Jemima Lovatt specialises in public, environmental, planning and regulatory law.
She has appeared in the High Court, the Coroner’s Court, the Crown Court and the magistrates’ court. Her clients include private clients, government departments, regulators, NGOs and community groups, with experience spanning judicial review, regulatory enforcement and environmental actions.
She maintains an active interest in the development of environmental and climate litigation, publishing regularly on these topics and was interviewed by the ENDS Report. She is a Churchill Fellow undertaking a research project on climate change litigation, is an active member of the UK Environmental Law Association where she helps to coordinate the Wild Law Weekend and is the Secretary of the Planning and Environment Bar Association.
Jemima graduated from University College London with a degree in History and an LLM in Environmental Law and Policy. She was called to the Bar in 2020 as a Lord Denning scholar at Lincoln’s Inn. Prior to the Bar, Jemima worked in legal policy, social enterprise and the charity sector.
Expertise
- Planning & Environment
Jemima has a developing practice in environmental and planning law, acting in matters that engage complex questions of land use, environmental protection, regulatory enforcement and community rights. Her work spans judicial review, statutory appeals and local authority prosecutions, involving issues such as biodiversity loss, coastal protection, sewage pollution, agricultural regulation and the operation of national planning frameworks. She has experience acting both for public bodies and for community groups and NGOs, giving her a balanced understanding of the competing interests that shape modern environmental decision making.
Jemima regularly handles cases requiring the interpretation of technical expert evidence, including environmental impact assessments, ecological reports and scientific data on pollution and natural hazards. She is adept at translating such material into clear legal arguments, whether challenging a planning decision, advising on potential civil and criminal liabilities, or supporting regulators in the enforcement of environmental obligations. Her work often involves grappling with procedural issues such as promptness, standing, remedies, disclosure and the appropriate standard of review in environmentally sensitive judicial review claims.
Her experience also includes advising government departments and regulators on specialist statutory regimes, from plant variety listing to water industry regulation. In all matters, Jemima brings rigorous analysis, precise written advocacy and a collaborative working style, particularly in cases involving local communities and expert stakeholders.
The following examples illustrate the breadth of Jemima’s environmental and planning law work.
MRU2025 v The District Council of Savanne [2024] SCJ 218
Advised an NGO in Mauritius, in seeking a judicial review of a local council’s decision to grant a building permit on one of the last preserved beaches in Mauritius, despite it being an area protected by the National Planning Policy. The applicant’s judicial review was refused for not being brought promptly. Jemima drafted an application to the Mauritius Supreme Court for permission to appeal and an application for special leave to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Jemima worked closely with the local NGO to understand complex expert reports on biodiversity and environmental harm in order to challenge the decision under review. This showed how the local authority’s decision to grant the planning permission was inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework thus giving rise to an arguable case for judicial review. Jemima also drafted arguments on how the decision breaches environmental regulation and human rights including the right to life because of the protections the beach provides against tsunamis and other natural disasters.
Water pollution action
Assisting a community group on potential legal action to stop sewage deposits made by the area’s wastewater services into the coastal area. The community group are collecting complainants about sewage deposits from which potential avenues including public nuisance, private nuisance, a statutory nuisance action with the local authority or a judicial review of Ofwat’s decision making in relation to regulating the wastewater service will be explored. Jemima has provided advice on how these different areas of law function as well as the technical and legal requirements to bring an action.
CAT v NYC
Advised the claimants and drafted the Pre-Action Protocol Letter in a proposed judicial review of a County Council’s decision to grant planning permission. The grounds advanced were: irrationality, the right to a fair hearing, that relevant considerations were not taken into account and because it the decision was incompatible with the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan, the District Local Plan and the NPPF. Ultimately the claimants decided not to launch due to the risk of adverse costs.
ML v MBC
Advised the claimant in a proposed judicial review against a Borough Council in respect of a decision to grant planning permission and associated infrastructure for failing to consider road safety. Initially the County Council objected to the plans but changed its position following an “Agreement” with the Borough Council. The Claimant made an FOI request in respect of the “Agreement” and sought to challenge the decision as unlawful and procedurally improper.
Chelmsford City Council v G&G
Prosecuted this fly-tipping trial for a city council. I advised on disclosure of audio recordings and managed challenges to their admissibility. By ensuring that the unused material schedule was properly considered and that disclosure was limited to relevant evidence, I protected the integrity of the case. The court accepted my submissions, the evidence was admitted and the defendants were convicted.
WNC & Whittlebury Village v Anglian Water
Under the supervision of Richard Banwell, drafted a research note on a proposed prosecution under section 111 Water Industry Act 1991 against a hotel in Whittlebury Village that is causing a smell through the discharge of effluent into public drains. Jemima advised on the merit of any potential action against Anglian Water.
Limagrain v National List; RAGT v National List
Wrote an advice for DEFRA on two appeals brought under the Seeds (National List of Varieties) Regulations 2001 and the Seed Marketing Regulations 2011. The two seeds had been rejected for admission onto the ‘national list’ and so their owners were seeking an appeal of that decision to the plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal, which had not sat since 1984. The Advice addressed how to constitute the Tribunal, its approach when it had last heard cases, whether it would conduct a review or a de novo hearing and the merits/weaknesses of these appeals.
Net Zero Judicial Review
Researched whether giving reasons can be a remedy to a judicial review of a government department’s decision not to publish risk assessments to support broader net-zero commitments. Jemima reviewed caselaw on procedural impropriety to analyse whether, if valid reasons were given, that could satisfy a judicial review.
- Judicial Review & Public Law
Jemima has a broad and growing practice in administrative and public law, acting in judicial review proceedings and statutory appeals across a range of contexts. Her has experience advising both claimants and government departments. Jemima is frequently instructed in cases requiring careful analysis of procedural fairness, the duty of candour, disclosure obligations, and the proper limits of public authority decision making.
She combines clear, strategic advice with meticulous written work, and is trusted to handle matters involving sensitive material, privilege, and significant public interest considerations. Jemima’s experience includes appearing as sole counsel in the High Court, drafting grounds and skeleton arguments, advising on disclosure in complex group litigation, and managing high volume judicial review work on behalf of the Government Legal Department.
The following examples illustrate the breadth and depth of Jemima’s recent administrative and public law work.
R (on the application of CPS) v Maidstone Crown Court [2025] 4 WLUK 208
Acted for the successful applicant in a judicial review of a circuit judge’s decision not to extend custody time limits. The High Court granted the judicial review, finding that the circuit judge had erred in law and that his decision regarding “good and sufficient cause” was a decision that no court acting reasonably could have reached. Jemima prepared the written grounds and skeleton argument as well as making the permission and substantive application in a rolled-up hearing before the High Court. The case was reported on Westlaw.
R (on the application of HS, MA and MYA) v SSHD (Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Successfully applied to strike out an application for judicial review before the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber.
MRU2025 v The District Council of Savanne [2024] SCJ 218
Advised an NGO in Mauritius, in seeking a judicial review of a local council’s decision to grant a building permit on one of the last preserved beaches in Mauritius, despite it being an area protected by the National Planning Policy. The applicant’s judicial review was refused for not being brought promptly. Jemima drafted an application to the Mauritius Supreme Court for permission to appeal and an application for special leave to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Jemima worked closely with the local NGO to understand complex expert reports on biodiversity and environmental harm in order to challenge the decision under review. This showed how the local authority’s decision to grant the planning permission was inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework thus giving rise to an arguable case for judicial review. Jemima also drafted arguments on how the decision breaches environmental regulation and human rights including the right to life because of the protections the beach provides against tsunamis and other natural disasters.
CAT v NYC
Advised the claimants and drafted the Pre-Action Protocol Letter in a proposed judicial review of a County Council’s decision to grant planning permission. The grounds advanced were: irrationality, the right to a fair hearing, that relevant considerations were not taken into account and because it the decision was incompatible with the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan, the District Local Plan and the NPPF. Ultimately the claimants decided not to launch due to the risk of adverse costs.
ML v MBC
Advised the claimant in a proposed judicial review against a Borough Council in respect of a decision to grant planning permission and associated infrastructure for failing to consider road safety. Initially the County Council objected to the plans but changed its position following an “Agreement” with the Borough Council. The Claimant made an FOI request in respect of the “Agreement” and sought to challenge the decision as unlawful and procedurally improper.
GLD OB Judicial Review Challenge
A judicial review concerning an immigration practice adopted by the Home Office. Jemima advised the GLD on disclosure issues arising from material including decision-making training documents, internal interview notes, witness statements, and ministerial submissions. Jemima carefully reviewed the material to identify documents that should be disclosed to the claimant group, as well as material protected by legal professional privilege and therefore exempt from disclosure. Jemima’s advice ensured that the duty of candour was fully complied with, while sensitive information and privileged communications were properly protected. This required balancing transparency and fairness to the claimant with safeguarding the integrity of government decision-making processes. Jemima took a structured approach, applying the principles underpinning the disclosure regime and PII to provide clear and reliable guidance to the instructing team.
Manston Human Rights Challenges
Instructed to draft annexe defences to claims brought under the Human Rights Act 1998 for breaches of Articles 1 Protocol 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the ECHR, for false imprisonment, trespass to the person and disability discrimination. Each case requires a detailed review of Home Office materials, taking instructions from immigration officers through the GLD team and clear drafting of the individual annexe defence for each claimant
- Regulatory & Commercial
Jemima’s regulatory practice spans health and safety, professional discipline, food hygiene and care‑sector compliance. She acts for regulators including the CQC, HSE and the RSPCA, delivering clear written advocacy, persuasive submissions and effective witness handling. Her work often involves analysing technical evidence, understanding organisational systems and applying the regulatory frameworks that govern workplace and professional standards. Jemima’s secondment to the Nursing and Midwifery Council further strengthened her regulatory expertise, giving her extensive experience in case presentation, interim orders work and the management of complex evidential material.
Jemima is valued for her meticulous preparation, incisive cross‑examination and confident courtroom presence. She brings a balanced and pragmatic approach whether defending individuals or acting on behalf of corporate bodies and regulators. Jemima has secured acquittals in cases prosecuted by King’s Counsel and in trials where identification, credibility, and evidential nuance were central to the jury’s determination.
The following examples illustrate the range and depth of Jemima’s recent regulatory work:
Sakthis Care Ltd v CQC [2025] UKFTT 1134 (HESC)
Successfully defended this appeal against the CQC decision to refuse the company’s application to register as a service provider with the CQC for regulated activities. Jemima drafted the summary grounds of defence and appeared for the CQC in the First Tier Tribunal Health, Education and Social Care Chamber (Care Standards) where she advocated the case through careful witness handling, compelling cross examination and an effective summing up. The judgment is available here.
W Ltd v CQC
Acting for the CQC, successfully resisted an unusual application to strike out the Respondent’s Response to the appeal pursuant to rule 8(4)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Heath, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008. At short notice, delivered submissions on the real prospect of the Respondent’s opposition to the Appellant’s appeal succeeding drawing on the relevant caselaw.
HSE v B&O & SS
Instructed for the HSE in this prosecution brought under section 33(1)(c) and Scheule 3A of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. I provided an initial advice and am advising in the ongoing matter of pleas, a potential trial and disposal.
HSE v iS & M
Instructed for the HSE in this prosecution brought under section 33(1)(c) and Scheule 3A of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. I prepared an initial advice, a further advice following representations from the director defendant and the prosecution sentencing note as well as representing the HSE at the oral hearings.
Chelmsford City Council v Yue Tao Ltd
Prosecuted a sentencing hearing following the Defendant company’s guilty plea to two offences under Regulation 6(2) Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013. The Council was expecting a £5000 fine. I identified that a customer had suffered an anaphylactic shock, submitted that this aggravated the offending and secured a fine of £28,293. In addition, I successfully applied for a Hygiene Prohibition Order, such that the foot outlet had to close immediately.
RSPCA cases
Prosecuted a number of private prosecutions brought by the RSPCA for breaches of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Nursing and Midwifery Council Secondment
Completed a six month secondment to the NMC, gaining significant prosecutorial experience in the regulatory sector. During this period, Jemima prosecuted 12 substantive cases and 29 interim orders. These cases required careful management of factual evidence arising from a workplace setting and a thorough understanding of the regulatory framework in order to demonstrate how the respondents had breached professional standards. This experience reinforced Jemima’s ability to adapt to different legal contexts and deliver successful outcomes in regulatory prosecutions.