Jonathan Moffett KC

Jonathan is acknowledged as an expert in public law, and he has extensive experience in litigating claims for judicial review. He is ranked as specialist in administrative and public law by both Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500.

Jonathan acts for central and local government bodies, other public sector bodies, third sector organisations, companies and individuals, and he regularly appears in the Administrative Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

Jonathan has particular expertise in claims for judicial review and statutory appeals in the fields of regulatory law, local government law, human rights, education law, environmental and planning law, and health and community care law.

Jonathan’s expertise in judicial review is underpinned by the fact that he is the editor of the sections on judicial review in The White Book and a co-author of a leading practitioners’ textbook on the subject, Judicial Review: Principles and Procedure (OUP).

Recent examples of Jonathan’s public law cases include:

• R (Friends of the Earth) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero [2024] EWHC 995 (Admin) (High Court); [2024] ACD 80
  Jonathan represented the Secretary of State on challenges brought by Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth and the Good Law Project to the government’s Carbon Budget Delivery Plan, which sets out the United Kingdom’s pathway to achieving net zero.
• R (Officer W80) v Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct
  [2023] UKSC 24, [2023] 1 WLR 2300 (Supreme Court)
  Jonathan represented the College of Policing on this appeal concerning the test to be applied in police misconduct cases involving the use of force, which called into question the meaning and purpose of the College’s Code of Ethics.

• R (Isherwood) v Welsh Ministers
  [2022] EWHC 3331, [2023] PTSR 901 (Admin) (High Court)
  Jonathan successfully represented the Welsh Government on this challenge to the introduction of compulsory relationships and sexuality education in schools in Wales. The challenge was brought on human rights and common law rights grounds, both of which the court rejected.
• R (Good Law Project) v Essex County Council and Surrey County Council
  (High Court and Court of Appeal, 2022)
  Jonathan successfully represented Essex and Surrey County Councils on this challenge to various local authorities’ compliance with the sufficiency duty, which requires them to take steps towards ensuring that they have sufficient accommodation within their areas to accommodate children in care.
• R (Big Brother Watch) v Welsh Ministers
  (High Court, 2022)
  Jonathan represented the Welsh Ministers in this challenge to the “Covid Pass” scheme that was adopted in Wales during the pandemic, which restricted access to certain entertainment venues to individuals who could demonstrate that they had been vaccinated or had had a negative Covid test.
• R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
  [2021] UKSC 37, [2021] 1 WLR 3931 (Supreme Court)
  Jonathan successfully represented the Home Office at all levels on this challenge to “Sarah’s Law”, the scheme for the disclosure of information about convicted child sex offenders. He persuaded the Supreme Court to overturn 20 years of Court of Appeal and High Court case law on the test to be applied when challenging the lawfulness of a policy.
• R (Hertfordshire County Council) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government
  [2021] EWHC 1093 (Admin), [2021] EWHC 1145 (Admin), [2021] 1 WLR 3714, [2021] 1 WLR 3742
  (Divisional Court)
  Jonathan represented the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government in this test case in relation local authorities’ powers to hold remote meetings after the lapse of specific powers to do so during the coronavirus pandemic.
• R (Thomson) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and NHS Commissioning Board
  (High Court and Court of Appeal, 2021)
  Jonathan successfully represented NHS England in defending this claim alleging that it was under a duty to draw up a rationing scheme governing the allocation of intensive care beds should demand outstrip supply during the coronavirus pandemic.
• R (Omooba) v Welsh Ministers
  (High Court, 2021)
  Jonathan successfully represented the Welsh Government in resisting this challenge to the compulsory closure of places of worship during the coronavirus pandemic.
• R (Durand Education Trust) v Secretary of State for Education
  [2020] EWCA Civ 1651, [2021] ELR 213 (Court of Appeal)
  Jonathan successfully represented the Department for Education in the Court of Appeal in the latest round of litigation relating to Durand Academy, defending a challenge to a direction to make an academy land transfer.
• R (Aspers Stratford City Ltd) v Gambling Commission
  (High Court, 2020) Jonathan represented the Gambling Commission in this judicial review of the procedure that it had adopted in a statutory review of a casino’s gambling licence.
• R (Chief Constable of Lincolnshire) v College of Policing
  (2019, High Court)
  Jonathan successfully represented the College of Policing in this challenge to the introduction of a new nationwide qualifications framework for police officers.
• R (Canary Wharf Group) v Mayor of London
  (2019, High Court)
  Jonathan represented the Mayor of London on this challenge to the London-wide Mayoral community infrastructure levy, which put in jeopardy the raising of up to £6 billion towards the costs of Crossrail.
• R (Hollow) v Surrey County Council
  [2019] EWHC 618 (Admin), [2019] PTSR 1871 (Divisional Court)
  Jonathan successfully represented Surrey County Council on this major challenge to its decision to reduce its schools and special educational needs budget by £21 million. This case is now the leading case on challenges to local authority budget-setting decisions.
• R (EU Lotto Ltd) v Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
  [2018] EWHC 3111 (Admin), [2019] 1 CMLR 41 (Divisional Court)
  Jonathan successfully represented the Gambling Commission in this judicial review of the ban on gambling companies offering bets on the outcome of EuroMillions draws.
• R (AR) v Greater Manchester Police and Secretary of State for the Home Department
  [2018] UKSC 47, [2018] 1 WLR 4079 (Supreme Court)
  Jonathan successfully led for the Home Secretary in the Supreme Court in this human rights challenge to the disclosure of acquittals on criminal record certificates. The Supreme Court’s decision also laid down the approach that the appellate courts should adopt to an appeal on a proportionality challenge.
• R (British Homeopathic Association) v NHS Commissioning Board
  [2018] EWHC 1359 (Admin), [2018] PTSR 2031 (High Court)
  Jonathan successfully defended this judicial review of NHS England’s decision to issue guidance to CCGs recommending that homeopathic treatments should not routinely be prescribed on the NHS.
• R (TenetConnect Ltd) v Financial Ombudsman Service
  [2018] EWHC 459 (Admin), [2018] BCLC 726 (High Court)
  Jonathan successfully represented the Financial Ombudsman on this judicial review of a decision that regulated networks of financial advisors could be responsible for the frauds of their appointed representatives.
• R (ClientEarth) v Secretary of State for the Environment and the Welsh Ministers
  [2018] EWHC 315 (Admin), [2018] Env LR 21 (High Court)
  Jonathan represented the Welsh Ministers on this EU law challenge to the United Kingdom’s air quality plan for addressing nitrogen dioxide air pollution.
• R (Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
  [2017] UKSC 82, [2018] 1 WLR 221 (Supreme Court)
  Jonathan represented the Secretary of State in this judicial review challenging the application of the public law fraud principle in cases where British citizenship had purportedly been granted to persons who had lied about their identity

Jonathan is ranked as an expert in local government law by both Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500. He has experience of dealing with matters across the full spectrum of local government law, including budget challenges, local government reorganisations, combined authorities, central government intervention, governance, service reorganisations, the public sector equality duty, inter-authority disputes, standards, local government finance and disposal of land. Jonathan has particular expertise in relation to combined authorities, having advised a number of such authorities, and he was involved in the first ever judicial review arising in the context of combined authorities. He has also recently been advising a number of local authorities on proposed local government reorganisations.

Recent examples of Jonathan’s local government cases include:

• R (Good Law Project) v Essex County Council and Surrey County Council
  (High Court and Court of Appeal, 2022)
  Jonathan successfully represented Essex and Surrey County Councils on this challenge to various local authorities’ compliance with the sufficiency duty, which requires them to take steps towards securing that they have sufficient accommodation within their areas to accommodate children in care.
• R (Hertfordshire County Council) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government
  [2021] EWHC 1093 (Admin), [2021] EWHC 1145 (Admin), [2021] 1 WLR 3714, [2021] 1 WLR 3742
  (Divisional Court)
  Jonathan represented the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government in this test case in relation local authorities’ powers to hold remote meetings after the lapse of specific powers to do so during the coronavirus pandemic.
• R (Canary Wharf Group) v Mayor of London
  (2019, High Court)
  Jonathan represented the Mayor of London on this major challenge to the London-wide Mayoral community infrastructure levy, which put in jeopardy the raising of up to £6 billion towards the costs of Crossrail.
• R (Hollow) v Surrey County Council
  [2019] EWHC 618 (Admin), [2019] PTSR 1871 (Divisional Court)
  Jonathan successfully represented Surrey County Council on this major challenge to its decision to reduce its schools and special educational needs budget by £21 million. This case is now the leading case on challenges to local authority budget-setting decisions.
• Nottingham City Council v Parr
  [2018] UKSC 51, [2018] 1 WLR 4985 (Supreme Court)
  Jonathan led in the Supreme Court for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in this challenge to the First-tier Tribunal’s decision to impose conditions on HMO licences which restricted the classes of persons who could live in the HMOs.
• R (Woolcock) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government
  [2018] EWHC 17 (Admin), [2018] 4 WLR 49 (Divisional Court)
  Jonathan successfully represented the Welsh Ministers on this challenge to the fairness of the system of committing council tax defaulters to prison.
• R (Derbyshire County Council) v Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority
  [2016] EWHC 3355 (Admin) (High Court)
  Jonathan acted for the Secretary of State, who intervened in the first ever judicial review relating to combined authorities, in this challenge to a consultation on changing the boundaries of a combined authority to include new local authority areas.
• R (London Borough of Southwark) v London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
  [2016] EWHC 1701 (Admin) (Divisional Court)
  Jonathan successfully represented the London Fire Authority in a judicial review of its decision to retain prosecutorial functions under the Regulatory Reform Order, in which the claimant council argued that the Authority was tainted by the appearance of bias.
• R (Tower Hamlets London Borough Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
  [2014] EWHC 4364 (Admin) (High Court)
  Jonathan successfully represented the Secretary of State on a challenge to the decision to conduct a best value inspection of Lutfur Rahman’s controversial mayoral administration in Tower Hamlets.
• R (Islington London Borough Council) v London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority
  [2013] EWHC 4142 (Admin) (High Court)
  Jonathan successfully led for the London Fire Authority on a major challenge brought by a coalition of seven London councils to the Authority’s decision to close fire stations in the light of budget cuts.

Jonathan has unrivalled expertise in education law and he is ranked in the field by both Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500.

In the higher education context, Jonathan has experience of dealing with the full range of issues that arise, including judicial reviews, Tier 4 sponsor issues, inter-institution disputes, breach of contract and negligence claims, discrimination and human rights matters, complaints to the OIA, and student discipline appeals. Jonathan has advised the Office for Students, and has acted for universities in regulatory matter against the Office for Students and the Department for Education.

In relation to schools and academies, Jonathan has expertise in dealing with matters relating to admissions, discipline and exclusions, special educational needs and disability discrimination, school transport, and interventions. Jonathan has particular experience in dealing with issues arising out of academy conversions and school reorganisations and in advising on the structural and funding issues (including land transfers) that arise in that context.

Jonathan also deals with matters arising in the independent sector, including contractual and negligence claims and regulatory issues. Jonathan has particular expertise in human rights issues that arise in the education sector and, as well as having acted in the leading domestic case on the right to education under Article 2 of the First Protocol, he has represented the United Kingdom Government in an Article 2 case before the European Court of Human Rights.

Jonathan is a contributing author to The Education Law Handbook (LexisNexis, 2021).

Recent examples of Jonathan’s education law cases include:

• R (Isherwood) v Welsh Ministers
  [2022] EWHC 3331 (Admin), [2023] PTSR 901 (High Court)
  Jonathan successfully represented the Welsh Government on this challenge to the introduction of compulsory relationships and sexuality education in schools in Wales. The challenge was brought on human rights and common law rights grounds, both of which the court rejected.
• R (Durand Education Trust) v Secretary of State for Education
  [2020] EWCA Civ 1651, [2021] ELR 213 (Court of Appeal)
  Jonathan successfully represented the Department for Education in the latest round of litigation relating to Durand Academy, defending a challenge to a direction to make an academy land transfer.
• Derbyshire County Council v EM
  [2019] UKUT 240 (AAC), [2020] ELR 27 (Upper Tribunal)
  Jonathan represented Derbyshire on its appeal to the Upper Tribunal, which decided that there is no requirement to name a school in an EHC Plan in circumstances where the plan specifies that the child will be provided with education otherwise than at school.
• R (Chief Constable of Lincolnshire) v College of Policing
  (2019, High Court)
  Jonathan successfully represented the College of Policing in this challenge to the introduction of a new nationwide qualifications framework for police officers.
• R (Hollow) v Surrey County Council
  [2019] EWHC 618 (Admin), [2019] PTSR 1871 (Divisional Court)
  Jonathan successfully represented Surrey County Council on this major challenge to its decision to reduce its schools and special educational needs budget by £21 million.
• McTier v Secretary of State for Education
  [2017] EWHC 212 (Admin), [2017] PTSR 815 (High Court)
  Jonathan represented the Secretary of State in this challenge to the retrospective effect of the regime governing prohibition orders against teachers in cases where the misconduct occurred before the regime came into force.
• CP v United Kingdom
  [2016] 63 EHRR SE14 (European Court of Human Rights)
  Jonathan successfully represented the United Kingdom on this Strasbourg application claiming that a pupil’s exclusion from school gave rise to a breach of his right to education.
• R (Hockerill Anglo-European College Academy Trust) v Schools Adjudicator
  [2016] EWHC 1642 (Admin) (High Court)
  Jonathan successfully represented the Secretary of State in this challenge to a boarding academy’s admission policy which provided for children to be admitted as “day boarders”.
• Johnston v Secretary of State for Education
  [2016] EWHC 1871 (Admin), [2017] ELR 163 (High Court)
  Jonathan successfully represented the Secretary of State in this challenge to the imposition of a prohibition order on a teacher who had been accused of ill-treating a child with special educational needs.
• R (London Oratory School) v Schools Adjudicator
  [2015] EWHC 1012 (Admin), [2015] ELR 335 (High Court)
  This was a major judicial review of the Schools Adjudicator’s decision that the London Oratory School was operating an admissions policy that breached the School Admissions Code in a number of respects. Jonathan acted for the Secretary of State, who intervened in the case.
• R (DD) v Independent Appeal Panel of the London Borough of Islington
  [2013] EWHC 2262 (Admin), [2013] ELR 483 (High Court)
  Jonathan successful represented the Secretary of State, who intervened in this challenge to an IAP decision which raised difficult questions as to the application of the School Admissions Code in infant class size cases where a school operates split reception classes.

Jonathan has unrivalled expertise in dealing with cases raising human rights issues across a wide range of areas, including the retention and disclosure of information, education, prisons, immigration and asylum, and terrorism and national security. He is ranked by The Legal 500 as a leading practitioner in the field of civil liberties and human rights. Jonathan also has experience of dealing with such issues in the health sector, and has advised on matters such as the compatibility of policies for the funding of treatment with Convention rights and equalities legislation. Jonathan has been instructed by the UK Government in several cases before the European Court of Human Rights, including on the application to Strasbourg that followed the Supreme Court’s decision in the Gaughran case.

Recent examples of Jonathan’s human rights cases include:

• R (Isherwood) v Welsh Ministers
  [2022] EWHC 3331 (Admin), [2023] PTSR 901 (High Court)
  Jonathan successfully represented the Welsh Government on this challenge to the introduction of compulsory relationships and sexuality education in schools in Wales. The challenge alleged breaches of the right to education under Article 2 of the First Protocol, and Articles 8 and 9.
• R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
  [2021] UKSC 37, [2021] 1 WLR 3931 (Supreme Court)
  Jonathan successfully represented the Home Office at all levels on this challenge to “Sarah’s Law”, the scheme for the disclosure of information about convicted child sex offenders, which alleged that the scheme was incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention.
• R (Thomson) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and NHS Commissioning Board
  (High Court and Court of Appeal, 2021)
  Jonathan successfully represented NHS England in defending this claim which alleged that it was a breach of Article 8 not to issue a rationing scheme governing the allocation of intensive care beds should demand outstrip supply during the coronavirus pandemic.
• DS and MC v United Kingdom
  (European Court of Human Rights, 2021)
  Jonathan successfully represented the United Kingdom in these Strasbourg applications which alleged that the UK’s criminal records certificates scheme was incompatible with Article 8.
• R (Omooba) v Welsh Ministers
  (High Court, 2021)
  Jonathan successfully represented the Welsh Government in resisting this Article 9 challenge to the compulsory closure of places of worship during the coronavirus pandemic.
• R (Durand Education Trust) v Secretary of State for Education
  [2020] EWCA Civ 1651, [2021] ELR 213 (Court of Appeal)
  Jonathan successfully represented the Department for Education in the latest round of litigation relating to Durand Academy, defending an A1P1 challenge to a direction to make an academy land transfer.
• Gaughran v United Kingdom
  (2020, European Court of Human Rights)
  R (Gaughran) v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland
  [2015] UKSC 29, [2016] AC 345 (Supreme Court)
  Jonathan represented the government in both the Supreme Court and in Strasbourg on this Article 8 challenge to the indefinite retention by police of the DNA profiles of persons who have been convicted of an offence.
• R (AR) v Greater Manchester Police and Secretary of State for the Home Department
  [2018] UKSC 47, [2018] 1 WLR 4079 (Supreme Court)
  Jonathan successfully led for the Home Secretary in the Supreme Court in this judicial review of the disclosure of information about acquittals on criminal records certificates, based on an allegation that it was incompatible with the presumption of innocence under Article 6 and the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention. The case also decided the approach to be adopted by an appellate court on a proportionality challenge.
• McDonald v McDonald
  [2016] UKSC 28, [2017] AC 273 (Supreme Court)
  Jonathan successfully acted for the Secretary of State, who intervened in this case raising the important issue of whether Article 8 of the Convention has horizontal effect in possession proceedings between two private parties.
• CP v United Kingdom
  [2016] 63 EHRR SE14 (European Court of Human Rights)
  Jonathan successfully represented the United Kingdom on this Strasbourg application claiming that a pupil’s exclusion from school gave rise to a breach of his right to education.

In regulatory matters, Jonathan acts for both regulators and companies and individuals. Regulators for whom Jonathan has acted include including the Gambling Commission, the Financial Reporting Council, Ofqual, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the General Pharmaceutical Council, the Office for Students, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, Ofsted, the Single Source Regulations Office, the Pubs Code Adjudicator and the Independent Schools Inspectorate. Jonathan has also acted for the Financial Ombudsman Service, defending claims for judicial review.

Jonathan’s recent regulatory law cases include:

• R (Officer W80) v Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct
  [2023] UKSC 24, [2023] 1 WLR 2300 (Supreme Court)
  Jonathan represented the College of Policing on this appeal concerning the test to be applied in police misconduct cases involving the use of force, which called into question the College’s Code of Ethics.
• R (Aspers Stratford Ltd) v Gambling Commission
  (High Court, 2020)
  Jonathan represented the Gambling Commission in this judicial review of the procedure that it had adopted in a statutory review of a casino’s gambling licence.
• R (EU Lotto Ltd) v Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport
  [2018] EWHC 3111 (Admin), [2019] 1 CMLR 41 (Divisional Court)
  Jonathan successfully represented the Gambling Commission in this judicial review of a prohibition on offering bets on the outcome of EuroMillions draws.
• R (TenetConnect Ltd) v Financial Ombudsman Service
  [2018] EWHC 459 (Admin), [2018] BCLC 726 (High Court)
  Jonathan successfully represented the Financial Ombudsman on this judicial review of a decision that regulated networks of financial advisors could be responsible for the frauds of their appointed representatives.
• McTier v Secretary of State for Education
  [2017] EWHC 212 (Admin) (High Court)
  Jonathan represented the Secretary of State in this challenge to the retrospective effect of the regime governing prohibition orders against teachers in cases where the misconduct occurred before the regime came into force.
• R (Westscott Financial Services) v Financial Ombudsman Service
  [2014] EWHC 3972 (Admin) (High Court)
  Jonathan successfully represented the Financial Ombudsman on a challenge not to stay complaints pending the outcome of the major Keydata negligence claim in the Commercial Court.

Jonathan has extensive experience of dealing with information law issues, and has particular expertise in human rights challenges to the retention and disclosure of data. Jonathan has acted in a large number of cases raising the compatibility of data retention regimes with Article 8 of the Convention, at all levels up to the Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights, and he has represented the United Kingdom in a number of Strasbourg cases relating to the retention of biometric data and the disclosure of criminal records. Jonathan has also advised the Government on its review of the regime governing the retention of “mugshots” by the police, on the implications of cross-government data-sharing, on the compatibility with the GDPR of sharing information with foreign law enforcement agencies, and on the compatibility of financial crime reporting requirements with the GDPR. In the DPA context, Jonathan has recently represented a public body in proceedings relating to a large-scale data breach.

Recent examples of Jonathan’s information law cases include:

• R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
  [2021] UKSC 37, [2021] 1 WLR 3931 (Supreme Court)
  Jonathan successfully represented the Home Office at all levels on this challenge to “Sarah’s Law”, the scheme for the disclosure of information about convicted child sex offenders.
• DS and MC v United Kingdom
  (European Court of Human Rights, 2021)
  Jonathan successfully represented the United Kingdom in these Strasbourg applications which alleged that the UK’s criminal records certificates scheme was incompatible with Article 8.
• Gaughran v United Kingdom
  (2020, European Court of Human Rights)
  R (Gaughran) v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland
  [2015] UKSC 29, [2016] AC 345 (Supreme Court)
  Jonathan represented the government in both the Supreme Court and in Strasbourg on this Article 8 challenge to the indefinite retention by police of the DNA profiles of persons who have been convicted of an offence.
• R (AR) v Greater Manchester Police and Secretary of State for the Home Department
  [2018] UKSC 47, [2018] 1 WLR 4079 (Supreme Court)
  Jonathan successfully led in the Supreme Court for the Home Secretary in this judicial review of the disclosure of information about acquittals on criminal records certificates, based on an allegation that it was incompatible with the presumption of innocence under Article 6 and the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention.
• R (RMC and FJ) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
  [2012] EWHC 1681 (Admin), [2012] 1 WLR 3007 (Divisional Court)
  Jonathan represented the Secretary of State in this challenge to the national Management of Police Information policy on the ground that it was incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention.

Jonathan has extensive experience of litigating environmental and planning cases in the courts, particularly in the context of environmental law. Most recently, Jonathan led the government’s defence to three major challenges to its net zero policies. Jonathan has also advised on a wide-range of planning-related matters, including the Secretary of States’ intervention in local authorities plan-making processes, the National Planning Statement for geological disposal facilities for nuclear waste, development consents for on and off-shore windfarm projects, the grant and revocation of planning permissions for open-cast coal mining, and the decision not to proceed with the plan to build a new stretch of the M4 across the Gwent Levels SSSIs.

Jonathan has particular experience of issues arising in the context of air quality: he appeared at the high- profile inquest into the tragic death of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debra, he appeared in the ClientEarth litigation on the United Kingdom’s air quality plan for tacking nitrogen dioxide pollution, he advised the Welsh Government on the formulation of their air quality plan, and he has advised a London Borough on the air quality implications of a controversial traffic scheme.

• R (Friends of the Earth) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero [2024] EWHC 995 (Admin) (High Court); [2024] ACD 80
  Jonathan represented the Secretary of State on challenges brought by Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth and the Good Law Project to the government’s Carbon Budget Delivery Plan, which sets out the United Kingdom’s pathway to achieving net zero.
• Inquest into the death of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debra
  (2020)
  Jonathan was instructed by the London Borough of Lewisham to represent it at this high-profile inquest into the tragic death of a little girl who died from a severe asthma attack. The inquest examined the extent to which poor air quality contributed to her death.
• R (Canary Wharf Group) v Mayor of London
  (2019, High Court)
  Jonathan represented the Mayor of London on this challenge to the London-wide Mayoral community infrastructure levy on State aid grounds.
• R (Chiltern Farm Chemicals Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
  (2019, High Court)
  Jonathan represented DEFRA on this challenge to a decision not to license pesticides under the EU Plant Protection Products Regulation.
• R (ClientEarth) v Secretary of State for the Environment and the Welsh Ministers
  [2018] EWHC 315 (Admin), [2018] Env LR 21 (High Court)
  Jonathan represented the Welsh Ministers on this EU law challenge to the air quality plans for addressing nitrogen dioxide air pollution.
• Shortt v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
  [2015] EWCA Civ 1192, [2016] 1 P&CR 15 (Court of Appeal)
  Jonathan was brought in to argue this case in the Court of Appeal on the correct interpretation of the standard-form agricultural occupancy condition.
• R (Friends of the Earth) v Welsh Ministers
  [2015] EWHC 776 (Admin), [2016] Env LR 1 (High Court)
  Jonathan successfully resisted a major challenge, based on alleged failure to comply with the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, to the Welsh Government’s decision to proceed with a £1 billion project to build a new stretch of the M4 motorway to the south of Newport.
• R (An Taisce) v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
  [2014] EWCA Civ 1111, [2015] PTSR 189 (Court of Appeal)
  Jonathan acted for the Secretary of State in this judicial review of the grant of development consent for Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, based on allegation that the requirements of the Habitats Directive had not been complied with.

Jonathan has considerable experience of dealing with the full range of health and community care matters, including challenges to service reorganisations and funding decisions, human rights challenges, inter-authority disputes, challenges to the provision of services for adults and children and age

assessment cases. He has advised on the compatibility of funding policies with Convention rights and equalities legislation, and he was instructed by NHS England to defend a challenge to its approach to the rationing of intensive care treatment during the coronavirus pandemic.

Recent cases include:

• R (Thomson) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and NHS Commissioning Board
  (High Court and Court of Appeal, 2021)
  Jonathan successfully represented NHS England in defending this claim which alleged that it was under a duty to issue a rationing policy governing the allocation of intensive care beds should demand outstrip supply during the coronavirus pandemic.
• R (British Homeopathic Association) v NHS Commissioning Board
  [2018] EWHC 1359 (Admin), [2018] PTSR 2031 (High Court)
  Jonathan successfully defended this judicial review of NHS England’s decision to issue guidance to CCGs to the effect that homeopathic treatments should not routinely be prescribed on the NHS.
• R (Buckinghamshire County Council) v Kingston-upon-Thames Royal London Borough Council
  [2011] EWCA Civ 457, [2012] PTSR 854 (High Court and Court of Appeal)
  Jonathan represented Buckinghamshire on a challenge to a lack of consultation before another local authority placed an individual in receipt of community care services in its area.

Jonathan recently represented the Mayor of London on a major State aid challenge to the London-wide Mayoral community infrastructure levy which raised complex issues as to the application of the State aid rules to taxation regimes which apply different rates to different types of undertakings in different geographical locations. Jonathan has also advised the Single Source Regulations Office on the pricing of defence contracts under the Defence Reform Act 2014.