Ryan Kohli

> People > Barristers > Ryan Kohli

Ryan Kohli is a leading practitioner with particular expertise in public, planning and environmental and property law.

He has been consistently ranked as a leading practitioner by the Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 directories of highly rated barristers and has been appointed by the Attorney General as Junior Counsel to the Crown (B Panel). He is a Recorder (part-time Circuit Judge) assigned to the civil jurisdiction. In 2023, he was elected as a Governing Bencher of the Inner Temple.

Ryan is a versatile practitioner and is adept at handling complex cases across the public law, property and planning spectrum. He has acted in significant cases in each of his core practice areas.

Planning and Environment

In planning, he represents clients in significant planning cases and recently appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State in R (on the application of Durham and Hartlepool) v SSLUHC [2023] EWHC 1394 (Admin) which concerned the jurisdiction of planning inspectors to determine solar farm appeals which are, or might amount to, a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project.

This year, he also represented Cheltenham Borough Council in what is thought to have been the first planning appeal in which planning permission was refused for a major housing scheme solely on climate change grounds. Ryan is a member of Cornerstone Climate, a new cross disciplinary practice group for climate litigation and advice.

Property and Social Housing

Ryan has appeared, often as sole Counsel, in several important higher court cases. These have included Gell v 32 St John’s Road (Eastbourne) Management Co Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 789 concerning whether there is an onus on the Court to investigate whether service charges are reasonable.

Higher Court cases in the housing sphere concerning Article 8 ECHR and Equality Act 2010 arguments include:

Paragon Asra Housing Limited v Neville [2018] EWCA Civ 1712;
Hackney LBC v Haque [2017] EWCA Civ 4 (led by Kelvin Rutledge KC);
Thurrock Borough Council v West [2012] EWCA Civ 1435

Administrative and Public Law

Ryan has extensive experience representing central government departments and local authorities in public law proceedings.

He advised the Appellant in the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in Li v Hong Kong Society of Notaries [2022] HKCA 1482 concerning the powers of the body to impose a late payment fee.

He also appeared on behalf of the successful Defendant local authority in R (on the application of Rafiq) v Thurrock Borough Council [2022] EWHC 584 (QB) which concerned a Human Rights Act damages claim in which it was alleged that the actions of the local authority had rendered an Iraqi national homeless when its accommodation package was withdrawn following the refusal of his asylum claim.

Expertise

Planning and Environment
Ryan’s practice is predominantly focused on judicial review and statutory appeals in the area of planning and environmental law. He has been appointed as Junior Counsel to the Crown by the Attorney General (‘B Panel’) and is regularly instructed on behalf of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government as well as private developers on planning matters in the High Court and beyond.

Ryan has conducted numerous public inquiries on behalf of local planning and highway authorities and has advised on a wide range of planning issues. He advised the Department for Transport in relation to air quality matters arising from the proposed Silvertown Tunnel Development Consent Order.

Examples of higher court work include:
- R (on the application of Durham and Hartlepool) v (1) SSLUHC (D); (2) Lightsource BP Ltd (IP) [2023] EWHC 1394 (Admin)
Appeared as sole Counsel for the Secretary of State in an important case which considered whether (i) the Court should make a determination as to whether particular development is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project; (ii) if so, whether that development constituted an NSIP and (iii) whether Planning Inspectors have the jurisdiction to determine appeals which concern development that might amount to an NSIP.
- R (on the application of Kulah) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] EWHC 3028 (Admin)
Appeared as sole Counsel for the successful Respondent in the High Court (Lang J) and instructed by the Government Legal Department. The case concerned a challenge to a planning inspector’s approach to the question of relative eaves heights under Paragraph A.1(d) of Class A of the 2015 GPDO and both the meaning and identification of an “eave”.
- R (on the application of Shirley) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] EWHC 2306 (Admin)
Led by James Maurici KC, Ryan acted for the Secretary of State in defending his decision not to call in the proposal to grant planning permission for the South Canterbury Urban Extension which comprised up to 4000 homes and associated development including a new hospital and school. The case concerned the adequacy of the UK government’s implementation of the Air Quality Directive and whether, in light of evidence about adverse impacts on air quality, the Secretary of State’s status as ‘competent authority’ for the purposes of the Directive mandated a call-in.
- Arnold v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] EWCA Civ 231
Ryan acted on behalf of the Secretary of State as sole Counsel in the High Court and Court of Appeal in defending a s. 289 challenge to the decision of a planning inspector to uphold an enforcement notice requiring the demolition of an unlawfully constructed dwelling on the green belt. The case concerned, inter alia, the adequacy of the inspector’s consideration of alternative schemes under Ground F and whether PD rights, once implemented under Class A, can survive the demolition of the dwellinghouse.
- R (on the application of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWHC 703 (Admin); [2015] EWHC 2458 (Admin)
Led by Philip Coppel KC, Ryan acted for the Secretary of State in two statutory appeals defending challenges brought under s. 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The cases turned, respectively, on the application of RBKC’s recently adopted basement policy and the correct approach to Paragraph A.1(f) of the GPDO.
- Fuller v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 142 (Admin)
Ryan acted on behalf of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government in defending the grant of planning permission to develop a site near a tree with amenity value on a residential street. The Court upheld the inspector’s conclusion that the tree provided amenity value, but that it was not an outstanding or unique specimen, and that the benefit of the proposed development would override any harm to the tree.

Examples of Advisory Work Include:
- Instructed to advise Ministers and DLUHC lawyers on the lawfulness of amendments to the permitted development regime including certain deregulatory amendments of the GPDO and the risks of successful challenge on public law grounds
- Instructed to advise Ministers on the lawfulness and implications of the introduction of a new Class to the Use Classes Order
- Advised a local planning authority (“the LPA”) on whether it validly notified an applicant seeking prior approval for the erection of telecommunications masts that prior approval was required within the prescribed time limit. On the facts of the case, the LPA had purported to notify the applicant by placing notice on the LPA’s website within the statutory time limit. Notices were only sent to the Applicant and their agent outside of the 56 day time limit. The question to be addressed was whether the act of placing notice on the LPA’s website was sufficient for the purposes of Paragraph A.3(7)(c) of Part 24, Schedule 2 of the GPDO.
- Advising an LPA on whether it could take enforcement action to remove an existing 12.5m high monopole and attached transmission dish following the grant of conditional prior approval for a 15m high monopole which contained a condition requiring the removal of the existing monopole.
Cornerstone Climate
Ryan’s recent cases have involved climate related litigation. In R (on the application of Durham and Hartlepool) v SSLUHC [2023] EWHC 1394 (Admin) one of the issues for the Court was whether a shared substation between two solar farms was a decisive factor in determining that that project was an NSIP or not.

Additionally, Ryan also appeared at a planning appeal concerning a large housing scheme on which permission was refused on climate change grounds. The homes proposed contained gas boilers rather than heat pumps and an insufficient number of homes were proposed with solar panels. At the inquiry, the developer agreed to a condition requiring heat pumps and solar panels in all homes.

Ryan is a member of the Cornerstone Climate cross-disciplinary practice group.
- High Court dismisses challenge to Planning Inspector’s jurisdiction to determine solar farm appeals belatedly contended as NSIPs09 Jun 2023
- Cornerstone Barristers achieves record results in Chambers UK Bar Directory 2024 for Planning and Environment24 Oct 2023
- Introducing Cornerstone Climate – a new centre of excellence for climate litigation and advice19 Jun 2023
Housing
Ryan is a leading social housing practitioner and is regularly instructed in complex and high profile social housing litigation. He has been appointed as Junior Counsel to the Crown by the Attorney General (‘B Panel’) and has been consistently listed as a leading junior in this area by Chambers UK and Legal 500.

He acts for local authorities, registered providers, the Regulator of Social Housing and private landlords in a range of matters from possession proceedings to strategic advice on dealing with anti- social tenants, succession, right-to-buy and policy matters.

Ryan is an experienced trial advocate and is adept at conducting and marshalling the full range of housing proceedings. He regularly provides advice and representation to registered providers and local authorities on all aspects of property and social housing including fire safety, Water Resale Orders, leasehold disputes (including service charges) and judicial review for breach of statutory duty. He has advised and represented successful Respondents in appeals against improvement notices, overcrowding notices and prohibition orders within the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

He has also been instructed in leading cases in this practice area including:

Paragon Asra Housing Limited v Neville [2018] EWCA Civ 1712

As sole Counsel for the successful Appellant, Ryan acted in proceedings concerning the scope of the operation of ss. 15 and 35 of the Equality Act 2010 in applications to suspend a warrant for possession. Practical difficulties were frequently arising where suspended possession orders had been agreed between the parties and approved by the Court in respect of disabled tenants who would then proceed to breach the order. Legal representatives of disabled tenants wished, in those circumstances, to re-raise the Equality Act defences at the enforcement stage. The Court of Appeal

agreed with Ryan’s submissions that (i) absent a material change of circumstances between the date of the SPO and the date of the hearing of the warrant suspension application it would be abusive to allow the tenant to re-raise such matters; and (ii) in any event a Judgment can, in principle, demonstrate compliance with the substance of the requirements of proportionality without explicitly considering the four-fold analysis highlighted by the Supreme Court in Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Community Housing Limited [2015] 2 WLR 721.

Hackney LBC v Haque [2017] EWCA Civ 7

Led by Kelvin Rutledge KC, Ryan acted for Hackney LBC in a case which established the standard expected of reviewing officers within their homelessness review decision letters before it could be said that they had complied with the Public Sector Equality Duty under s. 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The decision provides helpful and timely guidance as to how homelessness decision-makers should approach the PSED in suitability cases following the decision of the Supreme Court in Hotak v LB Southwark & Associated Appeals [2016] AC 811.

Thurrock Borough Council v West [2012] EWCA Civ 1435

Ryan was sole Counsel for the successful Appellant in the Court of Appeal in this seminal authority on the scope of Article 8 defences in claims for possession. Mr West raised an Article 8 defence to possession proceedings brought by the local authority on the basis it would be disproportionate to evict him, his girlfriend and child from a property previously occupied by his grandparents, both of whom had deceased. As there had already been a single succession, there was no further entitlement in law to succeed to the tenancy. At the county court level, possession was refused on the basis that it was said it would be disproportionate to evict Mr West and his family who would, in all likelihood, be afforded priority need by the local authority in any future application for housing. The local authority appealed successfully to the Court of Appeal. Etherton LJ (with whom Hallett LJ and Dame Janet Smith agreed) determined that the county court Order, if allowed to stand, would effectively amount to an allocation of housing by the Court which was wholly outside of its remit.
Public Law and Judicial Review
Ryan has extensive experience representing central government departments and local authorities in public law proceedings. He has been appointed as Junior Counsel to the Crown by the Attorney General (‘B Panel’) and is frequently instructed to defend central and local government against judicial review claims which concern the full spectrum of their vires.

In R (on the application of Rafiq) v Thurrock Borough Council [2022] EWHC 584 (QB), Ryan was instructed by the successful Defendant local authority as sole counsel in a Human Rights Act damages claim in the High Court. It was alleged that the actions of the local authority had rendered an Iraqi national homeless for a week when its accommodation package was withdrawn following the refusal of his asylum claim.

In the Hong Kong Court of Appeal case of Li v Hong Kong Society of Notaries [2022] HKCA1482 Ryan was Instructed by a Hong Kong notary to advise local lawyers on an appeal against the refusal of a judicial review challenge by the Hong Kong High Court. The case concerned the lawfulness of a decision by the Hong Kong Society of Notaries to impose a late charge and whether this constituted an irrecoverable penalty in law.

He also has expertise in the Upper Tribunal, High Court and Court of Appeal in acting for the Secretary of State for the Home Department in judicial review applications in the field of immigration and unlawful detention. He has appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State in the following cases:

R (on the application of FR Albania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 605

This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Upper Tribunal focused on the question of the definition of “clearly unfounded” asylum claims and s. 94(3) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

R (on the application of Neeraj Kumar) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC Civ 652

On behalf of the Secretary of State, Ryan defeated the Claimant’s judicial review challenge against her decision to administratively remove him pursuant to s. 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

The case concerned whether the Secretary of State’s officers had correctly adhered to her Enforcement and Instruction Guidance.

R (on the application of R) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2018

Ryan successfully defended the Claimant’s claim for judicial review which alleged, inter alia, that the Secretary of State’s policy on Humanitarian Protection was inconsistent with the Qualification Directive.
Commercial and Regulatory
- Overview
Ryan has experience in advising and representing clients in the commercial and regulatory sector. Specifically, he has:
- Advised landlords on the Telecommunications Code and in their negotiations with telecoms operators in respect of telecommunications equipment on the roofs of high rise buildings. He advises landowners with telecommunications apparatus pursuant to code agreements (a)on the processes involved in securing vacant possession for redevelopment; (b) on whether the entry of wayleaves with new operators would prejudice the ability of landowners to take possession; and (c) on the content of notices and counter notices under the Telecommunications Code.
- Drafted pleadings, advised and acted in commercial proceedings concerning breach of contract and claims in debt
- Acted in Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 proceedings in respect of renewal of commercial leases
Property
Ryan has undertaken a range of work in the property sector and has particular experience in:
- All matters related to service charges. He appeared as sole Counsel for the successful Respondent in the Court of Appeal in 32 St John’s Road (Eastbourne) Management Co Ltd v Gell [2021] 1 WLR 6094. This was a significant landlord and tenant case concerning whether the statutory test relating to the reasonableness of service charges required the Court to adopt an adversarial or inquisitorial approach. The Court specifically highlighted that it was the first time the higher courts had considered that question in the 35 years since the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 was enacted.
- Advising landowners of multiple tower blocks each with telecommunications apparatus pursuant to code agreements on(a) the processes involved in securing vacant possession for redevelopment; (b) whether the entry of wayleaves with new operators would prejudice the ability of the landowner to take possession; and (c) on the content of notices and counter notices.
- Advising landowners on (a) whether they can insist on a description of telecommunications equipment within a lease such that they could identify prohibited upgrades which resulted in a more than minimal adverse impact on the appearance of the apparatus; and (b) whether, in the absence of an executed lease, an early access agreement could give rise to security of tenure under the Code.
- Advising local authorities on compulsory purchase claims, specifically under s. 17 Housing Act 1985
- Representing parties in the First Tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal (Property Chamber) in proceedings concerning the liability to pay service charges and their reasonableness
- Acting on behalf of parties in adverse possession proceedings
- Advising on all leasehold matters including on the discharge of easements and covenants
- Representing parties in negotiations concerning lease renewal under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
- Advising on all leasehold matters including the effect of easements and restrictive covenants Advising and acting on behalf of parties in proceedings concerning the housing health and safety rating system, improvement notices and prohibition orders
- Property Week: How can leaseholders ensure local authorities fulfil their duties?26 Feb 2021

Ryan is a first-class advocate who is able to think quickly on his feet and is always well prepared for any eventuality.
Legal 500 (2024)

Ryan is hard-working, imaginative and never anything less than 100% prepared.
Legal 500 (2023)

He is an excellent property and housing barrister. He gets the best result every time.
Chambers UK Bar (2022)

He is a great advocate and formidable at cross-examination.
Chambers UK Bar (2022)

About Ryan

Directory Quotes
- Planning – “Ryan is a very strong performer.” Chambers and Partners 2024
- Social Housing – “Ryan is a first-class advocate who is able to think quickly on his feet and is always well prepared for any eventuality”. Legal 500 2024
- Social Housing – “A charming man who is very succinct and gets to the point quickly.” “Ryan has delivered clear and very timely advice on a range of matters.” Chambers and Partners 2023
- Social Housing – “Ryan is hard-working, imaginative and never anything less than 100% prepared. His advocacy conveys a real sense of authority, and he is not afraid to tackle difficult factual or legal arguments.” Legal 500 2023
- Social Housing – “Ryan is a very careful, methodical and effective advocate. He is a bold advocate, not afraid to persist with difficult arguments even when facing a reluctant judiciary.” Legal 500 2022
- Social Housing – “He is an excellent property and housing barrister. He gets the best result every time.” “He’s incredibly impressive at getting his head around a complex case.” Chambers and Partners 2022
- Planning – “Ryan is an excellent advocate who is able to precisely dissect complex planning policies, matters, their context, and objective interpretation.” “He is a great advocate and formidable at cross-examination.” Chambers and Partners 2022
- Social Housing – “He demonstrates skills well beyond his year of call and has great authority in the courtroom.” Chambers and Partners 2021
- “Ryan is meticulous in his preparation and has a tremendous confidence, which he brings across in both his written work and advocacy.” Legal 500 2021
- “His technical knowledge and detail to issues is outstanding.” “He knows the area inside out.” Chambers and Partners 2020
- “He is really technically strong, really well prepared, very pleasant to deal with and has really good judgement.” “He is thorough and exacting in the advice he gives.” Chambers and Partners 2020
- “An excellent, up-and-coming barrister; he is well-prepared and attentive in court.” Legal 500 2020
- “An excellent property and housing barrister whose skills far exceed those of the average person of his year of call.” “He is very polished in his written and advocacy skills, and is a firm favourite of many clients.” Chambers and Partners 2019
- “He is straight down the line, robust and clear.” “He exhibits an acumen far above his year of call, he is never fazed by anything and is highly reliable.” Chambers and Partners 2019
- “Great at engaging with witnesses and putting clients at ease when in court.” The Legal 500 2018
- “Exceptional and highly accomplished.” “He demonstrates an ability way beyond his year of call, has a very good manner with clients and is a very authoritative presence in court.” Chambers and Partners 2018 (Planning)
- “He is very good on his feet and a difficult barrister to be against.” Chambers and Partners 2018 (Social Housing)
- “A robust and tenacious advocate, who is able to represent difficult positions.” Legal 500 2017
- “An impressive advocate who provides good skeleton arguments in complex cases.” “A very firm opponent.” Chambers and Partners 2017
- “Very succinct and gets to the point quickly. His written advice is very good and clients love him – he’s charming.” Chambers and Partners 2017
- “A very focused and smart guy who is also enjoyable to deal with.” “He is very clear and persuasive in the submissions he makes.” Chambers and Partners 2016
- “An effective oral advocate.” Legal 500 2016
- “He provides good, sound, commercial advice. He’s very personable and a favourite with clients.” Chambers and Partners 2016
- “He’s exemplary in terms of client care, trial preparation and advocacy skills – a polished service.” Chambers and Partners 2016
Appointments
- 2023: Master of the Bench of the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple
- 2022: Recorder (Civil Jurisdiction)
- 2017: Junior Counsel to the Crown (Attorney General’s ‘B’ Panel)
- 2015: Panel Counsel to the Metropolitan Police
- 2012: Junior Counsel to the Crown (Attorney General’s ‘C’ Panel)
Education
- 2005-2006: Bar Vocational Course (BPTC) ranked in the ‘Outstanding’ category
- 2002-2005: MA (Jurisprudence) St Edmund Hall, University of Oxford
Publications
- The ‘New’ Forfeiture12 Mar 2021
- How can leaseholders ensure local authorities fulfil their duties?16 Feb 2021
Notable Cases
- REFEREE OR GOALKEEPER? The Court of Appeal decides…24 May 2021
- High Court dismisses challenge to Planning Inspector’s jurisdiction to determine solar farm appeals belatedly contended as NSIPs09 Jun 2023