Ian Wise QC

Call 1992 | Silk: 2010
Education
BA, Dip. Law, Dip.EC Law
Contact the Clerks

+44 (0)20 7405 7211 | chambers@monckton.com

“A brilliant lawyer, who commands immediate respect from the judiciary, opponents and clients.” – Legal 500, 2016

“Very, very experienced public lawyer who is strong on policy challenges” – Chambers, 2016

“Very determined, knowledgeable, down-to-earth and good with clients”  – Chambers, 2016

Ian Wise QC is ranked as a leading silk in Administrative and Public Law, Local Government Law, Civil Liberties and Human Rights, Local Government, Community Care and Education Law. Chambers UK describes Ian as “a force to be reckoned with in public law litigation” and Legal 500 says that he has “an exceptional legal mind” and “the driving force in all the landmark test cases for children in recent years”.

He regularly appears in the appellate courts including the Supreme Court where he has appeared in a range of important cases involving complex legal and public policy issues.  Among Ian’s recent cases in the Supreme Court are Mathieson v Secretary of State [2015] UKSC 47, a leading case on discrimination and disability, and R(JS) v Secretary of State [2015] UKSC 16, the ‘benefit cap’ case. He also appeared in the Supreme Court in the leading case on consultation, R(Moseley) v Haringey LBC [2014] UKSC and in Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James [2014] AC 591 in which the Supreme Court set out the correct approach to the making of decisions about whether to give life-sustaining treatment in the case of persons lacking the capacity to make such decisions for themselves. Ian was counsel to the Healthwatch England ‘Special Inquiry into safe discharge from hospitals, care homes and secure settings’ which reported in 2015.

Ian has over a hundred reported cases to his name and has particular expertise in public finance, heath and regulatory matters.  He has also taken over 30 cases to the European Court of Human Rights and has lectured widely on many aspects of public law.

He has frequently been instructed to act for leading national charities including the Children’s Society, the National Autistic Society and Age UK and has advised numerous public bodies. He is authorised to take instructions by direct access.

  • Administrative and Public Law

    Leading silk Administrative and Public law: “A brilliant lawyer, who commands immediate respect from the judiciary, opponents and clients.” – Legal 500, 2016

    “Undoubtedly a force to be reckoned with in public law litigation, he is tactically canny and has an encyclopaedic knowledge of decided cases”Chambers, 2015

    Ian has an extensive administrative and public law practice.  His notable cases include:

    Supreme Court

    • Mathieson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions – suspension of disability benefits to children in hospital unlawfully discriminatory
    • R(JS) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions – benefit cap regulations in breach of United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
    • R (Moseley) v Haringey LBC – consultation required to set out why alternatives to proposed scheme rejected
    • Cheshire West and Chester Council v P and others – deprivation of liberty of severely disabled incapacitated adults
    • Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James – the correct approach to the making of decisions about whether to give life-sustaining treatment in the case of persons lacking the capacity to make such decisions for themselves
    • R(KM)Cambridgeshire CC – allocation of resources to severely disabled adults
    • R(McDonald) v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC – withdrawal of social services support
    • A v Essex – right to education for disabled children under Art 2 Protocol 1 ECHR
    • R(A) v Croydon LBC – whether a young person is a child for the purposes of the Children Act 1989 a precedent fact for the court to determine

    Court of Appeal

    • R(JC) v Central Criminal Court – anonymity for child defendants in criminal proceedings
    • R v I.T.N. – reporting restrictions and protected witnesses in criminal proceedings
    • R(A) v Chief Constable of Kent – proportionality and disclosure of information in enhanced criminal record certificate
    • Disclosure and Barring Service v SB – role of appeal court in reviewing barring decisions
    • Disclosure and Baring Service v Harvey – proportionality of decision barring teacher from working with children
    • R(O) v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC – residential placement of child with autism and child’s welfare
    • Perry v Nursing and Midwifery Council – whether interim orders made by NMC breach art.6 ECHR
    • R(O) v Barking & Dagenham LBC – duties towards children leaving care
    • ET v Islington LBC – local authority duties and child sexual abuse
    • R(Robson) v Salford CC – public sector equality duty and change of transport policy
    • R(Naureen) v Salford CC – costs of compromised proceedings
    • R(M) v Haringey Independent Appeals Panel –  local authority schools admissions policy and prejudice to oversubscribed schools
    • R(Rodgers) v Swindon PCT – rationality of refusal to provide cancer drug

    High Court

    • R (S) v NHS England – successful challenge to decision to refuse funding for narcolepsy medication on basis Claimant’s needs were not ‘exceptional’
    • R(HA) v Ealing LBC – lawfulness of residence requirement in housing allocation policy, discrimination against victims of domestic violence
    • R(Dyer) v Welsh Ministers and others –  duty on Welsh Ministers and Health Boards to provide adequate secure residential mental health provision
    • R(L) v Warwickshire CC –  consultation on changes to provision of services for disabled children
    • R(Mohamed) v Islington Safeguarding Children’s Board – duty to conduct serious case review into death of a child
    • R(N) v Walsall Council – capital from clinical negligence award held by deputy not to be taken into account when charging for adult social care services
    • R(T) v Secretary of State for Justice – lawfulness of detention of child in cell block with adults
    • Waxman v CPS – lawfulness of CPS decision to discontinue prosecution of stalker, human rights damages
    • R(W and others) v Birmingham CC – lawfulness of adult social care budget and policy
    • HH v Westminster City Magistrates’ Court – extradition of adult with serious mental health problems and dependent children
    • McVey v Secretary of State for Health – refusal of Secretary of State to amend compensation scheme for victims of vCJD in accordance with recommendations of trustees
    • R(Royal College of Nursing) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – incompatibility with art 6 ECHR of regulations automatically barring nurses from working with vulnerable people
    • R(KS) v Croydon LBC – duties towards looked after children who are not in school
    • Welsh Ministers v Care Standard Tribunal –  registration of care home mangers
    • R(J) v Caerphilly CBC –  local authority responsibilities towards child leaving care
    • CF v Secretary of State for the Home Department –  separation of mothers and babies in custody, art 8 ECHR
    • R(Howard League for Penal Reform) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – applicability of children Act 1989 in custodial settings
  • Community Care and Health

    “He has had an enormous impact on the development of the law in this area”Chambers (2016)

    Ian was counsel to the Healthwatch England ‘Special Inquiry into safe discharge from hospitals, care homes and secure settings’ which reported in 2015.

    Among Ian’s notable cases in this area are:

    Supreme Court

    • Cheshire West and Chester Council v P and others – deprivation of liberty of severely disabled incapacitated adults
    • Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James – the correct approach to the making of decisions about whether to give life-sustaining treatment in the case of persons lacking the capacity to make such decisions for themselves
    • R(KM)Cambridgeshire CC – allocation of resources to severely disabled adults
    • R(McDonald) v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC – withdrawal of social services support

    Court of Appeal

    • R(O) v Barking & Dagenham LBC – duties towards children leaving care
    • ET v Islington LBC – local authority duties and child sexual abuse
    • R(Robson) v Salford CC – public sector equality duty and change of transport policy
    • R(Rodgers) v Swindon PCT – rationality of refusal to provide cancer drug

    High Court

    • R(Dyer) v Welsh Ministers and others –  duty on Welsh Ministers and Health Boards to provide adequate secure residential mental health provision
    • R(L) v Warwickshire CC –  consultation on changes to provision of services for disabled children
    • R(Mohamed) v Islington Safeguarding Children’s Board – duty to conduct serious case review into death of a child
    • R(N) v Walsall Council – capital from clinical negligence award held by deputy not to be taken into account when charging for adult social care services
    • R(J) v Caerphilly CBC –  local authority responsibilities towards child leaving care
    • CF v Secretary of State for the Home Department –  separation of mothers and babies in custody, art 8 ECHR
  • Local Government

    Ian is recognised as a leading silk in local government law and has been involved in many of the most important local government cases of the last decade.  Among his more notable cases in this area are:

    Supreme Court

    • R (Moseley) v Haringey LBC – consultation required to set out why alternatives to proposed scheme rejected
    • Cheshire West and Chester Council v P and others – deprivation of liberty of severely disabled incapacitated adults
    • R(KM)Cambridgeshire CC – allocation of resources to severely disabled adults
    • R(McDonald) v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC – withdrawal of social services support
    • A v Essex – right to education for disabled children under Art 2 Protocol 1 ECHR
    • R(A) v Croydon LBC – whether a young person is a child for the purposes of the Children Act 1989 a precedent fact for the court to determine

    Court of Appeal

    • R(O) v Barking & Dagenham LBC – duties towards children leaving care
    • ET v Islington LBC – local authority duties and child sexual abuse
    • R(Robson) v Salford CC – public sector equality duty and change of transport policy
    • R(Naureen) v Salford CC – costs of compromised proceedings
    • R(M) v Haringey Independent Appeals Panel –  local authority schools admissions policy and prejudice to oversubscribed schools
    • R(O) v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC – residential placement of child with autism and child’s welfare

    High Court

    • R(HA) v Ealing LBC – lawfulness of residence requirement in housing allocation policy, discrimination against victims of domestic violence
    • R(L) v Warwickshire CC –  consultation on changes to provision of services for disabled children
    • R(Mohamed) v Islington Safeguarding Children’s Board – duty to conduct serious case review into death of a child
    • R(N) v Walsall Council – capital from clinical negligence award held by deputy not to be taken into account when charging for adult social care services
    • R(W and others) v Birmingham CC – lawfulness of adult social care budget and policy
    • R(J) v Caerphilly CBC –  local authority responsibilities towards child leaving care
  • Regulatory Law

    Ian has considerable experience in regulatory law, particularly in the healthcare and education fields.  His notable cases include:

    • R(A) v Chief Constable of Kent – proportionality and disclosure of information in enhanced criminal record certificate
    • Disclosure and Barring Service v SB – role of appeal court in reviewing barring decisions
    • Disclosure and Baring Service v Harvey – proportionality of decision barring teacher from working with children
    • Perry v Nursing and Midwifery Council – whether interim orders made by NMC breach art.6 ECHR
    • Welsh Ministers v Care Standard Tribunal –  registration of care home mangers
    • R(Royal College of Nursing) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – incompatibility with art 6 ECHR of regulations automatically barring nurses from working with vulnerable people
  • Education Law

    “A leader on the issue of children’s rights” Chambers (2015)

    Legal 500 describes Ian as having been “the driving force in all the landmark test cases for children in recent years”.

    Ian has been recognised as a leading silk in Education Law for a number of years and combines his expertise in this area with his considerable experience in children’s law generally.  Among his notable cases in this area are:

    • A v Essex – right to education for disabled children under Art 2 Protocol 1 ECHR
    • R(O) v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC – residential placement of child with autism and child’s welfare
    • R(M) v Haringey Independent Appeals Panel –  local authority schools admissions policy and prejudice to oversubscribed schools
    • R(KS) v Croydon LBC – duties towards looked after children who are not in school
    • R(L) v Warwickshire CC –  consultation on changes to provision of services for disabled children
  • Equality and Discrimination

    Many of Ian’s cases involve equality and discrimination issues both through art 14 ECHR and the Equality Act 2010.  He also has considerable expertise in cases concerning the public sector equality duty.  His notable cases in this area include:

    • Mathieson v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Supreme Court) – suspension of disability benefits to children in hospital unlawfully discriminatory, discrimination against disabled children in hospital
    • R(JS) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Supreme Court) – benefit cap regulations in breach of United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, gender discrimination
    • R(HA) v Ealing LBC – lawfulness of residence requirement in housing allocation policy, discrimination against victims of domestic violence
    • R(W and others) v Birmingham CC – lawfulness of adult social care budget and policy, disability equality duties in setting local authority budget and determining policies
  • Corporate Governance and Policy

    “He has a broader constitutional picture in his mind at all times” Chambers (2015)

    Ian has an extensive advisory practice, advising a wide range of organisations including charities and public bodies on corporate governance and policy issues.  He has also contributed to two recent reports of the Law Commission.

  • Mental Health and Court of Protection

    Allied to his work for vulnerable adults and children Ian has appeared in numerous best interest cases in the High Court and has appeared in the Court of Protection.

    Ian appeared in the Supreme Court in the only two cases to reach that court from the Court of Protection; Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James [2013] 3 W.L.R. 1299 and Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] 2 W.L.R. 642.

  • What the Directories Say

    Administrative & Public Law: “A pragmatic and approachable silk with a wealth of public law experience. Very determined and knowledgeable. Down-to-earth and good with clients.” “Tenacious and regularly exposes new ground in cases. He is clearly very experienced and a real heavyweight.”  – Chambers UK, 2017

    Community Care: “He’s charming, easy to deal with, and a sharp-witted practitioner. He’ll take the points and take them very well, charming the judge along the way.” Chambers UK, 2017

    Education: “Always extremely impressive.” “He’s very knowledgeable and highly tactical in his approach.”Chambers uk, 2017

    Local Government: “Clients are always extremely impressed with him.”Chambers UK, 2017

    Leading silk Administrative and Public law: “A brilliant lawyer, who commands immediate respect from the judiciary, opponents and clients.” – Legal 500, 2016

    Leading silk in Civil liberties and Human rights: “A pioneering and campaigning silk, fantastic at spotting good points.” – Legal 500, 2016

    Leading silk in Education: “His practice focuses on the rights of children.” – Legal 500, 2016

    Leading silk in Social Housing:  “A pleasure to work with.” – Legal 500, 2016

    Administrative & Public Law: “Very determined, knowledgeable, down-to-earth and good with clients.” Chambers UK, 2016

    Community Care: “He has had an enormous impact on the development of law in this area.” “He has tenacity and determination. The breadth of his work to do with welfare and access to care and support is second to none and shows no sign of abating. People are very loyal to him.”Chambers UK, 2016 

    Education: “Very, very experienced public lawyer who is strong on policy challenges.” Chambers UK, 2016

    Local Government: “A real claimant person, who presents things in a ‘tough cookie’ style.” “Makes good, strong arguments.” Chambers UK, 2016

    ”He provides authoritative advice and advocacy.” Leading Silk in  Civil Liberties and Human Rights Law. Legal 500, 2015

    ”An exceptional legal mind.” Leading Silk in Education Law. Legal 500, 2015 

    Administrative & Public Law:  “Undoubtedly a force to be reckoned with in public law litigation, he is tactically canny and has an encyclopaedic knowledge of decided cases.” “A formidable opponent who develops a good line of argument in court.” Chambers UK, 2015

    Civil Liberties & Human Rights: “He is very approachable, really clear and not at all elitist in his approach. He has a broader constitutional picture in his mind at all times.”Chambers UK, 2015

    Community Care: “Undoubtedly a force to be reckoned with in public law litigation. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of decided cases and stays completely up to date with developments in all aspects of public law.” “A tenacious lawyer who has incredible insight into the Convention on the Rights of the Child and how it should be developed.”Chambers UK, 2015

    Education: “A very pragmatic advocate, who works very quickly and is good on his feet. He’s very clear and is a leader on the issue of children’s rights.” – Chambers UK, 2015

    Local Government: “He has a very adventurous approach.” “An attractive advocate.” Chambers UK, 2015

    ‘Manages to find the perfect balance of approachability and providing exceptional legal work.’ Ian Wise QC is recommended as a leading Silk in Civil Liberties & Human Rights Law – Legal 500, 2014

    ‘A compelling advocate.’ Ian Wise QC is recommended as a leading Silk in Education Law – Legal 500, 2014

Add to portfolio View portfolio