshowy but extremely persuasive courtroom manner.” Leading Silk in EU and Competition Law. – Legal 500, 2015

European Law: “Very thorough and very clear, he’s always prepared to express an opinion rather than be non-committal.” – Chambers UK, 2015

‘He has expertise in international human rights law.’ Ian is listed as a recommended new Silk in Civil Liberties & Human Rights – Legal 500, 2014

Under European Law:Has recently appeared, unled, before the ECJ and EFTA. He is particularly adept at handling free movement of goods matters. Has also argued innovative points of EU law before the Supreme Court several times in a challenge to the denial of pensions. – Chambers UK, 2014

Under Media, Entertainment and Sport, it was noted that ‘Ian Rogersrepresented Pontypool Rugby Club against the Welsh Rugby Union.’ – Legal 500, 2013

Ian Rogers is a recommended leading junior in Civil Liberties and Human Rights Law. – Legal 500, 2013

Under EU and Competition Law, Ian Rogers is described as ‘brilliant, diligent, and ever-helpful.’ – Legal 500, 2012

Ian Rogers is a recommended leading junior in Civil Liberties and Human Rights Law. – Legal 500, 2012

EU & Competition Law states that “Ian Rogers ‘“gets to the heart of an issue quickly’ and ‘provides clear and concise’ advice;.” ” – Legal 500, 2011

Civil liberties and human rights (including public inquiry law and actions against the police) recommends Ian Rogers as a leading junior. – Legal 500, 2011

Ian Rogers is recommended under Public & Administrative Law in Chambers UK, 2011 for his “human rights and EC law expertise. He recently acted for Notts County Council in an important public law case raising the competing rights of public access to the accounts of public bodies and third-party rights to commercial confidentiality.”

Ian has lectured and published on human rights, EU, commercial and employment law, notably ‘The Creation of a Private Law of Human Rights in the UK’ (EUI) and chapters of ‘Employer’s Liability Cases’ (Butterworths).

• ‘Oliver & Dingemans Employer’s Liability Cases’ (Butterworths, 2003). Author of chapters on EU law, human rights and Crown proceedings
• ‘Human rights update’ Solicitors Journal (2005) Page 1250, 21/10/2005
• ‘Food for Thought’ (2005) Legal Week, 15/9/2005, on the ECJ’s decision on the challenge to the validity of the Food Supplements Directive by the Alliance for Natural Health
• ‘Equality at work’ Solicitors Journal SJ (2003) Vol.147 No.48 Page 1442, 19/12/2003. Comments on the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 and the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, implementing Council Directive 2000/78′
• How to spot a human rights point in a private law case’ (2002) New Law Journal NLJ Vol.152 No.7056 Pages 1723-1725, 15/11/2002.
• Thesis publication: ‘The Creation of a Private Law of Human Rights in the UK’ (EUI, Florence, 2002)
• ‘From the Human Rights Act to the Charter: Not another human rights instrument to consider?’ European Human Rights Law Review (2002) EHRLR Issue 3 Pages 343-356, 1/5/2002 – 1/6/2002. Outlines an argument for the potential of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to develop UK domestic human rights law

Ian read Law at Hertford College, Oxford, where he obtained a First Class Honours degree and was awarded the University Prize for Tort. Called to the Bar in 1995, he soon developed a successful and diverse practice in commercial and common law, with trial advocacy consistently forming a substantial part of his work in a range of courts and tribunals. Ian obtained valuable experience abroad, firstly in Australia in 1998, and later in Italy, in 2001. In Australia, as a Pegasus Scholar, he worked for several months for a leading global commercial litigation department and then as a Judicial Associate to Mr Justice Lindgren in the Federal Court. In Italy, he took a sabbatical year at the European University Institute, Florence, in order to research and monitor the impact of the Human Rights Act in its first year of operation. He was awarded the Master’s degree in Comparative, European and International Law and published in the fields of human rights and EU law.

Other Details in Brief

• First class honours degree in Law from Hertford College, Oxford (1994)
• Winner of the Oxford University (Martin Wronker) Finals Prize for Tort (1994)
• Winter Williams award and Hertford Scholarship (1992-93)
• Prince of Wales Scholarship at Bar School awarded by Gray’s Inn (1995)
• Pegasus Scholarship from the Inns of Court (1998)
• SCR Visitor to Trinity College, Melbourne, worked for Mallesons Stephen Jaques commercial litigation department in Melbourne and as Judicial Associate to Mr Justice Lindgren at the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney (1998)
• Master’s degree from European University Institute, Florence in Comparative, European and International Law (2002)

Languages

• French (holder of Diplome Approfondi de Langue Francaise)
• Good working knowledge of Italian and Spanish
• Basic working knowledge of German