Lord Banner KC

Charles has a substantial advisory and disputes practice relating to commercial and contractual issues affecting the development, energy, infrastructure, leisure & hospitality, real estate and finance sectors – as well as commercial claims brought by or against government or other public authorities. He also has substantial experience of advice and litigation concerning economic sanctions. Since joining Keating Chambers in 2020 he has also acquired increasing experience of construction disputes, particularly those involving a planning-related aspect. He is a contributor to Keating on Construction Contracts (11^th Edition Supplement, Sweet & Maxwell, 2021).

He also acts as a resolver of commercial disputes. He sits judicially on a part-time basis as a Justice of the Astana International Finance Centre Court in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan. He also accepts appointments as an Arbitrator (FCIArb & FHKIArb), Mediator (ADR Group Accredited) and Expert.

Recent and ongoing cases include:

• Acting for an English local authority in relation to a high value mixed planning and construction matter concerning the development of an affordable housing led scheme on publicly-owned land (leading Adam Walton) (2024-ongoing).
• Arbitrator in a commercial dispute in Saudi Arabia (2024).
• £10m+ litigation in the Chancery Division over a development agreement relating to the Liverpool Waters scheme (2023-2024, ongoing).
• Construction dispute concerning a major residential development in Oxfordshire (2023-24, ongoing).
• Dispute concerning a development agreement between a developer and a local authority in London (2023).
• Arbitrator in commercial dispute in Dubai (2022-24, ongoing).
• Dispute concerning a hotel construction project in the Bahamas (2022-23, ongoing).
• Dispute relating to alleged defects in a hotel construction project in the UK (2022).
• Judge in multiple commercial and construction disputes in Kazakhstan, heard in the Astana IFC Court (2022-present).
• Acting in relation to defects claims under a series of highway adoption agreements (2021).
• Advising on a high value construction dispute concerning planning-related delay to a student accommodation development (2020).
• Advising on force majeure and frustration issues arising out of the COVID-19 crisis in relation to development funding and building contracts relating to large development projects that have stalled due to the pandemic (2020).
• A substantial claim in the Bahamas Supreme Court arising out of a marine accident (2020-2022).
• Arbitration concerning a high value contractual dispute between a statutory water undertaker and a high profile public body (2019-ongoing).
• Arbitration concerning the interpretation of a contract concerning the maintenance and repair of the tidal defence gates at a major UK harbour (2017-2019).
• A substantial and vigorously contested Chancery Division claim between the Arora Group (which has 6 hotels and substantial land interests at London Heathrow Airport) and Heathrow Airport Ltd (the operator of Heathrow Airport) concerning real estate, planning and competition issues regarding Arora’s proposed 9 storey multi storey passenger car park at Heathrow. The trial is awaiting listing but the case has already produced two reported judgments from contested interim applications: Arora Management Services Ltd v. Heathrow Airport Ltd [2019] 5 C.M.L.R. 24 and Arora Management Services Ltd. Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] EWHC 79 (Ch).
• Advising Her Majesty’s Treasury on the application of the Libya (Financial Sanctions) Regulations 2016 to complex corporate structures (2019-ongoing).
• A £10m+ Commercial Court claim relating to alleged contamination in food supplied to one of the largest commercial pig farms in the UK (2018-2019, settled).
• Arbitration concerning the ownership of London’s main roads (and in particular the valuable rights in relation to land above, below and adjacent to the road surface), which following an appeal under s.69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 proceeded to the UK Supreme Court: Southwark LBC v. Transport for London [2018] 3 W.L.R. 2059.
• Acting for a services provider in a £100m+ contractual dispute with a NHS regional clinical commissioning group over the interpretation of a contract for the provision of health services to NHS patients, in expert determination proceedings before a former Supreme Court Justice (2017-2019).
• A multi-jurisdictional dispute concerning contracts for the exploitation of mineral resources in China (2016-2019).
• Case T-715/14 NK Rosneft a.o. v. European Council ELCI:EU:T:2018:544 & Joined Cases T-735/14 & T-799/15 Gazprom Neft v. European Council ELCI:EU:T:2018:548 – proceedings before the EU General Court in which the Russian energy companies Rosneft and Gazprom sought the annulment of EU sanctions targeted at the Russian oil sector in the light of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP as amended and Council Regulation (EU) 833/2014 as amended). Sole counsel for the United Kingdom, whose submissions were endorsed by the General Court. The issues included whether the sanctions were in breach of the EU’s obligations under GATT and GATS.
• Advising the UK Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation on issues relating to the financial sanctions imposed on the former President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych (2017-2018).
• R (Ezz) v. HM Treasury [2016] EWHC 1470 (Admin) concerning the ‘reasonable legal fees’ exemption to the standard form of EU financial sanctions.
• Minerva (Wandsworth) Ltd v. Greenland Ram (London) Ltd [2017] EWHC 1457 (Ch) – acting for the Greenland Group in the 13-day Chancery Division trial of a high value claim relating to overage provisions in a contract for the £135m purchase of the Ram Brewery development site in Wandsworth.
• Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd. v. Environment Agency [2017] EWHC 1340 (QB) – a £13 million claim against the Environment Agency under a contract agreed in 1963 by the Manchester Ship Canal Company and the Mersey River Board (a predecessor of the EA) and subsequently confirmed in Schedule 2 of the Mersey River Board Act 1964. MSCC claimed damages under the contract in respect of flood damage caused to the Manchester Ship Canal during the high profile, extreme Boxing Day Floods of 2015. Acted for the EA in its successful application for summary judgment.

Charles has career-long experience of EU-derived law, including 13 appearances in the EU Courts (CJEU and General Courts) on EU law issues as diverse as:

• Environmental Regulation: T-226/18 Global Silicones Council v. European Commission; Case C-528/16 Confédération Paysanne v. Premier Ministre; C-461/17 Holohan v. An Bord Pleanála;
• Economic Sanctions: T-715/14NK Rosneft a.o. v. European Council; T-735/14 & T-799/15 Gazprom Neft v. European Council;
• Employees’ rights: C-214/16 King v. The Sash Window Workshop Ltd[2018] 2 C.M.L.R. 10;
• Free Movement of Persons: C-507/12 St Prix; C-186/10Oguz;
• Refugee protection: C-490/16 AS v. Republic of Slovenia; C-150/15N; C-542/13 M’Bodj v. État Belge;  C-562/13 Abdida.

He has also been involved in some of the most significant cases in the English courts concerning the status of EU law in the domestic legal system both pre-Brexit (e.g. R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd.) v. Secretary of State for Transport [2014] 1 W.L.R. 324 in the UK Supreme Court) and post-Brexit (CG Fry & Son Ltd. v. Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Communities and Local Government [2023] Env. L.R. 30 on the status of Directives in the UK legal system following Brexit)

From 2017-2020 he was the UK Member of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency’s Management Board (a Ministerial appointment by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice). He has published and lectured widely on EU law issues and was a College Lecturer in EU Law at Oxford University from 2010 to 2015, holding undergraduate classes at weekends (at Lincoln, Oriel and Regents Park Colleges).

He is recommended as a leading KC in EU law by Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2024 and Legal 500 UK Bar 2024. Comments in these directories include that he:

• “possesses experience across a diverse array of European law issues”;
• “has an incredibly detailed knowledge of EU law and shows real skill in applying it”;
• “is extremely knowledgeable on EU law”; and
• “is particularly adept at advising on cases involving questions of European law”.

His competition law experience includes:

• R (Heathrow Hub Ltd) v. Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWCA Civ 213, a competition law challenge to the Airports National Policy Statement endorsing Heathrow Airport Ltd’s North West Runway scheme for Heathrow expansion ahead of Heathrow Hub’s Extended Northern Runway proposal. The issues concerned (i) whether there had been a relevant ‘state measure’ under Article 106 TFEU taken with Article 102 TFEU, (ii) whether HAL had a dominant position in the relevant market (airport operation and associated services), and (iii) whether HAL had ‘special or exclusive rights’ so as to fall within the scope of Article 106.
• A substantial Chancery Division claim between the Arora Group (which has 6 hotels and substantial land interests at London Heathrow Airport) and Heathrow Airport Ltd (the operator of Heathrow Airport) concerning real estate, planning and competition issues regarding Arora’s proposed 9 storey multi storey passenger car park at Heathrow (ongoing).
• Arora Management Services Ltd v. Heathrow Airport Ltd [2019] 5 C.M.L.R. 24 (Ch) – an interlocutory dispute in the above proceedings, concerning which division of the High Court is appropriate for determination of competition disputes between private parties.
• Advising the Secretary of State for Transport concerning competition issues relating to the provision of ground-handling services at a major UK airport.
• Regularly advising a well known firm in the automotive industry on competition law issues over a period of several years.
• Advising a sports professional on competition issues in the context of a dispute with his sporting association.
• Whilst on secondment as Judicial Assistant to the Law Lords, he worked on the seminal case of Crehan v. Inntrepreneur Pub Co. [2007] A.C. 333 regarding beer ties in pubs.

He also has considerable experience of advising both public and private sector clients on subsidy control and state aid issues, particularly in the context of state-funded environmental improvement measures and the sale of land interests by public authorities to the private sector. He has acted in this context in cases concerning the implications of the proposed financing of the redevelopment of a well known sports venue, of funding the remediation of a former mine, of central Government funding for a new relief road that will enable the development of a large scale urban extension, and of granting relief from the Community Infrastructure Levy to registered charities.

Charles’ practice covers a wide range of issues affecting the energy and natural resources sector, both within the UK and internationally, including planning & environmental regulation of new energy infrastructure, energy markets regulation, contractual disputes, international trade & investment law (including the Energy Charter Treaty), project finance and public procurement. He is recommended as a leading KC in Energy-related work by Legal 500 UK Bar 2024.

Significant work includes:

• Acting for Fenland DC in a judicial review challenge to the DCO for an Energy from Waste facility in Wisbech (2024-ongoing).
• Advising on regulatory issues relating to underground gas storage in Northern Ireland (2023-ongoing).
• Litigation in the High Court and Court of Appeal concerning ‘nutrient neutrality’ and the effect of new development on protected watercourses: CG Fry & Son Ltd. v. Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Communities and Local Government [2023] Env. L.R. 30, Court of Appeal hearing listed for March 2024.
• Acting for consortium of residents, known as GARD, in opposition to Thames Water’s proposals for a new reservoir in Abingdon, Oxfordshire (2023-ongoing).
• Successfully promoted Recharge One at a public inquiry – a roadside electric vehicle charging station powered by biogas, with accompanying facilities including overnight eco-lodge accommodation, in the South Downs National Park (2023).
• Litigation in the Northern Ireland High Court concerning the Arc 21 Energy From Waste Project in Co. Antrim – a £240m strategic Energy From Waste facility. The case raises significant constitutional, public law, environmental law and planning law issues (2022-ongoing).
• Acting for a consortium of residents affected by National Grid’s East Anglia Green project (East Anglia GREEN | National Grid ET) which would involve the construction of 180km of new pylons in the East of England (2022-ongoing).
• Minister for Infrastructure v. Safe Electricity A&T Ltd [2022] NICA 61 – judicial review challenge to the Northern Ireland Minister for Infrastructure’s grant of planning permission for the North-South Interconnector – Northern Ireland Electricity’s proposed 400kv strategic interconnector between Tyrone in Northern Ireland and Cavan in the Republic of Ireland, regarded as Northern Ireland’s most significant energy infrastructure project to date. Previously acted for the Department for Infrastructure concerning the project for several years since 2013, including at a high profile public inquiry and in various High Court proceedings.
• Advising the UK Government on the EU energy law and international trade & investment law implications of Brexit for the All-Ireland Single Electricity Market (including in relation to GATT, GATS and the Energy Charter Treaty).
• Arbitration concerning a high value contractual dispute between a statutory water undertaker and a high profile public body (2019-ongoing).
• Case T-715/14 NK Rosneft a.o. v. European Council ELCI:EU:T:2018:544 & Joined Cases T-735/14 & T-799/15 Gazprom Neft v. European Council ELCI:EU:T:2018:548 – proceedings before the EU General Court in which the Russian energy companies Rosneft and Gazprom sought the annulment of EU sanctions targeted at the Russian oil sector in the light of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine. The issues included whether the sanctions were in breach of the EU’s obligations under GATT and GATS.
• A multi-jurisdictional dispute concerning contracts for the exploitation of mineral resources in China (2016-2019).
• Acting for the UK Government (leading a 3-counsel team) successfully defending a heavyweight commercial judicial review claim concerning changes to the rules relating to energy markets: R (Eider Reserve Power Ltd) v. Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (CO/393/2018).
• Promoting nationally significant energy infrastructure through the development consent process in England, including: the Keuper Gas Storage Project Development Consent Order (a joint venture between Ineos and the Solvay Group for a 19-cavity underground gas storage facility in Cheshire); the Norfolk Vanguard Development Consent Order (one of the UK’s largest offshore windfarms, with an approximate capacity of 1.8GW which would meet the electricity needs of 1.3m homes); Runcorn Energy From Waste for Ineos and Viridor).
• Proceedings before the UNECE Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee in Geneva relating to an open-cast coal mine in Merthyr Tydfil which is to extract several million tonnes of coal over c.15 years as part of the Ffos-y-Fran Land Reclamation Scheme (sole counsel for the operator).

Charles undertakes a wide range of environmental litigation and advisory work in the domestic, EU and international law spheres. His is recommended as leading KC in environmental law by the 2024 editions of both Chambers & Partners UK Bar and Legal 500 UK Bar . His environmental law practice is evenly split between commercial clients, private clients, environmental NGOs and public authorities including the Environment Agency and the Northern Ireland Department for Infrastructure.

He has acted in some of the most important environmental cases in the English High Court and appellate courts since 2000, including the first Supreme Court case to consider the application of the Aarhus Convention within the UK (Edwards), the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment on strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment in the context of a Parliamentary development consent process (HS2 Action Alliance No. 1), important Court of Appeal judgments on climate change (Plan B Earth concerning Heathrow Expansion), the scope of the ‘project’ for the purposes of environmental impact assessment (Larkfleet) and the distinction in EU law between ‘waste recovery’ and ‘waste disposal’ (Tarmac), the status of EU environment law in the UK legal system post-Brexit (CG Fry), as well as most of the other principal authorities on strategic environmental assessment (Save Historic Newmarket, Ashdown Forest, HS2 Action Alliance No. 2 and Larkfleet Homes). He has also acted in one of the most significant cases in the Northern Ireland High Court regarding Environmental Impact Assessment and habitats (Newry Chamber of Commerce).

Internationally, he has appeared on multiple occasions before the UNECE Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee in Geneva, in a series of cases before the CJEU regarding EU environmental legislation (including most recently a challenge by the silicones industry to the high profile ban on ‘microbeads’ in wash-off cosmetic products, as well as the groundbreaking Holohan case on habitats protection) and in the European Court of Human Rights in App. No. 39714/15 Austin v. UK (2017) 65 E.H.R.R. SE16 (concerning the circumstances in which Article 8 ECHR applies in cases of alleged environmental pollution and whether protection against adverse costs orders is required to achieve compliance with the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 ECHR).

He is the Editor of The Aarhus Convention – A Guide for UK Lawyers (Hart Publishing, 2015), the first book to be published concerning the implementation of the Aarhus Convention in the UK, and co-author of the chapter on strategic environmental assessment in Garner’s Environmental Law.

In 2017, Charles was awarded ‘Environment and Planning Junior of the Year’ at the Chambers UK Bar Awards. In the same year, he was shortlisted for ‘Real Estate, Environment and Planning Junior of the Year’ at the Legal 500 UK Bar Awards.

From 2016 until 2020 he was a Trustee and Council Member of the UK Environmental Law Association. In 2017, he was appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as an independent member of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, of which he has been Chair since June 2023 (having been Deputy Chair 2021-23).

His most significant environmental cases include the following:

Aarhus Convention

• Nine cases before the UNECE Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee in Geneva. This includes an ongoing communication (ACCC/C/2017/156 RSPB & others v. UK) raising the fundamental question of whether the application by the UK courts, in environmental judicial and statutory review proceedings of the Wednesbury standard of review is consistent with Article 9(2) of the Aarhus Convention in relation to the review of the substantive legality of certain environmental decisions, acts and omissions.
• Advising DEFRA, DECC and the Ministry of Justice on Aarhus Convention compliance in the light of recent Compliance Committee and CJEU findings about the costs regime in environmental judicial review proceedings in the UK.
• R (Edwards & Pallikaropoulos) v. Environment Agency [2011] Env. L.R. 13, concerning the approach to be taken in considering whether the costs of environmental litigation are “prohibitively expensive” contrary to Article 9(4) of the Aarhus Convention, as implemented into EU law by Article 10a of the EIA Directive.

Environmental cases before the EU courts

• Case T-226/18 Global Silicones Council & others v. European Commission ELCI:EU:T:2021:403 : application to the General Court to annul Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/35 which introduces an EU-wide ban, effective 31^st January 2020, on silicone ‘microbeads’ in wash-off cosmetic products, due to their polluting effect on river and marine ecosystems.
• Case C-528/16 Confédération Paysanne v. Premier Ministre ELCI:EU:C:2018:53 (CJEU Grand Chamber): a reference from the French  Conseil d’État regarding the scope and interpretation of the provisions of EU environmental legislation regulating to genetically modified organisms.
• Case C-461/17 Holohan v. An Bord Pleanála ECLI:EU:C:2018:649 (CJEU), a reference from Ireland’s High Court concerning the required content of an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive and the consideration that an environmental statement under the EIA Directive needs to give to alternatives to the proposed development.

Climate Change

• R (Plan B Earth & Friends of the Earth) v. Secretary of State for Transport [2020] P.T.S.R. 1446, the high profile environmental law challenge to the Airports National Policy Statement endorsing the principle of a 3^rd runway and associated infrastructure at London Heathrow Airport, in which the Court of Appeal held that the APNS was unlawful because the Secretary of State for Transport had not had regard to the Paris Agreement on climate change, subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court.
• Abbotskerswell Parish Council v. Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] Env. L.R. 28 on climate change and EIA.

Strategic Environmental Assessment

• R (Plan B Earth and others) v. Secretary of State for Transport [2020] P.T.S.R. 1446: one of two counsel credited in the judgment as persuading the Court of Appeal that the Wednesbury standard of review is sufficient in relation to challenges to evaluative decisions in the context of strategic environmental assessment and sustainability appraisal.
• R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd.) v. Secretary of State for Transport [2014] 1 W.L.R. 324 (Supreme Court), the high profile legal challenge to the Government’s White Paper HS2 – Decisions and Next Steps (Jan 2012) on the grounds (inter alia) that the White Paper should have been and was not subject to SEA pursuant to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive.
• The two leading cases regarding the duty for the Environmental Report / Sustainability Appraisal accompanying a draft plan or programme to explain what reasonable alternatives to the proposed plan policies have been considered and why they were rejected: Save Historic Newmarket Ltd v. Forest Heath District Council [2011] J.P.L. 1233 and Ashdown Forest Economic Development LLP v. Wealden District Council [2016] Env. L.R. 2.

Environmental Impact Assessment

• Mooreland and Owenvarragh Residents Association’s Application for Judicial Review [2022] NIQB 40 – successfully defended a JR brought on EIA, habitats and other grounds challenging the grant of planning permission for the grant of a new stadium at Casement Park, Belfast.
• Abbotskerswell Parish Council v. Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] Env. L.R. 28 concerning the level of detail needed in an Environmental Statement at the outline planning stage in circumstances where further details of the development and its environmental effects will be provided at the reserved matters stage.
• Case C-461/17 Holohan v. An Bord Pleanála [2019] P.T.S.R. 1045, a reference from Ireland’s High Court concerning the consideration that an environmental statement under the EIA Directive needs to give to alternatives to the proposed development.
• R (Larkfleet Limited) v. South Kesteven DC [2016] Env. L.R. 4 (Court of Appeal), a judicial review challenge to the grant of a relief road to enable a large-scale urban extension on the grounds that the road and the urban extension should have been assessed as a single ‘project’ under the EIA Directive or alternatively that the cumulative environmental effects of the road taken together with the urban extension were not assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Directive. One of the lead domestic authorities on the scope of the ‘project’ for the purposes of EIA and the approach to be taken to assessing in-combination effects.
• R (Bucks CC & others) v. Secretary of State for Transport [2014] 1 W.L.R. 324 (Supreme Court), on whether the proposed Hybrid Bill procedure for obtaining development consent for HS2 from Parliament was incompatible with the requirements of the EIA Directive having regard to the conditional exemption under the Directive where development consent is to be granted by a legislature.

Habitats

• Test case litigation concerning ‘nutrient neutrality’ and the effect of new development on protected watercourses: CG Fry & Son Ltd. v. Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Communities and Local Government [2023] Env. L.R. 30, Court of Appeal hearing listed for March 2024.
• Extensive advice on water neutrality (2022-23).
• Mooreland and Owenvarragh Residents Association’s Application for Judicial Review [2022] NIQB 40 – successfully defended a JR brought on EIA, habitats and other grounds challenging the grant of planning permission for the grant of a new stadium at Casement Park, Belfast.
• Abbotskerswell Parish Council v. Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] Env. L.R. 28 , concerning the level of detail needed in an Appropriate Assessment at the outline planning stage in circumstances where further details of the development and its environmental effects will be provided at the reserved matters stage.
• R (Plan B Earth and others) v. Secretary of State for Transport [2020] P.T.S.R. 1446: one of two counsel credited in the judgment as persuading the Court of Appeal that the Wednesbury standard of review is sufficient in relation to challenges to evaluative decisions in the context of the Habitats Regulations/Directive.
• Case C-461/17 Holohan v. An Bord Pleanála ECLI:EU:C:2018:649 (CJEU), a reference from Ireland’s High Court concerning the required content of an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Directive.
• 3 week inquiry in April – June 2019 regarding a proposed 1210 dwelling urban extension at Newton Abbot, Devon, where the main issue was Natural England’s objection concerning the alleged impact of the development on Greater Horseshoe Bats and the consequent impact on the South Hams Special Area of Conservation. Substantial ecology evidence was called and cross-examined.
• Two 3 week public inquiries concerning environmental permit applications for water abstraction, which had been refused by the Environment Agency on habitats grounds (commercial agricultural abstraction near Catfield Fen, Norfolk, and public water supply abstraction from the Rivers Test and Itchen).
• Newry Chamber of Commerce’s Application for Judicial Review [2015] NIQB 65, concerning the assessment of cumulative effects under the Habitats Directive and Habitats Regulations and the Court’s discretion not to quash in circumstances where even if there had been a technical breach of the Directive and Regulations there was no evidence that there was a real rather than hypothetical risk of harm to the designated habitat(s) which should have been considered. One of the leading Northern Ireland authorities on EIA.

Water resources

• Test case litigation concerning ‘nutrient neutrality’ and the effect of new development on protected watercourses: CG Fry & Son Ltd. v. Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Communities and Local Government [2023] Env. L.R. 30, Court of Appeal hearing listed for March 2024.
• Extensive advice on water neutrality (2022-23).
• Acting for consortium of residents, known as GARD, in opposition to Thames Water’s proposals for a new reservoir in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, raising a wide range of environmental law issues relating to water resources (2023-ongoing).
• Two 3 week public inquiries concerning environmental permit applications for water abstraction, which had been refused by the Environment Agency on habitats grounds (commercial agricultural abstraction near Catfield Fen, Norfolk, and public water supply abstraction from the Rivers Test and Itchen).

Waste

• Litigation in the Northern Ireland High Court concerning the Arc 21 Energy From Waste Project in Co. Antrim – a £240m strategic Energy From Waste facility. The case raises significant constitutional, public law, environmental law and planning law issues (2022-ongoing)
• R (Tarmac Aggregates Ltd) v. (1) Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and (2) Environment Agency [2016] Env. L.R. 15, concerning the approach to determining whether an activity is “waste recovery” under Article 3(15) of the Waste Framework Directive as opposed to “waste disposal”.
• Acting for the Environment Agency at public inquiries into appeals against the refusal of environmental permit applications relating to (1) a proposed landfill at Birks Quarry, Oldham, and (2) a proposed quarry restoration scheme involving the use of inert waste at Methley Quarry, Leeds.
• R (Residents Against Waste Site Ltd) v. Lancashire CC [2008] Env. L.R. 27, on the meaning and application of the “relevant objectives” under the Waste Framework Directive for considering proposals for the disposal or recovery of waste.

Access to Environmental Information

• Acted for Heathrow West Ltd (an Arora Group Company) in Environmental Information Regulations proceedings concerning whether Heathrow Airport Ltd (the operator of London Heathrow Airport) is a ‘public authority’ subject to the Regulations’ information disclosure obligations (2019-2020).

Infrastructure

Charles has considerable experience of providing advice and representation in relation to large-scale infrastructure projects in a range of legal contexts, both within the UK and internationally, including the development consent order (‘DCO’) process, Parliamentary proceedings, environmental regulation and other regulatory issues, contractual disputes, project finance, public procurement. He has particular experience of infrastructure work in the transport, energy and natural resources sectors.

The breadth of his practice means he is unusually well placed to assist clients over the lifetime of their project, from environmental and planning consenting, to public procurement, regulatory and project finance issues, to commercial disputes arising during or after the construction of the project.

His experience includes being integrally involved in proceedings relating to arguably the three most significant infrastructure projects in the UK in recent years: High Speed 2 (‘HS2’), the proposed 3^rd runway and associated expansion at London Heathrow Airport, and the North-South Ireland Electricity Interconnector. He has also acted in litigation in Northern Ireland in 2022-23 concerning the three most significant recent infrastructure projects in that jurisdiction: the aforementioned Interconnector, Casement Park stadium, and the Arc21 Energy from Waste project.

He is regularly ranked in Planning Magazine’ s annual Planning Law as one of the top silks at the Bar of England & Wales practising in the field of infrastructure planning.

In 2024 he was appointed by the Prime Minister to undertake a review into planning and delivery of national infrastructure projects: see (Lord) Banner KC to lead review on national infrastructure – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).

He is a member of the UK National Infrastructure Planning Association.

Significant infrastructure work includes the following:

Transport infrastructure

• Advising a local highway authority in relation to a new junction on the M5 (2022-ongoing).
• High Speed Two: acted for HS2 Action Alliance and affected landowners in the Parliamentary Select Committee proceedings established to consider objections to the proposed route and details of Phase 1 of HS2; prior to that, appeared in the high profile and long running litigation relating to HS2 including two Supreme Court appeals (R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd) v. Secretary of State for Transport and R (Heathrow Hub Ltd) v. Secretary of State for Transport [2014] 1 W.L.R. 324) and proceedings before the UNECE Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee in Geneva (Communication ACCC/C/2014/100).
• London Heathrow Airport 3^rd Runway and associated expansion: acting over several years for the Arora Group, one of the principal landowners at and around Heathrow Airport and the promoter of the ‘Heathrow West’ proposal pursuant to which it seeks to construct and operate a new terminal at Heathrow in competition with the existing terminals operated by Heathrow Airport Limited. Appeared in the Heathrow third runway litigation for Arora as Interested Party in 2019-2020.
• London Heathrow Airport passenger car parking: a substantial and vigorously contested Chancery Division claim between the Arora Group (which has 6 hotels and substantial land interests at London Heathrow Airport) and Heathrow Airport Ltd (the operator of Heathrow Airport) concerning real estate, planning and competition issues regarding Arora’s proposed 9 storey multi storey passenger car park at Heathrow. The trial is awaiting listing but the case has already produced two reported judgments from contested interim applications: Arora Management Services Ltd v. Heathrow Airport Ltd [2019] 5 C.M.L.R. 24 and Arora Management Services Ltd. Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] EWHC 79 (Ch).
• London Stansted Airport expansion: acted for the Secretary of State for Transport in defence of a judicial review brought by Stop Stansted Expansion contending that a proposal to construct additional infrastructure at London Stansted Airport and to raise the annual cap on passenger transport movements at the airport by 8million passengers per annum should have been subjected to the DCO regime under the Planning Act 2008 as a nationally significant infrastructure project, rather than being left to the local planning authority to determine pursuant to the conventional planning regime under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. See R (Ross & Sanders acting on behalf of Stop Stansted Expansion) v. Secretary of State for Transport [2020] EWHC 226 (Admin).
• Bristol Airport expansion: providing extensive advice to North Somerset Council in relation to its consideration of an application for planning permission for significant expansion of Bristol Airport to enable a throughput of 12 million passengers per annum (2019-2020).
• London Southend Airport: long-standing advisory role for London Southend Airport Limited, part of the Stobart Group, in relation to their plans for the future of London Southend Airport.
• Manston Airport DCO: advised the Secretary of State and the Planning Inspectorate on legal and procedural issues relating to the DCO application concerning the proposed development of Manston Airport into an airfreight hub with complimentary passenger and engineering services.
• A5036 Port of Liverpool Access Scheme: acted for Highways England in defence of a judicial review challenge to the decision on its decision on a preferred route for an improved road link to the Port of Liverpool, following non statutory pre-DCO consultation: R (Sefton MBC) v. Highways England [2018] EWHC 3059 (Admin).
• Arbitration concerning the ownership of London’s main roads (and in particular the valuable rights in relation to land above, below and adjacent to the road surface), which following an appeal under s.69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 proceeded to the UK Supreme Court: Southwark LBC v. Transport for London [2018] 3 W.L.R. 2059, with subsequent arbitration proceedings in 2021-2022.
• Promoted one of four competing proposals for a new Motorway Service Area on the A1(M) in North Yorkshire at a three month ‘beauty parade’ public inquiry and in subsequent High Court proceedings (2010-2012).
• Successfully promoted Recharge One at an inquiry in 2023 – a roadside electric vehicle charging station powered by biogas, with accompanying facilities including overnight eco-lodge accommodation, in the South Downs National Park.
• Defended the Secretary of State for Transport in the High Court against a judicial review challenge to his decision to grant c.£53 million of funding towards a new link road between Bexhill and Hastings.

Energy & natural resources infrastructure

• Acting for Fenland DC in a judicial review challenge to the DCO for an Energy from Waste facility in Wisbech (2024-ongoing).
• Advising on regulatory issues relating to underground gas storage in Northern Ireland (2023-ongoing).
• Litigation in the Northern Ireland High Court concerning the Arc 21 Energy From Waste Project in Co. Antrim – a £240m strategic Energy From Waste facility. The case raises significant constitutional, public law, environmental law and planning law issues (2022-ongoing).
• Acting for a consortium of residents affected by National Grid’s East Anglia Green project (East Anglia GREEN | National Grid ET) which would involve the construction of 180km of new pylons in the East of England (2022-ongoing).
• Minister for Infrastructure v. Safe Electricity A&T Ltd [2022] NICA 61 – judicial review challenge to the Northern Ireland Minister for Infrastructure’s grant of planning permission for the North-South Ireland Electricity Interconnector – Northern Ireland Electricity’s proposed 400kv strategic interconnector between Tyrone in Northern Ireland and Cavan in the Republic of Ireland, regarded as Northern Ireland’s most significant energy infrastructure project to date. Previously acted for the Department for Infrastructure concerning the project for several years since 2013, including at a high profile public inquiry and in various High Court proceedings.
• Keuper Gas Storage Project DCO: concerning a joint venture between Ineos and the Solvay Group for a 19-cavity underground gas storage facility in Cheshire. Sole counsel for the promoter.
• Norfolk Vanguard DCO – one of the UK’s largest offshore windfarms, with an approximate capacity of 1.8GW which would meet the electricity needs of 1.3m homes.
• Runcorn Energy From Waste – 2 week public inquiry for Ineos and Viridor concerning their EfW plant which treats c.850,000 Tonnes of refuse derived fuel per year, generating c.130MW p.a.
• Advising the Northern Ireland Department for Infrastructure in relation to the Curraghinalt Gold Project, an underground gold mine estimated to produce approximately 1.36Moz of gold and 0.38Moz of silver over an initial mine life of 10.5 years.
• Shale gas ‘fracking’ and exploration: advising the UK Government on fracking regulation; advising Nottinghamshire County Council in connection with its determination in November 2016 of a high profile application by IGas Energy for consent to undertake shale gas exploration at Mission Springs; Europa Oil & Gas v. SSCLG [2014] J.P.L. 21 on whether exploration for hydrocarbons constitutes “extraction” for the purposes of national planning policy relating to development in the green belt.
• Proceedings before the UNECE Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee in Geneva relating to an open-cast coal mine in Merthyr Tydfil which is to extract several million tonnes of coal over c.15 years as part of the Ffos-y-Fran Land Reclamation Scheme (sole counsel for the operator).
• A multi-jurisdictional dispute concerning contracts for the exploitation of mineral resources in China.

Port and harbour infrastructure

• Providing planning & environmental legal and strategic advice to the owners of one of the Freeports announced in the Chancellor’s March 2021 budget.
• Arbitration concerning the interpretation of a contract concerning the maintenance and repair of the tidal defence gates at a major UK harbour (2017-2019).
• Acting as sole counsel for the Secretary of State in Grafton Group Ltd v. Secretary of State for Transport & Port of London Authority [2017] 1 W.L.R. 373, a challenge to the confirmation of a compulsory purchase order made by the Port of London Authority of Orchard Wharf on the River Thames in order to secure its reactivation for wharf use. This was the first case examining the PLA’s powers of compulsory acquisition associated with its port and harbour functions.

Sports Infrastructure

• Mooreland and Owenvarragh Residents Association’s Application for Judicial Review [2022] NIQB 40 – successfully defended a JR brought on EIA, habitats and constitutional grounds challenging the grant of planning permission for the grant of a new stadium at Casement Park, Belfast.
• Advising on planning and procurement issues relating to the extension of Old Trafford Cricket Ground.

Utilities infrastructure

• Acting for consortium of residents, known as GARD, in opposition to Thames Water’s proposals for a new reservoir in Abingdon, Oxfordshire (2023-ongoing).
• Acting for a consortium of residents affected by National Grid’s East Anglia Green project (East Anglia GREEN | National Grid ET) which would involve the construction of 180km of new pylons in the East of England (2022-ongoing).
• Arbitration concerning a high value contractual dispute between a statutory water undertaker and a high profile public body (2019-2020).
• Acting for a consortium of affected landowners in opposition to Thames Water’s proposal for the 16-mile Thames Tunnel “Super Sewer”, including successfully achieving the narrowing of the safeguarding direction issued to protect the proposed route.

Charles is widely recognised as one of the UK’s most effective and influential planning KCs. He is ranked as one of the country’s Top 4 planning silks in Planning Magazine’s ​Planning Law Survey 2021 (based upon a poll of several hundred development & infrastructure industry professionals), as well as being recommended as a leading planning silk in Legal 500 UK Bar 2022 and Chambers UK Bar 2022. Prior to taking silk, he was unanimously rated as the No.1 planning junior in all three publications. Commentary in the directories includes: “a real jewel in the planning Bar crown”, “tremendously respected”, “a match for any silk” and “one of the best court advocates I’ve seen”.

His practice covers the full range of advisory, inquiry and High Court work in the planning field. He has acted in some of the most significant planning court cases and inquiries over the last 15 years, including the Supreme Court appeals in Hillside (on the relationship between multiple planning permissions for development on the same site) Sainsbury’s Supermarkets (on material considerations in planning and CPO decision-making) and HS2 (on EIA and SEA). as well as CG Fry in the High Court and Court of Appeal (on nutrient neutrality and the status of the Habitats Directive in the UK legal system post-Brexit).

He is the creator and co-presenter of the high profile cross-chambers planning themed weekly discussion show, ‘Have We Got Planning News For You’, featuring guest appearances from some of the UK’s most well known figures in planning, architecture and government and was nominated for ‘Best Use of Social Media’ at the Legal Cheek Awards 2021.

Regularly commended in the legal directories for his personable and approachable manner, and for the energy with which he commits himself to each client’s cause, he relishes the team-work that is central to planning practice. He is just at home cross-examining on complex technical issues at an inquiry as he is making submissions on difficult legal issues in the High Court and appellate courts, or providing strategic advice as a part of a multi-disciplinary team.

His planning practice is international. He has worked on various planning matters in Hong Kong, where he spent a 3 month secondment with Mayer Brown JSM’s planning litigation team in 2008, and has acted in relation to planning related disputes in the Bahamas and Gibraltar.

A member of the House of Lords since March 2024, he is a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Housing Market and Housing Delivery, and of the APPG for Self-Build, Custom and Community Housebuilding. In February 2024, he was appointed by the Prime Minister to undertake a review into planning and delivery of national infrastructure projects: see (Lord) Banner KC to lead review on national infrastructure – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).

Listed below are examples of his most significant work arranged sector-by-sector in the following order: (1) Major urban development; (2) residential; (3) specialist older persons’ accommodation (4) commercial, industrial, retail and  regeneration; (5) sports, tourism and leisure; (6) private client work; (7) enforcement; (8) heritage assets; (9) Green Belt development; (10) Planning procedure and practice. Please scroll down to see each sector. See the separate Energy & Natural Resources and Infrastructure pages for his planning work in these fields.

Major urban development

• Promoted Prime London residential developments at the former US Embassy Building in Lees Place (for the USA Government and Hammerspur Ltd), Dean Bradley House in Westminster (for Medici Lifecare), More House in RBKC (for the SAV Group), Duke’s Lodge adjacent to Holland Park (for Christian Candy’s CPC Group), Chester Gate adjacent to Regent’s Park (also for the CPC Group), the former Harrods Depository at 60 Sloane Avenue, South Kensington (a complex land use swap involving the relocation of existing offices to new bespoke office development in Kensal Green), 1 Campden Hill & 69 Campden Hill Road (a substantial Grade II listed property near Kensington High Street), Fulham Riverside (463 waterfront dwellings near Hurlingham Park) and Sotheron Place off the New King’s Road (mixed commercial/residential scheme).
• Tall buildings – recent casework includes promoting tall building schemes in Milton Keynes (the Point), Bristol (Broadwalk Centre), Exeter (Heavitree Road), Basildon (Eastgate Shopping Centre), Ealing (Dylon 2) and Harrow (Catalyst Housing), and advising in relation to a proposed 29-33 storey development in the London Borough of Hackney. Previous experience includes litigation over the 36-storey tower at Greenland’s Ram Brewery site in Wandsworth; providing extensive strategic advice in relation to tall buildings in Bedminster, Bristol; successfully defending the London Borough of Southwark’s refusal of permission for a 12 storey tower at 6 Paris Garden & 20-21 Hatfields, Southwark, SE1; litigation in Hong Kong concerning building height control in Outline Zoning Plans; acting for the successful objectors to a proposed tower on the site of Mildmay Hospital, Shoreditch.
• Build to Rent / Private Rented Sector / PBSA schemes: acted on multiple large scale BTR/PRS schemes in London, Newcastle, Exeter, Bristol and Bath Spa – typically in relation to issues concerning building heights, design and alleged heritage impacts. Clients include Watkin Jones, Student Roost, Legal & General, and Crossman Group.
• Urban regeneration – acting at a 4-week inquiry in August 2022 for the promoters of the Eastgate Shopping Centre redevelopment in Basildon comprising up to 2800 residential units, new retail and commercial floorspace and reconfigured car parking (appeal allowed); advising the promoters of the refurbishment and redevelopment of the Martlets Centre in Burgess Hill (2021-2022); advising on an urban regeneration compulsory purchase order in Gibraltar (2021); extensive advice over several years on planning strategy in relation to a 500,000 sqft mixed use urban regeneration scheme at 15-16 Minories & 62 Aldgate in the City of London; acting for the Secretary of State in the litigation concerning the compulsory purchase order for the intended to facilitate the makeover of Shepherds Bush Market (Horada v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ 169); advising the Greater London Authority on strategic planning issues relating to the regeneration of Old Oak Common; successfully promoting a compulsory purchase order by Westminster City Council to deliver the comprehensive re-development of the Tollgate Gardens Estate in Kilburn in order to improve the quality and quantity of the Council’s housing stock (a flagship project of the Council’s Housing Renewal Strategy).
• Hotels: advising on several major hotel projects in London.
• Acting for Homes England at 3 week inquiry concerning its proposed 260 dwelling development at Brislington, Bristol (2023).
• Acting at inquiry for Taylor Wimpey promoting a 250 dwelling development at the former Homebase site in Finchley, north London (2022).

Residential

• Promoting numerous residential developments at planning appeals, including very extensive experience of interrogating evidence on housing land supply. Recent and current planning appeals (2020-2024) include promoting 2800 new homes in Basildon city centre (for Infrared); 1210 dwellings at Woolborough Barton, Teignbridge District (for the landowner consortium); 955 dwellings in Exeter (for Nixon Property); 540 dwellings in Yarnton, Cherwell District (for Merton College Oxford); 391 dwellings in the Green Belt at Chiswell Green, St Albans (for a consortium including CALA, Taylor Wimpey and Redington Capital); 300 dwellings at Heol-y-Cefn, Blackwood, Caerphilly Borough (for Persimmon); 260 dwellings at Brislington, Bristol (for Homes England); 250 dwellings in the London Borough of Barnet (for Taylor Wimpey); 180 dwellings in Trowbridge, Wiltshire (for Waddeton Park Ltd); 175 dwellings at Soham, East Cambridgeshire District (for Persimmon); 165 dwellings in Glen Parva, Blaby District (for Vistry); 147 dwellings in Chesterton, Cherwell District (for Wates); 140 dwellings in Badshot Lea, Waverley (for Bewley Homes); 140 dwellings in Bramley, Basingstoke (for Wates); 105 dwellings at Cullompton, Mid-Devon District (for Taylor Wimpey); 100 dwellings at Earnley, Chichester District (for Seaward Properties); 100 dwellings at Yatton, North Somerset District (for the Mead Group); 100 dwellings at Topsham, Exeter (for Waddeton Park Ltd); 87 dwellings in the Green Belt at Sarratt, Three Rivers District (for Burlington Property Group); 80 dwellings at Burbage, Hinckley & Bosworth District (for Persimmon); 75 dwellings at Lynchmead Farm, Weston super Mare (for the Mead Group); 71 dwellings in the AONB in Hawkhurst, Tonbridge Wells (for Dandara); 70 dwellings in Chippenham, Wiltshire (for Waddeton Park Ltd); 61 dwellings in Exeter (for Waddeton Park Ltd); 60 dwellings in Totnes, South Hams District (for Fastglobe Mastics); 60 dwellings at Yatton, North Somerset District (for Persimmon); 44 dwellings in Bagshot, Surrey Heath District (for CALA); and 40 homes in Falmouth, Cornwall (for Persimmon).
• Influential court cases on wide-reaching issues of law and policy affecting residential development including the reworded presumption in favour of sustainable development in para. 11 of the NPPF (Monkhill Ltd. v. SSHCLG [2021] P.T.S.R. 1432), the interpretation of the NPPF and PPG provisions concerning the sequential test in flood risk policy (Mead Group & Redrow v. SSLUHC [2024] EWHC Admin, the interpretation of NPPF para. 81 in relation to the economic benefits of housing development (Bewley Homes v. SSLUHC, hearing in March 2024); the NPPF definition of “Previously Developed Land” (Dartford BC v. SSCLG [2017] P.T.S.R. 737, the ‘second homes ban’ in the St Ives Neighbourhood Plan (R (RLT Built Environment Ltd) v. Cornwall Council [2017] J.P.L. 378); whether student accommodation can be included in a LPA’s 5 year housing land supply (Exeter City Council v. SSCLG [2015] EWHC 1663 (Admin)), the duty to give reasons in relation to 5 year housing land supply (East Riding of Yorkshire Council v. Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2022] J.P.L. 742) and whether neighbourhood plans can allocate sites for residential development (R (Larkfleet Homes Ltd) v. Rutland County Council [2015] P.T.S.R. 1369).
• Promoting major allocations through the local Plan EiP process including a career total of over 60,000 dwellings.  Recent examples (2019-2023) include promoting allocations for Monkhill Ltd in Waverley District, Taylor Wimpey in Basildon District, Wates Developments in Hart District, Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead and Waverley District, for Estates & Agency Strategic Land in Brentwood District, for L&Q in North Essex, and for Merton College in Cherwell District.
• Bringing and defending challenges to local plans: Charles acted for the claimants in the challenge to the Waverley Local Plan Part 2 (House v. Waverley BC & SSLUHC [2023] EWHC 3011 (Admin); for Grosvenor in the challenge to the Examining Inspectors’ recommendation that West Oxfordshire DC’s Salt Cross Area Action Plan is sound (Rights Community Action v. SSLUHC , hearing in November 2023); for Avant Homes in the challenge to the Leeds Site Allocations DPD (Aireborough Parish Council v. Leeds City Council [2020] EWHC 1461 (Admin)); and for Wates in the challenge to the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan (Hill v. RBWM [2022] EWHC Admin).
• Acting for the promoters/landowners of new settlements, including Garden Communities, at concept stage, Local Plan Examination, at the planning application stage and in relation to implementation thereafter.  Examples include: Oxfordshire Garden Village aka Salt Cross (acting for the promoter, Grosvenor, at the Area Action Plan EIP in June-July 2021), High Leigh Garden Village, Fawley Power Station (Fawley Waterside), Deenethorpe Airfield (Tresham Garden Village), West Tey, Dunsfold Aerodrome, West Horndon and Barton le Clay.
• Promoting custom and self build schemes including successfully acting for the appellant in the first inquiry into a major custom/self build scheme, at Great Dunmow, Uttlesford District; and acting for the successful appellant in relation to a custom/self build scheme at Dunsfold, Waverley, at a hearing in November 2022 (extensive evidence called in relation to assessing custom and self build need and supply, with favourable findings by the Inspector).
• Extensive experience of financial viability issues in the planning context – including handling the in-depth interrogation at EIP of the viability of some of the allocations mentioned above, as well as viability issues on appeal including most recently in relation to Holburne Park, Bath (March 2021) and the former Homebase Site, Finchley (December 2022). Charles was a member of the RICS Standards & Regulation Board that approved the 2019 Financial Viability Planning Professional Statement and subsequent 2021 FVP Guidance Note.
• Successfully defending East Riding of Yorkshire Council’s 5 year housing land supply in 4 high profile appeals in 2017-2019 relating to proposed residential developments in South Cave, Holm on Spalding Moor, Pocklington and Hutton Cranswick – the Council successfully resisted each of the appeals, including two with costs awards in their favour.
• Successfully defending High Court challenges to major residential planning permissions including (1) the Secretary of State’s grant of planning permission 1200 dwellings on appeal at Wolborough Barton in Teignbridge District (Abbotskwerswell Parish Council v. Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] Env. L.R. 28; (2) a 1200 dwelling phase of Newcastle Great Park, jointly instructed by Taylor Wimpey and Persimmon, (3) a 55 dwelling Taylor Wimpey development at Pool in Wharfedale Leeds; (4) Stroud BC v. SSCLG [2017] EWHC Admin (LPA’s challenge to an Inspector’s decision to allow an appeal by Persimmon Homes relating to a 188 dwelling scheme in Berkeley); (5) Exeter City Council v. SSCLG  [2015] EWHC 1663 (Admin) (LPA’s challenge to 120 dwellings near Exeter); (6) R (Leicestershire Police and Crime Commissioner) v. Blaby DC [2014] EWHC 1719 (Admin) (a challenge by Leicestershire Police to a 4,250 dwelling Lubbesthorpe Urban Extension in Blaby District).
• Regularly advising on option agreements and development agreements relating to residential proposals, and where necessary acting in associated expert determination or arbitration proceedings.

Specialist older persons’ accommodation

• Obtained permission on appeal for Lifestory for 44 retirement apartments in Lymington, New Forest District following a 2 week planning appeal inquiry in May 2021 (main issue: townscape, design and heritage).
• Obtained permission on appeal for Porthaven Planning for a proposed care home in Harpenden, St Albans District following a hearing in May 2021 (main issues: alleged conflict with local plan policy safeguarding B class land, design, landscaping and occupier amenity).
• Acting for Care UK in relation to proposed care homes in Stafford, Corsham, and High Wycombe (2021-2024, ongoing).
• Acting for Lifestory in a planning appeal concerning a 54-unit sheltered housing scheme in Solihull (2 week inquiry in May 2022).
• Acted for Elmbridge Borough Council at a 2 week inquiry appeal in March 2021 in relation to a c.220 unit extra care scheme in Walton-on-Thames, concerning issues of general importance to extra care proposals including the use of prevalence rates in needs assessment and the contribution such a scheme would make to the vitality and viability of the town centre.
• 4 day inquiry in January 2019 for New Forest District council relating to Churchill Retirement Living’s proposal for 43 retirement apartments in Hythe (main issues: design and heritage).
• Obtained permission on appeal for a 60 bed residential care home, 47 assisted living apartments and 55 age restricted dwellings at Exeter Road, Topsham for Waddeton Park Ltd following a 2 week appeal in 2016 (together with an award of costs); acted for the same client at a further inquiry, also resulting in the grant of permission, in December 2018 relating to a proposed 64-bedroom residential care home and 155 market housing units.
• 5 day inquiry for Henley Healthcare Ltd in 2014 regarding its proposal for a community mental hospital at its residential care home premises at Apple Hill, near Maidenhead, and in an associated appeal against the enforcement of a condition restricting the age of occupants of the care home to “the elderly”.

Commercial, industrial, retail and regeneration

• Acting for Lignacite Meadgate in a certificate of lawfulness appeal concerning their major brickworks site in Epping (2023)
• Promoting an electric vehicle charging station combined with eco-lodge accommodation adjacent to the A3 at Buriton, in the South Downs National Park (2 week inquiry in 2023)
• Advising the promoters of Thames Enterprise Park (a joint venture between Greenergy and iSec, part of the Marcol Group), which would be the UK’s first truly multi-modal superhub, creating c. 4,500 jobs (2019-2021, ongoing).
• Acting for Pinewood Studios in relation to its proposals for Screen Hub UK, a global growth hub for the screen industries including 350,000sqft of new production facilities, an educational training and skills hub, a creative industries growth hub and a green campus in the Buckinghamshire Green Belt (2021).
• Acting for Peking HSBC Business School promoting the extension and upgrading of its UK Campus in the Oxfordshire Green Belt (2021-2022).
• Acting for Whitstable Oyster Company in an enforcement appeal relating to alleged breaches of planning control associated with trestles on Whitstable Beach which it uses for commercial oyster farming (2018-2021; 3 week inquiry in July-August 2021 resulting in the company’s appeal being comprehensively allowed).
• Securing planning permission on appeal for an extension to Liverton Business Park, in Teignbridge District (hearing in May 2021).
• Acting for the successful appellant in the first English planning appeal concerning a proposed all-electric vehicle charging station, at Lower Slaughter in Cotswold District (November 2020).
• Promoting a concrete batching plant and associated development at Waterside Way industrial estate, Wimbledon (for Express Concrete); advising London Concrete & Aggregate Industries on planning issues relating to another London concrete batching plant (both 2019).
• Securing a favourable planning policy framework for Jaguar Land Rover’s long-term business plans in the UK.
• Successfully promoting Porsche Cars (Great Britain) Ltd’s proposals for the remodelling and extension of the flagship Porsche Sales Centre on the A4 in Chiswick.
• Several High Court planning challenges to planning permissions and compulsory purchase orders for retail and commercial development including R (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd.) v. Wolverhampton City Council [2011] 1 A.C. 437 (for Sainsbury’s in its successful Supreme Court challenge to the grant of a CPO to facilitate a large Tesco store in Wolverhampton on the basis that the Council took into account immaterial considerations), R (Midlands Co-Operative) v. Birmingham City Council [2012] B.L.G.R. 393 (successfully defending Birmingham City Council’s decision to make a CPO to facilitate proposals by Tesco for the retail-led regeneration of Stirchley), Newry Chamber of Commerce’s Application for Judicial Review [2015] NIQB 65 (appearing for the developers of a 80,000sqft convenience goods scheme in Newry, Northern Ireland, successfully resisting a JR challenge by rival retailers), Re Ellen Doyle’s Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review [2014] NIQB 82 (for the Northern Ireland Planning Appeals Commission successfully defending the grant of permission to the University of Ulster for a key element of a £300m mixed use regeneration scheme described in the decision as “the most important regeneration in North Belfast over the next 5-10 years”), Horada v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ 169 (appearing for the SSCLG in a challenge to the CPO made by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to facilitate the multi-million pound makeover of Shepherds Bush Market).

Sports, tourism and leisure

• Acted for the Northern Ireland Department for Communities, successfully defending a judicial review challenge to the grant of a new GAA stadium at Casement Park, Belfast, which was brought on constitutional, EIA, habitats and planning law grounds: Mooreland and Owenvarragh Residents Association’s Application for Judicial Review [2022] NIQB 40.
• Advising on plans for a new Center Parcs (2022-24, ongoing).
• Achieving the successful resolution of high profile planning enforcement issues relating to the Fairmont Windsor Great Park 5* hotel (2023-2024).
• Promoting an electric vehicle charging station combined with eco-lodge accommodation adjacent to the A3 at Buriton, in the South Downs National Park (2 week inquiry in 2023).

Private client work

• Several cases for HNW & UHNW individuals and well known personalities in relation to planning matters they encounter, typically in relation to their own domestic development proposals or objecting to proposals in the vicinity of their homes. The majority of these cases concern basement developments in prime London, heritage issues, permitted development, demolish & rebuild schemes or exceptional quality homes in the countryside. Most of these have ended up being resolved without the need for an appeal or litigation. Due to the sensitive subject matter it is not possible to give specific details of examples.

Enforcement

• Acting for Whitstable Oyster Company in an enforcement appeal relating to alleged breaches of planning control associated with trestles on Whitstable Beach which it uses for commercial oyster farming (2018-2021; 3 week inquiry in July-August 2021).
• Lignacite Ltd v. Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government Ltd (2021-22, settled) – concerning principles applicable to establishing whether a breach of condition is immune from enforcement action due to expiration of time.
• Ioannou v. SSCLG [2015] 1 P.& C.R. 10, the leading authority on the scope of the powers on an appeal against an enforcement notice to grant permission for a different or modified development to that enforced against, and on the scope of the deemed planning permission in cases of under-enforcement under s.173(11) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
• Bowring v. SSCLG [2013] J.P.L. 1417, concerning the scope of requirements that can lawfully be contained in an enforcement notice against an unauthorised change of use.

Heritage assets

• Obtained planning permission on appeal for Persimmon / Charles Church for a 188 dwelling scheme in Berkeley in close proximity to the Grade I listed Berkeley Castle and several other listed buildings, and partially within the Berkeley Conservation Area – despite forceful objections from Heritage England and the owner of Berkeley Castle.  Two week public inquiry in 2016; successfully defended a High Court challenge in 2017.
• Dozens of other planning appeals in a range of urban and rural contexts in which one of the main issues was alleged impact on one or more heritage assets.
• Mordue v. Secretary of State for  Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 539 (Admin), concerning the burden of proof in planning claims alleging that the decision-maker has failed to comply with the duty under s.66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the preservation and enhancement of listed buildings and their settings.

Green Belt development

• Obtained permission on appeal from the Secretary of State for 391 dwellings and a new school in the St Albans Green Belt (for CALA, Redington Capital and Taylor Wimpey) (2023-2024).
• Currently (2023-2024, ongoing) instructed in relation to a planning appeal for significant green belt residential development at Sarratt, Three Rivers District (87 dwellings and a new medical centre).
• Helped secure favourable local decisions in relation to significant green belt proposals for Pinewood Studios in Buckinghamshire and Peking HSBC Business School in Vale of White Horse District (2020-2022).
• Acted in a series of influential High Court cases over many years concerning the interpretation of Green Belt policy: R (Heath & Hampstead Society) v. Camden LBC [2008] All E.R. 80 (interpretation of PPG2 para 3.6 on replacement dwellings), West Lancashire BC. v. SSCLG [2010] J.P.L. 810 (interpretation of PPG2 para. 3.12 regarding material changes of use in the Green Belt), Knight v. SSCLG [2009] EWHC 3808 (Admin) (application of PPG2 in relation to previously developed land in the Green Belt), Hayden-Cook v SSCLG [2011] J.P.L. 90 (relevance of alternative, more acceptable forms of development in considering the ‘very special circumstances’ test), Europa Oil & Gas Ltd. v. SSCLG [2014] 1 P. & C.R. 3 (whether exploration for oil and gas constitutes “mineral extraction” under NPPF para. 90 and is thus capable of being appropriate development in the Green Belt), R (Privett) v. Gravesham BC [2016] EWHC 1276 (Admin) (regarding NPPF para. 89 on redevelopment of previously developed sites in the Green Belt) and Aireborough Development Forum v. Leeds City Council [2020] EWHC 1461 (concerning the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test for Green Belt release in Local Plans, and the standard of reasons required by Local Plan Inspectors in this context).

Planning procedure and practice

• Hillside Parks Ltd. v. Snowdonia National Park Authority [2022] 1. W.L.R. 5077 – leading for Hillside in this seminal case about the Pilkington principle concerning successive planning permissions on the same site.
• R (Stonewater) (2) Ltd v. Wealden District Council [2022] P.T.S.R. 455 concerning the interpretation of Regulation 49 of the CIL Regulations 2010 concerning mandatory social housing relief from Community Infrastructure Levy, as well as the relevance of s.106 planning obligations to claims for social housing relief, and the approach to interpreting such obligations.
• R (Plan B Earth) v. Secretary of State for Transport [2020] P.T.S.R. 1446 concerning the relevance of the Paris Agreement on climate change to National Policy Statements under the Planning Act 2008.
• R (Gleeson Homes Ltd) v. SSCLG [2014] P.T.S.R. 1226 concerning the time when a recovery direction takes effect and whether the Secretary of State has implied powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to correct obvious errors in appeal decisions (with Jonathan Swift QC).
• Garlick v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2013] EWHC 1126 (Admin) on the requirements of procedural fairness in the context of planning appeals under the written representations procedure.
• Various proceedings relating to the enforcement, modification and discharge of planning obligations, including the leading case of R (Renaissance Habitat Ltd) v. West Berkshire DC [2011] J.P.L. 1209 on the interpretation of the requirement under s.106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that in order for a planning obligation to be discharged the applicant must show that it “no longer serves a useful purpose”.

Charles has substantial experience of both advisory and contentious public procurement work in both England & Wales and Northern Ireland. He is recommended as a leading KC in public procurement by Legal 500 UK Bar 2024 (having been recommended in a succession of previous editions as a leading junior), which comments that he “clearly absorbs masses of information and identifies concisely the main points”  and has  “excellent commercial awareness.” He is also ranked as a Global Leader and National Leader in Government Contracts by Who’s Who Legal 2024, which comments that he “excels in the government contracts arena for his expert handling of development agreements and regeneration projects” and “is singled out by peers as “an excellent all-rounder”. He is an active member of the Procurement Lawyers’ Association.

Much of his public procurement work has been in the context of regeneration projects and development agreements. This has included the two leading cases on the circumstances in which such agreements trigger the need for procurement: most recently, he acted for the successful appellant in the ground-breaking case of R (Faraday Development Limited) v. West Berkshire Council [2019] P.T.S.R. 1346 in which, in addition to holding that a development agreement structured around an option to purchase the land in question was a public works contract requiring procurement, the Court of Appeal made the first ever declaration of ineffectiveness by an English court as well as imposing a civil financial penalty; prior to that, he acted for the successful defendant authority in R (Midlands Co-Operative) v. Birmingham City Council [2012] Eu L.R. 640 (defending a challenge to a development agreement for a retail-led regeneration scheme in Stirchley). He has advised on similar issues in the contexts of (amongst other things) the expansion of a world famous football stadium, the relocation of a municipal sports facility, retail-led regeneration proposals, and the construction of extensions to a well known London Underground station (project costs in excess of £100m). He has also lectured and published extensively on this subject, including an influential article cited in Prof. Sue Arrowsmith’s leading book Law of Public and Utilities Procurement.

His practice also includes procurement issues more broadly. His experience includes:

• River Ridge Recycling (Portadown) Ltd v. Arc 21 [2023] NIKB 86 – acting for the defendant in litigation in the Northern Ireland High Court concerning a challenge to the award of a contract to Regen Waste Ltd for the provision of services for the haulage, treatment, recovery and disposal of Belfast’s municipal waste. Successfully resisted an application for an interim injunction (the contract having been entered into without a standstill period pursuant to the Dynamic Purchasing System Procedure) in June 2023; trial in October 2023.
• Advising the Cabinet Office on public procurement issues relating to the outsourced administration of civil service pensions (2019-2020).
• Litigation in the High Court of Northern Ireland in which the applicant contended that the award of a waste disposal contract was in breach of public procurement law (2019, settled).
• R (Wylde) v. Waverley Borough Council [2017] P.T.S.R. 1245 – on the extent to which persons other than ‘economic operators’ as defined in the Public Contracts Regulations have standing to bring a judicial claim alleging that a contracting authority has breached the Regulations.
• Advising a local authority in relation to the procurement of management services for its entire leisure and culture portfolio.
• Advising the Skills Funding Agency on procurement issues relating to services contracts awarded by it to skills training organisations.
• A dispute relating to the applicability of the Public Contracts Regulations to the Government’s Start-Up Loans scheme set up to boost youth enterprise.
• Advising a housing association on procurement of housing stock from developers with planning permission for affordable housing.

Charles is recommended as a leading KC in administrative & public law in the latest editions of both Legal 500 UK Bar and Chambers & Partners UK Bar (having been ranked as a leading junior in both directories for many years previously). He is also recommended as a leading QC in local government law in Chambers & Partners ​UK Bar (2022). He has considerable experience across the whole spectrum of public law, including all aspects of central and local government, constitutional issues, freedom of information, immigration, community care, healthcare, mental health, prisons, public procurement, regulation, social security and transport.

He has worked on numerous cases before the Administrative Court in England & Wales and before the Judicial Review Court in Northern Ireland. His well-known appellate practice includes some of the leading public law appeals of the 2000s before the Supreme Court (where he has appeared 18 times) concerning issues such as the territorial application of UK Acts of Parliament (Al-Skeini), the circumstances in which the High Court’s judicial review jurisdiction can be restricted by legislation or judicial policy (Cart) and the Court’s jurisdiction to review the Parliamentary procedure for Hybrid Bills for compatibility with EU law (HS2).

Prior to taking silk, he was a member of the Attorney General’s A Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown. He was also member of the Treasury Solicitor’s Freedom of Information Panel until its incorporation within the Attorney General’s main panels. For many years he was a contributor to the Administrative Court Digest and on the editorial team of the ‘International Developments’ section of the journal Public Law. He has published and spoken widely on court systems and the judiciary, and has given expert evidence on the issue to the House of Lords Constitution Committee.

His recent leading public law cases include:

• Test case litigation concerning the status and relevance of EU law in the domestic legal system post-Brexit: CG Fry & Son Ltd. v. Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Communities and Local Government [2023] Env. L.R. 30, Court of Appeal hearing listed for March 2024.
• Advising the UK Government on constitutional issues relating to proposed legislation (2022-2023).
• Advising the UK Government on constitutional issues relating to a Bill before Parliament (2022-ongoing).
• Advising the Trinidad and Tobago Government on constitutional issues (2022).
• R (Fratila & Tanase) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] P.T.S.R. 448 (Supreme Court), concerning the legality of the UK Regulations that, post-Brexit, disentitle EU citizens with Pre-Settled Status from access to means tested benefits.
• Two cases in Northern Ireland concerning the power-sharing arrangements under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 as amended, and specifically whether and if so in what circumstances the Minister for Infrastructure is required to refer major planning decisions to the Executive Committee: Minister for Infrastructure v. Safe Electricity A&T Ltd [2022] NICA 61 and Mooreland and Owenvarragh Residents Association’s Application for Judicial Review [2022] NIQB 40.
• R (Plan B Earth and others) v. Secretary of State for Transport [2020] P.T.S.R. 1446, multiple judicial review challenges to the Airports National Policy Statement which endorsed the principle of expansion of London Heathrow Airport including a 3^rd runway and 6^th terminal.
• Appearing for the UK Government before the UNECE Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee in RSPB, Friends of the Earth and Leigh Day v. United Kingdom (ACCC/C/2017/156, heard on 5^th November 2019) in which it is alleged that the Wednesbury standard of review of administrative decisions is insufficiently effective to secure compliance with the provisions of Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention regarding access to justice in relation to environmental decision making.
• A series of Supreme Court cases concerning the lawfulness of restrictions on access to social security benefits by economically inactive EU migrants: Fratila v. Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2022] P.T.S.R. 448; Mirga v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] 1 W.L.R. 481; R (HC) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] 3 W.L.R. 1486; St Prix v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] 1 All E.R. 752; Patmalniece v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] 1 W.L.R 783.
• Two of the principal domestic cases on the duty under s.123 of the Local Government Act 1972 to obtain best consideration for the disposal of land interests  and associated state aid issues:  R (Faraday Development Ltd) v. West Berkshire Council [2016] EWHC 2166 (Admin) & [2018] EWCA Civ 2532 and R (Midlands Co-Operative) v. Birmingham City Council [2012] B.L.G.R. 393.
• A high profile challenge to Ofcom’s decision not to uphold a complaint that Channel 4 had breached broadcasting standards in relation to the TV programmes My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and Thelma’s Gypsy Girls, a case raising important issues about the legality of Ofcom’s procedures for determining complaints: R (Traveller Movement) v. Office of Communications [2015] EWHC 406 (Admin).
• Two of the most significant recent cases on standing to bring a judicial review claim in England & Wales (R (Wylde v. Waverley Borough Council [2017] P.T.S.R. 125) and Northern Ireland (Doyle’s application for judicial review [2014] NIQB 82).

Charles has also been recommended for several years as a leading KC in Civil Liberties & Human in Legal 500 UK. Much of his public law work involves issues under the Human Rights Act 1998 and/or the ECHR. He has experience of applications for declarations of incompatibility under s.4 of the Human Rights Act, judicial review of public authority acts on human rights grounds, damages claims under s.8 of the Human Rights Act and proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights. From 2017-2020 he was the UK Member of the EU Fundamental Rights Agency’s Management Board (a Ministerial appointment by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice). Significant human rights cases include:

• Advising the UK Government on the compatibility of proposed legislation with the Convention Rights enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998 (2022-2023).
• AM (Zimbabwe) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] 1 W.L.R. 1152 (Supreme Court), concerning the circumstances in which the expulsion of a seriously ill foreign national who did not have leave to remain in the UK would amount to inhuman/degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR, having regard to the recent judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on this issue in Paposhvili v. Belgium.
• Acting for the United Kingdom in App. No. 39714/15 Austin v. United Kingdom (2017) 65 E.H.R.R. SE16 concerning the circumstances in which Article 8 ECHR applies in cases of environmental pollution.
• Case C-542/13 M’Bodj v. État Belge [2015] C.M.L.R. 16 and Case C-562/13 Centre public d’action sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve v. Abdida [2015] 2 C.M.L.R. 15, two references from the Belgian Cour Constitutionelle concerning the scope of humanitarian protection under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights for non-EU citizens suffering from serious illness whose removal to their country of origin would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment.
• Case T-715/14 NK Rosneft a.o. v. European Council  544 & Joined Cases T-735/14 & T-799/15 Gazprom Neft v. European Council ELCI:EU:T:2018:544 & 548 – proceedings before the EU General Court in which the Russian energy companies Rosneft and Gazprom sought the annulment of EU sanctions targeted at the Russian oil sector in the light of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, including on fundamental rights grounds relating to alleged infringement of Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (right to property).

Charles was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2010 and regularly provides advice and representation on matters within or relating to Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to planning and public procurement. He is a full member of the Bar Library in Belfast and regularly works from there (click here for more details).

His most significant work in Northern Ireland includes the following:

High Court cases and Court of Appeal cases

• River Ridge Recycling (Portadown) Ltd v. Arc 21 [2023] NIKB 86 – acting for the defendant in litigation concerning a challenge to the award of a contract to Regen Waste Ltd for the provision of services for the haulage, treatment, recovery and disposal of Belfast’s municipal waste. The plaintiff seeks £50m in damages. Successfully resisted an application for an interim injunction (the contract having been entered into without a standstill period pursuant to the Dynamic Purchasing System Procedure) in June 2023; trial in Spring 2024.
• Successful judicial review application concerning the Arc 21 Energy From Waste Project in Co. Antrim – a £240m strategic Energy From Waste facility. The case raised significant constitutional, public law, environmental law and planning law issues. The defendant consented to judgment shortly before trial. (2022-2023).
• Mooreland and Owenvarragh Residents’ Association’s application for Judicial Review [2022] NIQB 40 – acted for the Department for Communities, successfully defending a judicial review challenge to the grant of a new GAA stadium at Casement Park, Belfast, which was brought on constitutional, EIA, habitats and planning law grounds.
• Minister for Infrastructure v. Safe Electricity A&T Ltd [2022] NICA 61 – judicial review challenge to the Northern Ireland Minister for Infrastructure’s grant of planning permission for the North-South Interconnector – Northern Ireland Electricity’s proposed 400kv strategic interconnector between Tyrone in Northern Ireland and Cavan in the Republic of Ireland, regarded as Northern Ireland’s most significant energy infrastructure project to date. A test case concerning the power-sharing arrangements under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 as amended, and specifically whether and if so in what circumstances the Minister for Infrastructure is required to refer major planning decisions to the Executive Committee. Previously acted for the Department for Infrastructure concerning the project for several years since 2013, including at a high profile public inquiry and in various High Court proceedings.
• Buttercrane Centre Limited’s Application for Judicial Review [2017] NIQB: challenge to planning permission for the extension of The Quays retail centre in Newry, concerning the compatibility with Article 6 ECHR of the ‘promptness’ requirement for JR.
• Kelvin Properties Limited’s Application for Judicial Review [2016] NIQB: challenge to the Planning Appeal Commission’s refusal of planning permission for a retail development in Coleraine (settled following leave hearing).
• Darren Crowe’s Application for Judicial Review [2016] NIQB: challenge to the Planning Appeal Commission’s refusal of planning permission for an onshore wind turbine development on the grounds of potential impact on species protected under the EU Habitats Directive (settled following leave hearing).
• Newry Chamber of Commerce’s Application for Judicial Review [2015] NIQB 65: challenge to planning permission for a large scale retail-led redevelopment, raising issues under the Habitats Directive, EIA Directive and the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
• Doyle’s Application for Judicial Review [2014] NIQB 82: challenge to the Planning Appeal Commission’s grant of permission for a key element of the University of Ulster’s £300m regeneration scheme in North Belfast, concerning standing for JR in the planning context.
• Department of Environment’s Application for Judicial Review [2014] NIQB 4: challenge to Planning Appeal Commission’s grant of permission for a large-scale airport car-park in the countryside, concerning the relationship between the different applicable Planning Policy Statements.

Planning inquiries and planning appeal hearings

• Appearing for the Department for Infrastructure at the two-stage public inquiry into the Northern Ireland element of the proposed North-South Ireland Electricity Interconnector, Northern Ireland’s largest infrastructure project in recent years.
• Acting for Derry and Strabane District Council at an inquiry into a proposed 1,400 dwelling urban extension on the edge of Derry City.
• Several planning appeal hearings concerning appeals against enforcement notices served on operators of unauthorised airport car parks in the open countryside near Belfast International airport.

Advisory work

• Advising on regulatory issues relating to underground gas storage in Northern Ireland (2023).
• Advising on public procurement and environmental law issues in the context of municipal waste disposal in Northern Ireland (2021).
• Advising the Arc 21 consortium on constitutional and planning law issues relating to the redetermination of its application for a strategic Energy From Waste facility the permission for which was quashed by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in Buick’s Application for Judicial Review [2018] NICA 26 on the basis that it had been outside the powers of the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Infrastructure to issue the permission in the absence of Ministerial Government.
• Advising the UK Government on the EU law and international trade law implications of Brexit for the all-Ireland Single Electricity Market.
• Advising the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure on proposed restrictions to salmon fishing in the River Foyle on EU habitats grounds.
• Advising local planning authorities on planning applications for onshore wind turbine developments.

Hillside Parks Ltd. v. Snowdonia National Park Authority [2022] 1 W.L.R. 5077
Seminal planning case concerning the ‘Pilkington principle’ regarding the relationship between multiple planning permissions for development on the same site, and in particular whether the long standing industry practice of obtaining and implementing ‘drop in’ consents to alter elements of a wider development has the effect of precluding further reliance on the original planning permission for that wider development.

Fratila v. Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2022] P.T.S.R. 448
Concerning the legality of the UK Regulations that, post-Brexit, disentitle EU citizens with Pre-Settled Status from access to means tested benefits.

AM Zimbabwe v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] 2 W.L.R.  1152
Concerning the circumstances in which the expulsion of a seriously ill foreign national who did not have leave to remain in the UK would amount to inhuman/degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR, having regard to the recent judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on this issue in Paposhvili v. Belgium.

Patel & Shah v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] 1 W.L.R. 228
Concerning the approach to determining whether a non-EU citizen carer of a dependant EU citizen (usually, but not always, a non-EU parent of an EU citizen child) has a ‘Zambrano’ right of residence under EU law in their host EU member state – in particular following the CJEU’s recent decision in Case C-133/15 Chavez – Vilchez.

Transport for London v. London Borough of Southwark [2018] 3 W.L.R. 2059
Concerning the extent of interests in London’s roads that were transferred from London local authorities to TfL upon the latter’s creation by statute in 2000, an issue which turns on important issues of highway law.

R (HC) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] 3 W.L.R. 1486
Concerning whether and in what circumstances a non-EU citizen with a Zambrano right to reside in the UK as the primary carer of a dependant EU national is entitled under EU law to social benefits to which UK citizens and EU citizens with a right to reside in the UK are entitled.

Mirga v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2016] 1 W.L.R. 481
Concerning the rights of EU nationals to claim benefits in the UK and whether a fact-specific proportionality assessment is required prior to refusing benefits to an EU national who does not otherwise qualify.

R (Cornwall Council) v. Secretary of State for Health [2016] A.C. 137
Concerning the assessment of a vulnerable person’s ordinary residence for the purpose of identifying which authority is responsible for funding their long term residential care and support under ss.21 & 24 of the National Assistance Act 1948.

R (Heathrow Hub Ltd.) v. Secretary of State for Transport [2014] 1 W.L.R. 324
Challenge to the Government’s strategy for the High Speed 2 railway line, contained in the January 2012 Command Paper “High Speed Two: Decisions and Next Steps”, on the ground that the rejection of a through route via. Heathrow Airport in favour of connecting to Heathrow via a ‘spur’ link should have been and was not subject to strategic environmental assessment pursuant to the SEA Directive.

R (HS2 Action Alliance Ltd.) v. Secretary of State for Transport [2014] 1 W.L.R. 324
Challenge to the Government’s January 2012 Command Paper “High Speed Two: Decisions and Next Steps” on the ground that it should have been and was not subject to SEA pursuant to the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive or, alternatively, that if the terms of the SEA Directive exempted a document of this nature from the requirement for SEA those elements of the Directive are contrary to Art 7 of the Aarhus Convention and should be invalidated.

R (New London College Ltd.) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] 1 W.L.R. 2358
Challenge to the legality of the sponsor licensing regime set up by the Government to regulate educational institutions that admit students from non-EEA countries.

St Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2013] 1 C.M.L.R. 38
Whether a woman from an EU Member State who, having worked in the UK, gives up work due to the demands of pregnancy remains a “worker” for the purposes of Article 7 of the Citizenship Directive and therefore retains a “right to reside”, bringing with it rights to certain benefits.

R (Munir) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 W.L.R. 2192
Whether the Secretary of State has power under the Royal Prerogative to regulate immigration control in ways not provided for by the Immigration Act 1971 or the Immigration Rules produced pursuant to it; and whether the Secretary of State may grant leave under the 1971 Act to a person whose application does not meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules.

R (Alvi) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 W.L.R. 2208
Whether s.3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, which requires that all changes to the Home Secretary’s practice in the administration of immigration control should be laid in Immigration Rules before Parliament, precludes her from imposing new requirements for leave to enter and/or remain in policy statements that have not been laid before Parliament.

R (Cart) v. Upper Tribunal [2012] 1 A.C. 663
Seminal constitutional case concerning whether the Upper Tribunal is amenable to judicial review in cases where no statutory appeal is available, as was the case with the previous tribunals that the Upper Tribunal replaced.

R (Patmalniece) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] 1 W.L.R 783
Whether the imposition of a “right to reside” test for social security benefits within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) 1408/71 is compatible with EU anti-discrimination law.

R (Edwards) v. Environment Agency [2011] 1 W.L.R 79
Interpretation of the requirement of Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention, as implemented into EU environmental law by the Public Participation Directive 2003/355/EC, that environmental litigation should not be “prohibitively expensive” (referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union).

R (Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd) v. Wolverhampton City Council [2011] 1 A.C. 437
Concerning the scope of material considerations that may be taken into account by a local authority exercising compulsory purchase powers.

Cases before the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords:

R (Baiai) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] 1 A.C. 287
Test case regarding the compatibility with Article 12 ECHR (right to marry and found a family) to the legislative and policy scheme set up to restrict non-EU/EEA immigrants’ ability to marry in the UK.

R (Al-Skeini) v. Secretary of State for Defence [2008] 1 A. C. 153
Concerning the extra-territorial effect of the ECHR and Human Rights Act 1998 in which the House of Lords ruled that the relatives of an Iraqi citizen who died whilst in British army custody in Basra in 2003 were entitled to bring proceedings in the English courts under the HRA.

Charles has a growing practice as a dispute resolver. He sits part-time judicially as a Justice of the Astana International Finance Centre Court in Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan, working alongside several distinguished former judges including the Court’s Chief Justice Lord Burnett of Maldon (former LCJ of England & Wales). He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and a Fellow of the Hong Kong Institute of Arbitrators, with an Advanced Certificate in International Arbitration. He is on the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration roster of arbitrators. He is an ADR Group Accredited Mediator.

In the early stages of his career, he spent a year on secondment as a Judicial Assistant to the Law Lords, assisting Lords Nicholls, Rodger and Brown in relation to appeals to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords (the predecessor to the UK Supreme Court) and to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He also spent 6 weeks as a Judicial Assistant to Stock JA in the Hong Kong Court of Appeal and Litton NPJ in the HK Court of Final Appeal, as a Pegasus Scholar in 2008.

Appointments include:

• Sole arbitrator in an commercial SCCA arbitration in Riyadh (2024-ongoing).
• Member of a panel of 3 arbitrators in a DIFC-LCIA arbitration in Dubai concerning a £20m+ contractual dispute in the financial sector (2022-2024).
• 15 substantive judgments as Justice of the AIFC Court since 2020, on issues ranging from construction contracts (Bastau Build Group LLP v Shegebaev), the supply of goods (Kostanai Minerals JSC (Kazakhstan) v. Factory Dnepropetrovskaya Volna OJSC (Ukraine), the status of judgments of the domestic courts of Kazakhstan in proceedings before the AIFC Court (Aiturarova v.Smart Parking Technologys Ltd), and the principle of ostensible/apparent authority to enter into contractual obligations (Kozhabay Abdilda Alibekuly v. Qosil Limited).
• Judge in the first AIFC Court case to involve a hearing (Aliyev v. Proportunity Management Company Ltd (AIFC Court Case No. 2 of 2020), upheld on appeal (see here), and in the first AIFC Case to be transferred to the AIFC Court from the domestic courts of Kazakhstan (Snab Invest Group LLP v. Peasant Farm Berkenov Ildar Zhambulovic (AIFC Court Case No. 6 of 2021).
• Appointed expert to determine a high value dispute concerning a development agreement (2021-23).
• Expert in dispute relating to the provision of funding pursuant to a development aid agreement between the EU and a third country (2011).