Cases

• Acting (sole counsel) for an NHS Trust in a claim in a scoring challenge and challenge to re-scoring, raising novel questions as to the nature of scoring justification required.
• Acting (sole counsel) for an NHS ICB in respect of the call off of a software contract off a framework agreement.
• Acted (led by Rob Williams KC) for three NHS Trusts in a claim challenging the use of clarification questions and examining the scope of reg.56(4) PCR. Waksman J considered the interrelation between applications to lift the automatic suspension and those for expedition.
• Acted (led by Philip Moser KC) in Developing Assets (UK) Limited (t/a Helioperations) v West Yorkshire Combined Authority, a case concerning the exercise of proportionality in determining whether to accept late bids.
• Acted (led by Rhodri Williams KC) for NHSE in a claim concerning its refusal to accept a late bid (see application of interim relief – InHealth Intelligence Ltd v NHS England [2022] EWHC 2471 (TCC)).
• In 2023, acted (sole counsel) for the Ministry of Defence in a multi-million pound claim in respect of procurement for the provision of a wide range of facility services.
• In 2023, acted (sole counsel) for the Department of Work and Pensions in a claim raising complex and novel questions as to the operation of framework agreements.
• In 2023, acted for an economic operator challenging the award of a substantial waste management contract.
• In 2023, acted (sole counsel) for six Integrated Care Boards to defend the award of a £85m contract for home oxygen services (Air Liquide Healthcare Ltd v NHS West Essex Clinical Commissioning Group).
• In 2023, acted (led by Michael Bowsher KC) in a couple of judicial review challenges to the award of personal protective equipment public contracts during the Covid-19 pandemic.
• In 2023, successfully represented (sole counsel) a company challenging the award of call off contracts on the Big Data & Analytics Framework Agreement.
• In 2022, acted for the Lord Chancellor in respect of various procurement challenges brought by way of judicial review.
• In 2022, advised (sole counsel) a local authority as to its options to re-procure and/or modify an existing waste contract.
• In 2022, acted (as junior counsel) in respect of a challenge to a decision to resume a procurement process after a delay caused by Covid-19.
• In 2022, acted (as junior counsel) for the MOD in defending a claim relation to a decision to rewind a procurement (see strike out decision – MSI Defence Systems Ltd v The Secretary of State for Defence [2020] EWHC 164 (TCC).
• In 2022, successfully acted (sole counsel) for an educational provider in respect of a challenge to the award of a contract on a number of bases.
• In 2022, advised (sole counsel) the government as to an urgent procurement to support the war effort in Ukraine.
• In 2021, acted (led by Sarah Hannaford KC) for the Foreign, Commonwealth, Development Office in a claim in respect of the procurement for a framework agreement for provision of “network integration services” (Vodafone v FCDO [2021] EWHC 2793 (TCC)).
• In 2020, acted (as junior counsel) for one of the companies involved in the emergency procurement of diagnostic software for Covid-19 testing in a substantial.
• In 2020, advised the Department of Transport as to the application of state aid rules in respect of a proposed Covid-19 assistance scheme.
• Represented (as junior counsel) a county council against a multi-faceted challenge to an award of a complex services contract (raising issues such as abnormally low bids and manifest errors).
• Instructed by a disappointed tenderer to challenge an NHS trust’s award of contract on the basis that a framework agreement had been misused.
• Advised (sole counsel) a highways authority as to rewinding a procurement when a procedural error had been identified.
• Instructed (as junior counsel) to defend judicial review brought in respect of a large procurement exercise conducted by the NHS.
• Advising a County Council as to contract modifications.
• Advising the Ministry of Defence in respect of the procurement of a substantial technology related contract.
• Instructed as sole counsel by an interested party (the winning bidder) in a complex claim against the Secretary of State for Justice.

Cases

• Acting (led by Anneli Howard KC) in an important test case challenging the Office for Product Safety and Standards’ application and interpretation of provisions in the General Product Safety Regulations 2005.
• In 2023, acted in a judicial review claim for a property management company challenging the failure of the Office of Financial Sanction Implemention to amend licences issued under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
• In 2023, acted for an interested party in a judicial review claim brought against the Energy Ombudsman in respect of how it dealt with various complaints.
• Joint junior counsel (with Ewan West) in lead case as to the service of judicial review claims (R (Good Law Project Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Practice Note) [2022] EWCA Civ 355; [2022] 1 WLR 2339.
• In 2022, advised the Department of Transport in respect of a potential judicial review claim as to the operation of a specific Covid-19 relief programme.
• Sole counsel in the Court of Appeal in linked appeals in which various provisions of civil penalty scheme were considered (Link Spolka v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWCA Civ 1830).
• Instructed (as sole counsel) by the Food Standards Agency in defending a judicial review concerning a challenge to various provisions of a policy dealing with the power to suspend professionals on an interim basis.
• Led by Sir Alan Dashwood KC in the Supreme Court in defending a judicial review claim concerning the interpretation of a number of EU directives on food safety (R (Independent Association of Meat Suppliers) v Food Standards Agency [2019] UKSC 36 and [2021] UKSC 54).
• Defending (led) a judicial review brought in respect of a large procurement exercise conducted by the NHS.
• Instructed (as junior counsel) by the Secretary of State for Transport and Maritime and Coastguard Agency in defending a judicial review of the making of a statutory instrument (raising issues as to the adequacy of consultation and breaches of Article 1 of Protocol 1).
• Instructed in 2019 in respect of continuing issues arising out the allegedly defective tumble-dryers and a potential judicial review claim concerning the same (led by Monica Carss-Frisk KC and Jemima Stratford KC).
• Represented the Health and Safety Executive (as sole counsel) in the Court of Appeal in a substantial judicial review concerning the interpretation of a number of EU directives relating to vertebrate studies (R (Chiltern Farm Chemicals) v Health and Safety Executive [2018] EWCA Civ 271; [2018] 1 WLR 3144)
• Acted (sole counsel) in a judicial review claim brought against the Secretary of State for Transport for failing to comply with the terms of an agreement to investigate various complaints.
• Advising (sole counsel) and formulating a judicial review claim brought against a local health authority in respect of its failure to follow processes in abandoning a contract (including legitimate expectations).
• Instructed (as junior counsel) by a manufacturer of tumble dryers in a judicial review brought the Consumer’ Association against the enforcement authority’s conduct.
• Representing the Attorney General (as sole counsel) in the Divisional Court in applications for civil proceedings orders – AG v Millinder [2021] EWHC 1865 (Admin); AG v Vaidya [2017] EWHC 2152 (Admin); Alexander v AG (Divisional Court) [2016] EWHC 2726 (Admin)
• Acting is a variety of statutory appeals (such as the clandestine entrant scheme and illegal worker scheme). Acting in a War Pensions Appeal before the Upper Tribunal (DP v Secretary of State for Defence (WP) [2017] UKUT 434 (AAC)).
• Acting in a variety of prisoner claims in which challenges were made to application of prison rules (such as Rule 39 claims).
• Human Rights Claims: Acting in claims as sole counsel concerning:
  • a claim against a pension provider as to potentially discriminatory entitlement provisions (contrary to art.14 ECHR).
  • a claim against an immigration removal centre is respect of allegedly discriminatory medical treatment (contrary to art.14 ECHR).
  • Article 3 ECHR (torture): Conditions of detention of prisoners.
  • Article 5 ECHR (liberty): immigration claims concerning unlawful detention; the legality of recall to prison.
  • Article 8 ECHR (private life): in a wide variety of contexts, including immigration decisions.
  • Article 9 ECHR (religion): including advising as to certain governmental policy’s compliance. Recent claims include religious discrimination in respect of clothing (Rastafarianism) and the provision of Kosher food.
• Immigration Claims:
  • Fresh claims under paragraph 353.
  • Certification under s.94 (unfounded claims).
  • Issues arising out the EEA Regulations 2006 & 2016
  • Certification under s.94B (of human rights claims).
  • Issues arising out of article 8 ECHR (outside the rules, rule 276ADE and Appendix FM)
  • General issues relating to the application of the rules in respect of Tier 2 and Tier 4 visas.
  • Cases dealing with Alvi / Munir.
  • Certification under s.96 (late claims).
  • Issues relating to the Dublin returns.
  • S. 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 cases.
  • Challenges to automatic deportation.
• A case concerning the application of the principle of res judicata and the presumption against retrospective legislation

Cases

• Currently instructed by Ofgem (sole counsel) to advise it using its consumer enforcement powers against an energy company allegedly using unfair terms and unfair commercial practices.
• Represented BEIS (led by Duncan Penny KC) as an intervener in the Court of Appeal on the leading case as to the scope of enforcement action under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (R v AUH [2022] EWCA Crim 1113); [2023] 1 WLR 106).
• Instructed (as sole counsel) by the Food Standard Agency in various appeals to the First Tier Tribunal and onward appeal to Upper Tribunal which determined fundamental points of principle (such as whether a regulator can withdraw its decisions after they have been challenged in an appeal) (Trocki v Food Standards Agency [2022] UKUT 159 (AAC))
• Instructed in 2022 by the Competition & Markets Authority (“CMA”) in a substantial enforcement action concerning the handling of fake and misleading website reviews (led by standing counsel).
• Instructed by a leading car manufacturer to advise it as to consumer law issues arising out of the sale of vehicles (in particular, how different national technical requirements related to the requirement of satisfactory quality).
• Instructed in 2021 (sole counsel) by a charity to defend a substantial subrogated claim brought by insurers seeking refunds under the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018.
• Instructed in 2020 and 2021 (as junior counsel) to assist the CMA in investigating and taking enforcement action against those holiday rental companies who were refusing to provide full refunds to customers when contracts were frustrated by the Covid-19 Pandemic.
• Represented the residents of house boats in a challenge to termination provisions in their mooring agreements.
• Instructed in 2020 (as junior counsel) by the CMA to advise as to whether contracts for purpose-built student accommodation had been frustrated by lockdown.
• Instructed in 2020 by the CMA to advise as to the effect of Covid-19 on wedding contracts and as to its public statement as to cancellation of weddings in light of the pandemic.
• Instructed in 2019 (as junior counsel) by the CMA in respect of a potential claim brought under the Enterprises Act 2002 relating to alleged unfair terms (under the Consumer Rights Act 2015) and unfair trading practices in respect of various care homes.
• Instructed in 2019 (as junior counsel) by the CMA in respect of a potential claim challenging the fairness of auto-renewal provisions in contracts.
• Advising in cases under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Sale of Goods Act 1979 and Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
• Consumer Credit: Jonathan was instructed by a major bank in relation to the FCA’s review under s.166 FSMA of interest rate swap mis-selling (assessing consequential losses claims). He has been instructed in a variety of claims under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, most notably in respect of unfair relationship / Plevin claims (under s.140A CCA) – see Pontearso v Greenlands Trading [2019] EWHC 278 (Ch); [2019] GCCR 17049; [2019] P.T.S.R 1443). He has experience in the more recent wave of cases in which redress has been paid in accordance with the FCA guidance in DISP APP 3 but claimants claim the remainder of the premium paid.

• Acting in a multi-million pound dispute concerning the failure of a contractor to deliver respiratory devices to the NHS.
• Acting in a contractual dispute where a contractor failed to provide communication devices which meet the requisite security standards.
• Acting (led by Valentina Sloane KC) in a potential dispute at to the operation of a large government facility. The claim raises a number a number of contractual issues, such as the doctrine of waiver.
• In 2022, acted for Johnson and Johnson (as junior counsel) in defending a product liability claims in respect of vaginal mesh products (the Stress urinary incontinence litigation and the Pelvic organ prolapse litigation, both being coordinated case management of a groups of claims).
• In 2021, acting in a substantial dispute arising out of an IT contract raising issues such as mistake, misrepresentation, breach of EU law, failure of consideration
• Acting for an insurer in respect of multiple claims concerning defective agricultural equipment.
• Following Covid-19 pandemic, advising clients as to the doctrine of frustration and the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943.
• Instructed by BP (as junior counsel) in defending claims arising from terrorist attack at oil facility in Algeria, which was listed for a two month trial (John and ors v BP Plc & ors (2018).
• Advising as to whether a director was automatically released from a personal guarantee given in respect of various business loans when arrangements had been made to release the other guarantors.
• Instructed (as junior counsel) in respect of significant product liability claims arising out of allegedly defective tumble-dryers.
• Advising on the consumer credit and regulatory aspects of a multi-billion pound purchase of credit card debt.

Public procurement: “The quality of his drafting and pleadings has been excellent, and he takes a pragmatic approach.” “He is very good in procurement and our first choice.” “You can completely trust his judgement and ability to run large-scale litigation.” – Chambers UK, 2024

Leading junior in Consumer: “He brings a meticulous eye to consumer cases, and is a really safe pair of hands. He is excellent in court.” – Legal 500, 2024

Leading junior in Public procurement: “A ‘go-to’ procurement junior. He is exceptionally committed, diligent and a real team player.” – Legal 500, 2024

Leading junior in Admin law and Human Rights – Legal 500, 2024