Public Law, Human Rights and Equalities
Lisa is an acknowledged expert in public law and has appeared in numerous leading public law cases. She is also well versed in civil liberties and human rights issues. In Chambers and Partners she is described as "an experienced advocate who is very good in judicial review work", and as "a good advocate for difficult, sensitive cases because she is so thoughtful and can present a case in a tactful and humane way".
Lisa was appointed to the Attorney-General's A Panel of Counsel in 2012, having previously been on the B and C Panels. In her capacity as Panel Counsel she acted for a wide range of public bodies and government departments, including the Department for Transport, Department of Education, Ministry of Justice, Department for Work and Pensions, Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, the Environment Agency, HMRC, the Environment Agency and the Home Office. She also has many years of experience in representing local authorities and individual claimants in public law matters.
Lisa advises the Equality and Human Rights Commission in her capacity as Panel Counsel to that body and has appeared in a number of high profile cases involving challenges based on the Equality Act 2010, and to associated consultation processes. Her expertise includes experience dealing with the equality impacts of large infrastructure and other developments in the planning context. Lisa has also acted in a series of leading human rights cases, and she is very experienced in dealing with claims made under various articles of the European Convention on Human Rights: "A new silk with a pedigree including heavyweight Article 8 and Article 3 cases" (Legal 500 2016).
Notable cases include:
• R (Harvey) v Ledbury Town Council (hearing listed for 1st March 2018): Lisa is acting for the Council in a challenge brought by a Council member and concerning the relationship between Town and Parish Councils' powers with respect to members under their internal grievance procedures, and the powers of lead authorities in Code of Conduct proceedings brought under section 26 of the Localism Act 2011.
• Save Wornington College v (1) Kensington and Chelsea College and (2) The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: Lisa acted for the claimant residents' group in pre-action protocol judicial review proceedings concerning the College's decision to merge with Ealing, Hammersmith and West London's College. The Minister intervened to halt the merger upon receipt of the claimants' pre-action letter, and the merger has now been called off in its entirety (December 2017)
• R (Bewley Homes plc and others) v (1) Waverley Borough Council and (2) Farnham Town Council  2 P&CR 19: Lisa acted successfully (and received an award of costs) for the Town Council in this claim for judicial review by the claimant property developers of the LPA's decision that a draft neighbourhood plan proposed by the Town Council met the basic conditions for a neighbourhood plan pursuant to paras 8 and 12 of Schedule 4B to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
• R (Sibelco Ltd) v Devon County Council (CO.3380/2017): Lisa acted for the Defendant LPA in this claim for judicial review of its decision to grant planning permission to itself for alterations to the A382 and associated development. The case settled favourably to the Defendant (August 2017).
• Hossain v SSHD  EWHC 1331 (Admin): Lisa acted for the Secretary of State in a test-case challenge to the lawfulness of the Detained Asylum Casework Interim Instruction, providing for the detention under her immigration powers of certain classes of failed asylum seekers brought under the Equality Act 2010 and general public law grounds.
• High Speed 2 (2013-16): Lisa was part of the team of Counsel acting for the Department for Transport and HS2 in the House of Commons Select Committee proceedings. In this capacity, as well as appearing in Committee on a day to day basis, she dealt with a range of public law issues, including overseeing the production of the equality and health impact assessments concerning the project.
• GS (India) v SSHD  1 WLR 3312: Lisa acted for the Secretary of State in a seminal challenge to her decision to remove terminally-ill unlawful immigrants to their countries of origin brought under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, in which the Court of Appeal confirmed the approach taken in such cases in D v UK and N v SSHD/N v UK, and made important observations concerning the relationship between Article 3 and 8 of the ECHR.
• Attorney General v HMB Holdings Ltd  UKPC 5: Lisa appeared in the Privy Council in a multimillion dollar claim involving a challenge to the decision of the Antiguan Court of Appeal on the award of compensation payable to the appellant in the wake of a compulsory purchase order made with respect to its luxury resort. The case raised constitutional issues under the Antiguan Constitution, including issues concerning the right to property (comparable to the rights protected by A1 P1 of the ECHR).
• R (Bracking) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions  EWCA 1345,  Eq LR 60: a case concerning the closure of the Independent Living Fund and a leading authority on the scope and nature of the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010.
• R (Rahman) v Birmingham City Council  Eq LR 705: Lisa acted for the Council in a challenge brought on PSED grounds to its decision to end funding for voluntary agencies providing legal advice to ethnic minorities and the disabled as a result of budgetary cuts.
• R (VW (Uganda) v SSHD  Imm AR 436: Lisa acted for the Secretary of State in this leading and oft-cited case concerning Article 8 of the ECHR.
• Ali v Head and Governor of Lord Grey School  UKHL 14,  3 AC 363: Lisa appeared in the House of Lords (led by Cherie Booth QC) in this leading case on Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR (right to education).
• Rowland v Environment Agency  Ch: lead case concerning public rights of navigation on the River Thames, Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR, and the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation.
Lisa is a very experienced immigration practitioner. She is included as a recommended new silk in immigration in the 2018 edition of Legal 500. As a junior, she acted for claimants in asylum cases in the Tribunal on numerous occasions. As Panel Counsel, she represented the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the Administrative Court, Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal in cases involving a wide range of immigration matters, including asylum, EEA cases, trafficking, deportation, immigration detention, families and children and Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In silk, she welcomes instructions from claimants' solicitors.
Notable cases include:
• Haque v SSHD (PA/14153/2016): Lisa is acting for the appellant in his appeal against the refusal of the SSHD of his claim for asylum based on the risk that he would be attacked in return to Bangladesh in retaliation for his on-line activities condemning religious extremism, including Muslim extremism (case listed for substantive appeal hearing on 15th May 2018).
• Hossain and Others  EWHC 1331 (Admin): Lisa acted for the Secretary of State in a test-case challenge to the lawfulness of the Detained Asylum Casework Interim Instruction, providing for the detention under her immigration powers of certain classes of failed asylum seekers brought under the Equality Act 2010 and general public law grounds.
• LW (Jamaica)  4 WLR 76: concerning the notion of "exceptional circumstances" in the context of the removal of a foreign criminal and the nature of the proportionality test in deportation cases.
• Iran Country Guidance case  UKUT 308: concerning whether an applicant is at risk on return from Iran by virtue of having left the country illegally and/or being a failed asylum seeker.
• GS (India) and others  1 WLR 3312: Lisa acted for the Secretary of State (led by Lisa Giovannetti QC) in a seminal challenge to her decision to remove terminally-ill unlawful immigrants to their countries of origin brought under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, in which the Court of Appeal confirmed the approach taken in such cases in D v UK and N v SSHD/N v UK, and made important observations concerning the relationship between Article 3 and 8 of the ECHR.
• AE (Algeria)  EWCA Civ 653: concerning Articles 3 and 8 in the context of a proposed removal of a family with a terminally ill child.
• SS (Malaysia)  Imm AR 170: challenge to a decision refusing the appellant's claim that removing her from the UK would breach her and her son's rights under Article 8 in circumstances where she was a practicing Catholic and the child's father in Malaysia a convert to Islam.
• AJ (Bangladesh)  EWCA Civ 493: challenge to a decision of the UT dismissing the appellants' appeal against deportation, notwithstanding its finding that removing him from the UK would not be in his son's best interests.
• Richards  EWCA Civ 244: concerning the impact on a child's best interests of repeat drug offending by her father in in context of a deportation case.
• Suppiah  EWHC 2 (Admin): Lisa acted for the SSHD (led by Jonathan Swift QC) in the lead challenge to the lawfulness of the detention of women and children in Yarl's Wood IRC.
• VW (Uganda)  Imm AR 436: Lisa acted for the Secretary of State in this leading and oft-cited case concerning Article 8 of the ECHR.