Robert’s wide-ranging public law practice embraces commercial and regulatory judicial review proceedings in both the Administrative Court and the Competition Appeal Tribunal, in particular in cases involving EU law. He has particular experience in the telecommunications, energy, financial, pharmaceutical and aviation sectors. In addition, he has considerable judicial review experience in the areas of environmental, immigration, and human rights law.

Cases

Significant cases include:

• R (MP) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Court of Appeal (2020): judicial review of failure to consult over changes to the rules requiring charging of overseas visitors for NHS services.
• R (Heathrow Hub Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport, Court of Appeal and Administrative Court (2019): judicial review of the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport.
• Advising the Secretary of State for Business on the high profile recall of tumble dryers manufactured by Whirlpool (2019).
• Privacy International v Foreign Secretary, GCHQ, Security Service & Secret Intelligence Service, CJEU and Investigatory Powers Tribunal (2019): challenge to the intelligence agencies’ collection and use of bulk communications data.
• R (Plan B Earth) v Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy, Administrative Court (2018): judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision not to amend the 2050 emissions target pending receipt of the IPCC’s Special Report
• R (Jewish Rights Watch) v Leicester City Council, Court of Appeal (2018): acted for Jewish Human Rights Watch in a judicial review of Leicester CC’s resolution to introduce a boycott of goods from the West Bank.
• R (Chiltern Farm Chemicals Ltd) v Health and Safety Executive, Court of Appeal (2018): acted for the Claimant pesticide producer in successful challenge to the HSE decision related to re-authorisation of molluscicide products (instructed by Boodle Hatfield).
• R (Peak Gen Top Co Ltd) & Others v Ofgem (2018): Acted for a group of ten electricity generators in a challenge to Ofgem’s decision to change electricity transmission charging arrangements for Embedded Generators, instructed by Osborne Clarke.
• R (RoadPeace) v Secretary of State for Transport, Administrative Court (2017): judicial review concerning the implementation of EU directives on compulsory motor insurance.
• R (Dean) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Administrative Court (2017): Defended the variation of a Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence extending the initial exploration period.
• R (Knight) v Secretary of State for Transport, Administrative Court (2017): judicial review of a decision to deprive the Claimant of a salvage payment in respect of wreck (jetsam, flotsam, lagan and derelict).
• R (Solar Century Holdings Ltd and others) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Administrative Court (2016): a judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to close the Renewables Obligation to new large-scale solar PV generation.
• HCA International Ltd and AXA PPP Healthcare Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority, Court of Appeal (2015): a challenge on judicial review grounds to the CMA’s decision to require HCA to divest itself of one or more Central London private hospitals.
• R (Total Lindsay Oil Refinery Ltd, Shell UK Ltd and others) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Administrative Court (2015): a judicial review of national measures implementing the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.
• R (Sarkandi and others) v Foreign Secretary, Court of Appeal (2015): a judicial review of the Foreign Secretary’s decision to propose five senior members of IRISL (Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines) to be designated under EU sanctions.
• R (Swiss Air) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Court of Appeal (2015): a judicial review concerning the aviation emissions trading scheme, challenging the EU’s “Stop the Clock” Decision.
• R (Gottlieb) v Winchester City Council, Administrative Court (2015): Robert acted for the Claimant, a city councillor successfully challenging the Council’s failure to run a procurement exercise in respect of a £165 million re-development scheme for Winchester city centre.
• R (QSRC Ltd) v National Health Service Commissioning Board, Administrative Court (2015): acted for the Claimant in the judicial review of NHS England’s refusal to commission services for gamma knife treatment at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery.
• R (Tomescu) v Lord President of the Council, Administrative Court (2015): defended challenge to the decision that citizens of EU Member States resident in the UK had no right to vote in the General Election.
• R (Lord Carlile of Berriew QC) v Home Secretary, Supreme Court (2014): a judicial review by 16 MPs and members of the House of Lords, concerning the Home Secretary’s decision to maintain the exclusion from the United Kingdom of Maryam Rajavi, leader of the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI). Robert acted for the Home Secretary in the Divisional Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
• AC Nielsen Co Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority, Competition Appeal Tribunal (2014): application on judicial review grounds challenging the OFT’s decision not to refer to the Competition Commission the merger between Information Resources Inc and Aztec Group (suppliers of retail measurement services).
• R (Home Secretary) v Southwark Crown Court, Administrative Court (2014): Robert represented Southwark Crown Court in defence of an application for judicial review by the Home Secretary, who challenged the court’s decision that there was no power to make a production order under the provisions of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003, following a request for mutual legal assistance (“MLA”) from the Department of Justice, USA.
• R (Europäische-Iranische Handelsbank AG) v Foreign Secretary, Administrative Court (2013): a judicial review of the Foreign Secretary’s decision to propose that a German bank be listed under EU sanctions directed at Iran.
• R (Children’s Society) v Lord Chancellor, Administrative Court (2013): a judicial review of the Lord Chancellor’s decision not to extend the scope of civil legal aid to unaccompanied children’s immigration cases.
• Global Radio Holdings Ltd v Competition Commission, Competition Appeal Tribunal (2013): a challenge on judicial review grounds to the CC’s decision to require Global Radio to divest radio stations following its acquisition of Guardian Media Group Radio Holdings Ltd.
• R (Corey) v Parole Commissioners of Northern Ireland, Supreme Court (2013): jurisdiction of the High Court to grant bail on an application for judicial review to a post-tariff life prisoner on finding a breach of Article 5(4) ECHR.
• BAA Ltd v Competition Commission, Court of Appeal (2012): judicial review of CC’s decision to require BAA to sell Stansted Airport.
• Merchant International Company v Naftogaz, Court of Appeal (2012): decision of Ukrainian courts in Naftogaz’s favour was in breach of Article 6 ECHR, allowing recovery of assets from Naftogaz in the UK.
• R (Blackbay Ventures Ltd) v Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, Administrative Court (2012): judicial review of decision to suspend wholesale dealer’s licence.

“His drafting is just phenomenal.” “He is a very good new silk with good judgement, who doesn’t take bad points.” “He’s incredibly responsive, works very quickly and is good on strategy in complicated cases.” – Chambers UK, 2020

‘‘Intellectually rigorous and a great communicator’’ – Legal 500, 2020 “An excellent barrister who was great in front of the Supreme Court.” – Chambers UK, 2019

Robert has a wide telecommunications practice, including appeals to the Competition Appeal Tribunal under the Communications Act 2013, price control appeals to the Competition Commission, judicial review applications to the Administrative Court, and reference to the Court of Justice of the EU on telecommunications matters. His clients have included BT, Virgin Media, Sky, Microsoft and Capita.

Cases

Significant cases include:

• TalkTalk & Vodafone v Ofcom, Competition Appeal Tribunal (2020): acting for BT intervening in appeal against Ofcom’s Business Connectivity Market Review 2019.
• Virgin Media Ltd v Ofcom, Competition Appeal Tribunal (2019): acted for Virgin Media in challenge to enforcement decision imposing £7m fine for miscalculated early termination charges.
• British Telecommunications v Ofcom, Court of Appeal (2018): acted for BT in the leading authority on the award of costs against regulators following a successful appeal.
• British Telecommunications & Others v. Ofcom, Competition Appeal Tribunal (2017): Acted for BT in its appeal against Ofcom’s decision in the context of the Business Connectivity Market Review 2016 to mandate access to BT’s “dark fibre”.
• British Telecommunications v Ofcom, Competition Appeal Tribunal (APCC): acted unled for BT in a challenge to Ofcom’s regulation of porting charges (2016)
• Advising on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) (2014)
• Advising on the Government’s measures to address “partial not-spots” in mobile phone coverage (2014)
• Advising on the licensing of telecommunications services on the Isle of Man (2014)
• Advising on consumer switching (2014)
• Colt Technology Services v Ofcom and BT, Competition Appeal Tribunal (2013): challenge to Ofcom’s decision not to require BT to allow communications providers access to its duct, poles and dark fibre.
• Case C-114/12, Commission v Council, Court of Justice of the EU (2013): acting for the United Kingdom in a dispute concerning the competence of Member States to participate in negotiations for a Convention of the Council of Europe on the protection of the rights of broadcasting organisations.
• Mobile Termination Charge appeals, Court of Appeal (2013): acted unled for BT in the Court of Appeal, Competition Appeal Tribunal and Competition Commission in BT’s successful appeal against Ofcom’s determination of mobile termination rates.
• Cable and Wireless Isle of Man Ltd v Communications Commission of the Isle of Man (2012): acted unled for the IOM Communications Commission in an application for judicial review by Cable & Wireless concerning the Commission’s decision not to open a competition investigation into Manx Telecom.
• R (BT and TalkTalk) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Court of Appeal (2012): judicial review challenging the measures in the Digital Economy Act 2010 tackling illegal peer-to-peer file sharing.
• Wholesale Broadband Access charge control appeal, Competition Commission (2012): appeal by BT concerning the treatment of BT’s pension deficit repayments in the calculation of price controls.

“He’s really outstanding in terms of clarity and the succinct way in which he expresses himself.” – Chambers and Partners

“Highly thought of among practitioners, who note his fast-growing reputation in this sector. His practice encompasses judicial review appearances and challenges against regulators.” – Chambers and Partners

“He has strong analytical skills and phenomenal influencing abilities.’’ – Legal 500

Robert has wide experience of energy and utilities regulation, including with respect to emissions trading and other environmental regulation. He has frequently acted in both litigation and advisory roles for regulated companies and regulators alike, drawing on his expertise in commercial and regulatory judicial review, EU law and competition law. He has appeared in Utilities Regulation cases before the Court of Appeal, the Court of Justice of the EU, the Administrative Court, and the Competition Appeal Tribunal, as well as in enforcement hearings held by sectoral regulators. His clients have included British Gas, E.ON, Ecotricity, Solarplicity, Ofgem, Ofwat and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

Cases

Significant cases include:

• Repsol Sinopec Resources UK Ltd v The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (2019): Challenge to the decision of the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning to require Repsol to return allowances under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.
• R (Peak Gen Top Co Ltd) & Others v Ofgem (2018): Acted for a group of ten electricity generators in a challenge to Ofgem’s decision to change electricity transmission charging arrangements for Embedded Generators, instructed by Osborne Clarke.
• Npower v Ofgem (2018): Acted as counsel to Ofgem’s Enforcement Decision Panel (EDP) in its first ever enforcement hearing, concerned with npower’s failure to meet requirements of Electricity Supply Licence conditions for the installation of Advanced Meters at business premises.
• R (Dean) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (2017): Appeared in the Administrative Court defending the variation of a Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence extending the initial exploration period.
• Solar Century Holdings Limited v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (2016): Acted in the Court of Appeal and Administrative Court for the Secretary of State, defending the decision to bring the statutory renewables obligation scheme to a premature close.
• Regularly advising Ofgem on decisions concerning transmission charging arrangements in both electricity and gas sectors (2016-2019).
• European Low Fares Airline Association v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Administrative Court (2016): challenge to the “Stop the Clock” decision of the European Commission to exclude international travel from outside the EU from the aviation Emission Trading Scheme (ETS).
• Swiss International Air Lines Ltd v Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change, Court of Appeal (2016): challenge to the decision of the European Commission to include Switzerland with other EEA states in the continuing operation of the Emission Trading Scheme.
• LetterOne v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (2015): defended challenge to decision to require divestment of North Sea oil assets.
• R (Total Lindsay Oil Refinery Ltd, Shell UK Ltd and others) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Administrative Court (2015): a judicial review of national measures implementing the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.
• R (Association for the Conservation of Energy) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Administrative Court (2013): judicial review challenge to the Green Deal’s omission of compulsory energy-saving improvement measures.
• R (Greenpeace Ltd) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Administrative Court (2012): advised Greenpeace on the adequacy of the Secretary of State’s environmental assessment of deep sea oil drilling projects, following the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

“His drafting is just phenomenal.” “He is a very good new silk with good judgement, who doesn’t take bad points.” “He’s incredibly responsive, works very quickly and is good on strategy in complicated cases.” – Chambers UK, 2020

‘‘He is known for handling regulatory, EU and competition law matters, including in the telecoms sector.’’ – Legal 500, 2020

“He is very direct and is extremely clear and critical in his advice.” “Leads big cases on his own, is very effective as an advocate and is confident and persuasive” – Chambers UK, 2019

Robert has acted in a wide range of environmental judicial review cases. His environmental work is also well informed by considerable experience in planning law.

Cases

Significant cases include:

• R (Plan B Earth) v Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy, Administrative Court (2018): judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision not to amend the 2050 emissions target pending receipt of the IPCC’s Special Report.
• R (Dean) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Administrative Court (2017): Defended the variation of a Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence extending the initial exploration period.
• R (Solar Century Holdings Ltd and others) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Administrative Court (2016): a judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision to close the Renewables Obligation to new large-scale solar PV generation.
• Northern Polymer Recycling v Environment Agency (2017): determined appeal on behalf of Secretary of State concerning accreditation as a waste plastic reprocessor.
• European Low Fares Airline Association v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Administrative Court: challenge to the “Stop the Clock” decision of the European Commission to exclude international travel from outside the EU from the aviation Emission Trading Scheme (ETS).
• Swiss International Air Lines Ltd v Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change, Court of Appeal: challenge to the decision of the European Commission to include Switzerland with other EEA states in the continuing operation of the Emission Trading Scheme.
• R (Total Lindsay Oil Refinery Ltd, Shell UK Ltd and others) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Administrative Court: a judicial review of national measures implementing the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.
• (Association for the Conservation of Energy) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Administrative Court (2013): judicial review challenge to the Green Deal’s omission of compulsory energy-saving improvement measures.
• R (Greenpeace Ltd) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Administrative Court: advised Greenpeace on the adequacy of the Secretary of State’s environmental assessment of deep sea oil drilling projects, following the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
• R (Western Power Distribution Investments Ltd) v Cardiff City Council, Administrative Court (2011): judicial review challenge to designation of land as Local Nature Reserve.
• Advised on Waste Electrical & Electronic Equipment Regulations (2013)

Robert Palmer is ‘excellent’ – Legal 500

Robert Palmer’s ‘technical ability is fantastic and he is incisive in his advice’ – Legal 500

Robert Palmer “offers ‘a level of legal analysis that is extremely clever and to the point; he sees things very clearly and can easily manage all the various elements of a case.’” – Chambers and Partners

Robert’s commercial and regulatory practice frequently involves substantial issues of competition law. He has substantial experience in a wide range of industries, including in particular the energy, financial services, health, pharmaceutical, and telecommunications sectors. His extensive experience in commercial judicial review cases make him ideally placed to pursue statutory appeals against decisions of regulators and the CMA.

Cases

Significant cases include:

• R (Heathrow Hub Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport, Court of Appeal and Administrative Court (2019): successfully defended claim under Articles 106 and 102 TFEU against the decision to prefer Heathrow Airport Limited’s own scheme for a third runway at Heathrow Airport over the alternative scheme promoted by Heathrow Hub Ltd.
• Secretary of State for Health & Ors v Servier Laboratories Ltd, Court of Appeal (2019): acted for the NHS in the Court of Appeal, instructed by Peters & Peters for NHS England, Geldards for the Welsh NHS, and Reynolds Porter Chamberlain for the Scottish and Northern Irish NHS.
• B&M European Value Retail SA v Competition & Markets Authority, CAT (2019): defended challenge to the addition of B&M to the food retailers regulated by the Groceries Code.
• Royal Mail Group, BT and Dawson Trucks v. DAF Trucks Limited & Ors, CAT (2018): instructed by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner in follow-on proceedings based upon a decision of the European Commission which found an EEA-wide cartel to have existed amongst truck manufacturers.
• British Telecommunications v Ofcom, Court of Appeal (2018): Acted for BT in the leading authority on the award of costs against regulators following a successful appeal in the CAT.
• British Telecommunications & Others v. Ofcom, Competition Appeal Tribunal (2017): Acted for BT in its appeal against Ofcom’s market definition and consequent finding of Significant Market Power in the market for business connectivity services.
• Advising the National Health Service of both Scotland and Northern Ireland in follow-on proceedings in relation to “Pay for Delay” decisions from the European Commission.
• Advising the Payment Systems Regulator on use of competition law powers.
• Advising the Payment Systems Regulator on Interchange Fee Regulation and other regulatory and constitutional matters.
• Advising the Competition and Markets Authority in their market investigation into Retail Banking.
• HCA International Ltd and AXA PPP Healthcare Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority, Competition Appeal Tribunal: a challenge on judicial review grounds to the CMA’s decision to require HCA to divest itself of one or more Central London private hospitals.
• AC Nielsen Co Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority, Competition Appeal Tribunal (2014): application on judicial review grounds challenging the OFT’s decision not to refer to the Competition Commission the merger between Information Resources Inc and Aztec Group (suppliers of retail measurement services).
• Global Radio Holdings Ltd v Competition Commission, Competition Appeal Tribunal (2013): a challenge to the CC’s decision to require Global Radio to divest radio stations following its acquisition of Guardian Media Group Radio Holdings Ltd.
• Mobile Termination Charge appeals, Court of Appeal (2013): acted unled for BT in the Court of Appeal, Competition Appeal Tribunal and Competition Commission in BT’s successful appeal against Ofcom’s determination of mobile termination rates.
• Colt Technology Services v Ofcom and BT, Competition Appeal Tribunal (2013): challenge to Ofcom’s decision not to require BT to allow communications providers access to its duct, poles and dark fibre.
• BAA Ltd v Competition Commission, Court of Appeal (2012): judicial review of CC’s decision to require BAA to sell Stansted Airport.
• SRCL Ltd v Competition Commission, Competition Appeal Tribunal (2012): challenge to CC’s decision that the acquisition by Stericycle Inc of Ecowaste Southwest Ltd resulted in a substantial lessening of competition (SLC).
• Cable and Wireless Isle of Man Ltd v Communications Commission of the Isle of Man (2012): acted unled for the IOM Communications Commission in an application for judicial review by Cable & Wireless concerning the Commission’s decision not to open a competition investigation into Manx Telecom.

“Hard-working and good on the detail”

Chambers & Partners,  Immigration

“Robert Palmer [is] ‘a fine advocate, who is clear, straightforward and makes points in a punchy and persuasive fashion.’ He has much experience of representing both the government and applicants in the immigration context, and his knowledge is highly valued by instructing solicitors.”

Chambers & Partners, Immigration

Robert has made more than 20 appearances in the Court of Justice of the EU and the General Court of the EU, and has frequently appeared in the domestic courts in cases concerning the application, interpretation or infringement of EU law.

Cases

Significant cases include:

• Case T-310/18 European Federation of Public Service Unions v European Commission, General Court (2019): acted for the EPSU, the European Federation of Public Service Unions, in a challenge to the Commission’s failure to introduce legislation on the initiative of the social partners under Articles 154 and 155 TFEU.
• Case C-669/16 European Commission v United Kingdom, CJEU (2018): acted in infraction proceedings against UK in respect of its failure to designate sufficient special areas of conservation for harbour porpoises.
• Privacy International v Foreign Secretary, GCHQ, Security Service & Secret Intelligence Service, CJEU and Investigatory Powers Tribunal (2019): challenge to the intelligence agencies’ collection and use of bulk communications data.
• Case C-424/16 Home Secretary v Franco Vomero, CJEU (2018): acted for the Home Secretary in both the Supreme Court and the CJEU in this appeal, concerning the deportation of an EU worker after conviction for manslaughter.
• Opinion 3/15, CJEU (2017): acted for the UK on the issue of the external competence of the EU in relation to commercial aspects of intellectual property.
• Case C-272/15 Swiss International Air Lines v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, CJEU (2016): application of principle of equal treatment to exclusion of flights from Switzerland from the benefit of a derogation from the EU Emissions Trading Scheme for aviation.
• Case C-148/14 Nordzucker, CJEU: interpretation of provisions on excess emissions penalties in greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme.
• Case C-409/13 Council v Commission, CJEU: power of Commission to withdraw a legislative proposal against wishes of the Council and Parliament.
• Opinion 1/13, CJEU: whether acceptance of the accession of a third country to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction falls within the exclusive competence of the Union.
• Case C-28/12 Commission v Council, CJEU (2014): representing United Kingdom in case concerning competence of Member States to conclude an extension of the EU-US air transport agreement (“ATA”) to Iceland and Norway.
• Case C-378/12 Onuekwere, CJEU (2014): effect of period of imprisonment on the acquisition of permanent right of residence.
• Case C-400/12 Secretary of State for the Home Department v MG, CJEU (2014): effect of period of imprisonment on ten year prior residence rule.
• R (Negassi) v Home Secretary, Court of Appeal (2013): claim for Francovich damages; leading case on the conditions of entitlement.
• Case T-434/11 Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank v Council of the EU, General Court (2013): appeal against designation under EU sanctions directed at Iranian nuclear proliferation.
• Case C-321/12 Van der Helder & Farrington, CJEU (2013): effect of residence in different Member States for entitlement to pensions benefits.
• Cases 63/12 and 66/12 Commission v Council, CJEU (2013): entitlement of employees of the EU to automatic salary and pension increases.
• C-12/11 McDonagh, CJEU (2013): entitlement to compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation of flights in extraordinary circumstances.
• C-360/10 SABAM, CJEU (2012): compatibility of a requirement on a internet service provider to filter the information it hosts for third parties with the E-Commerce Directive.
• C-83/11 Rahman, CJEU (2012): Member States’ obligation to facilitate entry and residence of “other family members” under the Citizens’ Directive.
• C-40/11 Iida, CJEU (2012): Right of residence in third country for parent of child exercising free movement rights.
• C-257/10 Bergström, CJEU (2011): eligibility for income related childcare benefit on the basis of income earned in Switzerland.
• C-186/10 Oguz, CJEU (2011): prohibition on Member States introducing new restrictions regarding the admission of Turkish nationals to their territory for the purpose of the exercise of freedom of establishment.

“Very authoritative and adaptable.” “His drafting is just phenomenal” and “he is extremely clever and methodical.” – Chambers UK, 2020

‘‘Intellectually rigorous and a great communicator’’ – Legal 500, 2020

Robert acts for both claimants and defendants, handling cases across the full breadth of immigration and nationality work, with particular emphasis on EU freedom of movement law, business immigration and national security work.

Cases

Recent work and significant cases include:

• Home Secretary v Franco Vomero, Supreme Court (2019): acted for the Home Secretary in both the Supreme Court and the CJEU in this appeal, concerning the deportation of an EU worker after conviction for manslaughter.
• DH v Home Secretary, Upper Tribunal (2019): acting for the Home Secretary in deprivation of citizenship appeal on grounds of fraud.
• R3 v Home Secretary, SIAC (2018): acted for Home Secretary in deprivation of citizenship appeal, on preliminary issue concerning whether Appellant had dual Pakistani nationality.
• T2 v Home Secretary, SIAC (2018): acted for the Home Secretary in exclusion appeal concerning national security.
• Algerian national security deportations, Court of Appeal and SIAC (2016): safety of return to Algeria of eight terrorist suspects, based on “deportation with assurances” programme.
• RM (Sierra Leone) v Home Secretary, Court of Appeal (2015): use of Sprakab language analysis tests in asylum cases.
• R (New London College Ltd) v Home Secretary, Supreme Court (2013): lawfulness of the UK Border Agency’s guidance for educational establishments acting as “sponsor” for non-EU students.
• R (Lutalo) v Home Secretary, Court of Appeal (2013): compatibility of UK implementation of Reception Directive provisions on permission to work for asylum seekers.
• Country Guidance case on Libya, Upper Tribunal (2013): safety of return to Libya following the Arab Spring.
• W (Algeria) v Home Secretary, Supreme Court (2012): use of “reverse closed” evidence by SIAC appellants seeking to resist deportation on national security grounds.
• Ascioglu v Home Secretary, Court of Appeal (2012): effect of the “standstill clause” in the EC- Turkey Association Agreement concerning conditions of freedom of establishment of Turkish self-employed businesspersons.
• Associates of Mukhtar Ablyazov, asylum appeals (2012): represented appellants in asylum claim of Kazakh bankers following collapse of BTA Bank.
• MS (Algeria) v Home Secretary, Court of Appeal (2011): entitlement of the Secretary of State to rely on assurances from the Algerian Government on deporting a person no longer believed to represent a threat to national security.
• RB and U (Algeria) v Home Secretary, House of Lords (2009): House of Lords challenge to the deportation of suspected terrorists to Algeria with governmental assurances as to respect for their human rights.

“An excellent new silk who has very good judgement.” – Chambers UK, 2020

“An excellent barrister who was great in front of the Supreme Court.” – Chambers UK, 2019

“Robert Palmer [is] ‘a fine advocate, who is clear, straightforward and makes points in a punchy and persuasive fashion.’ He has much experience of representing both the government and applicants in the immigration context, and his knowledge is highly valued by instructing solicitors.” – Chambers & Partners

Administrative & Public Law: “He is calm, measured and extremely knowledgeable – a very safe pair of hands.” “Robert is very able and he has been in a number of notable and complex cases.” – Chambers UK, 2024

European Law: “Robert did a great job in a recent judicial review. He is methodical and comprehensive in both his advocacy and advice.” “Robert is outstanding in presenting highly complicated matters in a way that is easy to understand.” – Chambers UK, 2024

Immigration: “He’s a supremely talented advocate. He has very smooth advocacy and is extremely clever.” – Chambers UK, 2024

Telecommunications: “A leading technical expert in telecommunications regulation. He is incredibly pragmatic, able to think through highly complex situations, and someone who gives precise, simple advice in order to achieve solutions. Incredibly user-friendly, helpful and efficient, he very much gets what the business is trying to do.” “Robert gives very clear and calm advice, and is great at understanding the commercial dynamics of a case.” – Chambers UK, 2024

Leading Silk in Administrative Law and Human Rights: ‘‘Robert is outstanding – a brilliant advocate. He is respected by judges and opponents alike.’’  – Legal 500, 2024

Leading Silk in Competition: ‘‘Robert is excellent. He makes himself readily available at very short notice and is always happy for you to float ideas past him. He is genuinely collaborative and a great communicator who quickly gets to the nub of an issue and takes a strategic outlook.’’  – Legal 500, 2024

Leading Silk in EU Law: ‘‘A silk of enormous charm. He has extremely detailed technical knowledge of his area.’’  – Legal 500, 2024

Leading Silk in Telecoms (regulatory): ‘‘Robert has a sharp mind. He is able to get to the crux of a complex issue quickly and navigate through legal and regulatory quagmires in a commercially savvy way.’  – Legal 500, 2024

Leading Silk in Immigration (Including Business Immigration): ‘‘Robert is outstanding and a brilliant advocate. He has first-rate advocacy skills and is respected by judges and opponents alike.’’  – Legal 500, 2024

Administrative & Public Law: “He is really pleasant to work with, responsive and unafraid to take on difficult points.” “He is very thorough in his analysis and able to explain complex issues clearly. He is also attuned to the broader context.” “Robert is hugely respected by opponents and judges alike. He brings gravitas and enormous intellectual clout to his cases.” – Chambers UK, 2023

European Law: “He is one of those barristers who drafts you a pleading which you look at in wonder and consider it a beautiful piece of work.” – Chambers UK, 2023

Immigration: “He is outstanding. Hugely respected by opponents and judges alike. He brings gravitas and enormous intellectual clout to his cases.” – Chambers UK, 2023

Telecommunications: “He is very user-friendly and direct.” “His grasp of commercial strategies is second to none; he provides commercially focused strategic advice.” – Chambers UK, 2023

Leading Silk in Administrative Law and Human Rights: ‘‘Calm and clear-headed in the most complex cases.’’  – Legal 500, 2023

Leading Silk in EU Law: ‘‘A clear structured and persuasive advocacy style, Robert’s technical knowledge is exceptional and judges listen carefully to what he has to say.’’  – Legal 500, 2023

Leading Silk in Telecoms (regulatory): ‘‘His advocacy is clear, structured and persuasive. His technical knowledge is excellent and Judges listen carefully to what he has to say’’  – Legal 500, 2023

Leading Silk in Immigration (Including Business Immigration): ‘‘Calm and clear-headed in the most complex cases.’’  – Legal 500, 2023

Recommended in Competition, Who’s Who Legal UK Bar 2022

Recommended in  Telecoms, Who’s Who Legal UK Bar 2022

Administrative & Public Law: “He is an incredibly smart barrister who is great to work with.” “He has excellent attention to detail and is very knowledgeable on procurement and public law matters.” – Chambers UK, 2022

European Law: “A proper EU lawyer, clever and knowledgeable across the breadth of EU law.” “An outstanding barrister. He did a good job of persuading the judge to come on side, despite the case having very difficult issues.” – Chambers UK, 2022

Immigration: “He is a very high-calibre counsel and an excellent advocate.” “He is very skilled and articulate; razor-sharp, proficient and a delight to work with.” – Chambers UK, 2022

Telecommunications: “His sector knowledge is second to none.” “He is good at evaluating the strength of different arguments. He also thinks laterally and will think about different ways to approach an issue.”- Chambers UK, 2022

Leading Silk in Administrative & Public Law: ‘‘A pleasure to work with, impeccable attention to detail.’’  – Legal 500, 2022

Leading Silk in Immigration (Including Business Immigration): ‘‘A highly accomplished practitioner who delivers with clarity and composure both when advising clients and when delivering submissions in court or tribunal ’’ – Legal 500, 2022

Leading Silk in EU Law – Legal 500, 2022

Leading Silk in Telecoms (regulatory) – Legal 500, 2022

Administrative & Public Law: “His written work is outstanding. He is completely immersed in the law, he knows the cases back to front, and he always manages to just nail the point.” “He has the ear of the judge because he doesn’t try to showboat by making cheap points but gets to the heart of the matter.” – Chambers UK, 2021

Immigration: “He is extremely bright and fair, and a very warm advocate – he pitches it exactly where the courts will take it.” “He is incredibly well respected, very practical and brilliant in court.” – Chambers UK, 2021

Telecommunications: “Very user-friendly and a pleasure to work with, he is very committed and an agile thinker. He has an excellent understanding of telecommunications regulation.” “Extremely good, very thorough, an excellent lawyer, and a very good advocate. He is good on his feet.”- Chambers UK, 2021

European Law: “Robert’s written work is fantastic; he is completely immersed in the law and knows the cases back to front.” “He is able to persuade the court even in the most difficult cases.” – Chambers UK, 2021

New Silk in Administrative & Public Law: ‘‘Intellectually rigorous and a great communicator.’’  – Legal 500, 2021

New Silk in Competition: ‘‘A great communicator’’ – Legal 500, 2021

New Silk in EU Law: ‘‘Intellectually rigorous and a great communicator’’ – Legal 500, 2021

New Silk in Telecoms (regulatory): ‘‘An agile thinker who is committed, user-friendly and a pleasure to work with.’’ – Legal 500, 2021

New Silk in Immigration (including business immigration): ‘‘A highly accomplished practitioner who delivers with clarity and composure both when advising clients and when delivering submissions in court or tribunal.’’  – Legal 500, 2021

Administrative & Public Law: “His drafting is just phenomenal.” “He is a very good new silk with good judgement, who doesn’t take bad points.” “He’s incredibly responsive, works very quickly and is good on strategy in complicated cases.” – Chambers UK, 2020

Immigration: “An excellent new silk who has very good judgement.” – Chambers UK, 2020

Telecommunications: “He is very good at adjusting his style for his audience” and is “someone who is really robust in his thinking.”- Chambers UK, 2020

European Law: “Very authoritative and adaptable.” “His drafting is just phenomenal” and “he is extremely clever and methodical.” – Chambers UK, 2020

New Silk in Administrative and public law (including local government): ‘‘Intellectually rigorous and a great communicator’’ – Legal 500, 2020

New Silk in Competition: ‘‘A great communicator’’ – Legal 500, 2020

New Silk in EU Law: ‘‘Intellectually rigorous and a great communicator’’ – Legal 500, 2020

New Silk in Telecoms (regulatory): ‘‘He is known for handling regulatory, EU and competition law matters, including in the telecoms sector.’’ – Legal 500, 2020

New Silk in Immigration (including business immigration): ‘‘One of the best counsel used by the secretary of state in the field of immigration.’’  – Legal 500, 2020

Administrative & Public Law: “An impressive advocate.” “An excellent public law junior whose written and oral advocacy often has the elegance and clarity of a QC.” – Chambers UK, 2019

Immigration: “An excellent barrister who was great in front of the Supreme Court.” – Chambers UK, 2019

Telecommunications: “He is very direct and is extremely clear and critical in his advice.” “Leads big cases on his own, is very effective as an advocate and is confident and persuasive.” “In case management conferences he is calm, measured and forensic..”- Chambers UK, 2019

Leading junior in Administrative and public law (including local government) – Leading juniors: ‘‘His arguments are very well constructed and he has strong tactical skills’’ – Legal 500, 2018

Leading junior in EU Law: ‘‘His legal analysis is very strong. His written arguments are well constructed and he has strong tactical skills.’’ – Legal 500, 2018

Leading junior in Telecoms (regulatory): ‘‘He has strong analytical skills and phenomenal influencing abilities.’’ – Legal 500, 2018

Leading junior in Immigration (including business immigration): ‘‘One of the best counsel for immigration matters; he is both fair and expert.’’  – Legal 500, 2018

Administrative & Public Law: “An excellent public law junior, whose written and oral advocacy often has the elegance and clarity of a QC.” – Chambers UK, 2018

Immigration: “He has fantastic judgement.” “He does a very good job on his feet and he’s very effective.” – Chambers UK, 2018

Telecommunications: “A good all-rounder on telecom disputes,” who “can deliver difficult messages in a pleasant and measured way.”- Chambers UK, 2018

Leading junior in Administrative and public law (including local government) – Leading juniors: ‘‘Unflustered, well-prepared and client-friendly.’’ – Legal 500, 2017

Leading junior in Telecoms (regulatory): ‘‘He combines an incisive mind with a clear and courteous courtroom manner.’’ – Legal 500, 2017

Leading junior in Immigration (including business immigration): ‘‘A very pleasant opponent and very much liked by his clients.’’  – Legal 500, 2017

Administrative & Public Law: “An excellent public law junior whose written and oral advocacy often has the elegance and clarity of a QC.” “Very impressive, with great clarity and a deep understanding of the application of law. His presentation is always clear and concise.” – Chambers UK, 2017

Immigration: “Highly skilled advocate, he has handled complex, flagship immigration cases.” – Chambers UK, 2017

Telecommunications: “His technical skill and knowledge of competition and EU law are very good.” “He’s a very highly thought-of junior who will continue to thrive.” – Chambers UK, 2017

Leading junior in Administrative and public law: “Calm, commercial and willing to engage as part of a team.” – Legal 500, 2016

Leading junior in Telecoms (regulatory): “A highly accomplished practitioner, who delivers with clarity and composure.” – Legal 500, 2016

Leading junior in Immigration: “Regularly acts unled for the Home Office in major cases.” – Legal 500, 2016

Telecommunications: “The most highly regarded barrister in this chapter, according to our research, reflecting his “excellent work” is this area. With a fantastic reputation in the industry, clients “couldn’t wish for a more skilled advocate”. – WHO’S WHO LEGAL (WWL) UK BAR 2016

Administrative and Public Law: “A very calm and cool advocate with excellent knowledge of European law.” “His preparation is first-class, he’s client-friendly and sticks to his guns.”- Chambers UK, 2016

Immigration Law: “He is an excellent lawyer, mostly doing national security cases.” – Chambers UK, 2016

Telecommunications: “He’s a very thoughtful and persuasive advocate.” “He grasps the issues and reduces them to the simple and practical.”- Chambers UK, 2016

“Very clear written and oral advice.” Leading Junior in Administrative and Public Law. Legal 500, 2015

“Highly regarded for his broad regulatory practice.” Leading Junior in Telecoms Law. Legal 500, 2015

“Excellent preparation and presentation.” Leading Junior in Immigration Law. Legal 500, 2015

Administrative & Public Law: “He is an excellent public law junior whose written and oral advocacy often has the elegance and clarity of a QC.” “He is excellent – he can do any area of public law.” – Chambers UK, 2015

Recommended as a Leading Junior in Immigration – Chambers UK, 2015

Telecommunications: “He’s really outstanding in terms of clarity and the succinct way in which he expresses himself.” – Chambers UK, 2015

‘Outstanding written and oral advocacy.’ Rob Palmer is a recommended leading Junior under Administrative and Public Law – Legal 500, 2014

‘Acts for both claimants and defendants.’ Rob Palmer is a recommended leading Junior in Immigration Law – Legal 500, 2014

Under Telecommunications Law: Highly thought of among practitioners, who note his fast-growing reputation in this sector. His practice encompasses judicial review appearances and challenges against regulators.“An impressive junior, who is able to hold his own in court in complex and difficult cases.” Chambers UK, 2014

Robert Palmer is ranked under Immigration. “Hard-working and good on the detail.”Chambers UK, 2014

“Robert Palmer, who is ‘highly intelligent’ and ‘able to see the bigger picture’, is recommended,” under Administrative and Public Law. Legal 500, 2013

“Robert Palmer, who has ‘reached a level of expertise in the sector that rivals that of many QCs’;” is a recommended leading Junior in Telecommunications Law. Legal 500, 2013

Robert Palmer is also recommended as a leading Junior in Planning Law and Immigration Law. Legal 500, 2013

“Robert Palmer, “a fine advocate, who is clear, straightforward and makes points in a punchy and persuasive fashion.” He has much experience of representing both the government and applicants in the immigration context, and his knowledge is highly valued by instructing solicitors.” Chambers UK, 2013

Robert Palmer is a recommended leading junior in Administrative and Public Law. Legal 500, 2012

Robert Palmer is a recommended leading junior in Immigration Law. Legal 500, 2012

Robert Palmer is a recommended leading junior in Planning Law. Legal 500, 2012

Robert Palmer is a recommended leading junior in Pubic & Administrative Law. Legal 500, 2011

In Education Robert Palmer is recommended as a leading junior. Legal 500, 2011

Legal 500, 2011 states in Environment, that Robert Palmer is ‘excellent’.”

Immigration (including business immigration) recommends Robert Palmer as a leading junior. Legal 500, 2011

Legal 500, 2011 recommends Robert Palmers as a leading junior in Planning.

• The impact of judicial review on business: Sweet & Maxwell Judicial review conference (2014)
• The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014: is it lawful? (2014)
• EU Citizenship: the unforeseen advance of destiny (Bar European Group conference, 2014)
• Proportionality and Objective Justification: How far is too far? (GLS Annual EU Law Conference, 2014)
• Judicial Review of Hospital Closures (2014)
• Opening the EU Law Armoury: Challenging State Regulation of Business (2012)
• Beginning, middle and end: how to write a judicial review story (2012)
• Proportionality and the Intensity of Review: where are we after Sinclair Collis? (2011)
• EU Citizenship (2011)
• Competition Disqualification Orders (2010)
• Judicial Review – Procedure, Tactics, Drafting (2010)
• Public Procurement and section 106 obligations: when are they caught? (Procurement Law Association, 2009)
• Community Care: NHS Continuing Care (2007) Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults (2006)
• School Admission Appeals and Disability Discrimination (2005) School Reorganisation (2004)
• Updates on Discrimination Law (2004, 2003)
• Mount Cook 2: An analysis [2004] Judicial Review 55 Halsbury’s Laws, Local Government (Contributor, 2003)

Robert gained a first class honours degree at St. John’s College, Oxford in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (1996), and was elected President of the Oxford Union (1995). He obtained a Diploma in Law with commendation at City University (1997). At Bar School, he came first in his year and was awarded the Scarman Scholarship, with a grade of “Outstanding” (1998). He was also awarded the Macaskie Award (1998), a Prince of Wales Scholarship (1997) and a Karmel Award (1996) by Gray’s Inn.

Robert is a member of the Administrative Law Bar Association (ALBA) and the Bar European Group (BEG).

He was appointed as a Deputy High Court Judge in 2021, and sits in the Queen’s Bench Division. He was previously appointed as a Recorder on the South Eastern Circuit in 2018.