Skip to main content

T: 020 7353 8415

  • Glass building

    "He has a phenomenal capacity for getting through matters and a very, very strong eye for detail."

    Chambers and Partners, Richard Honey

Richard Honey

Richard Honey, public and environmental law barrister at Francis Taylor Building

Year of call: 2003

Practice areas: Planning, Environment, Compulsory Purchase and Compensation, Major Infrastructure Projects, Local Government, Rating, Public Law, ADR, European Law

Public Access

Richard Honey

Practice Profile

Richard Honey practises as a barrister in the fields of public law and environmental law, with particular specialisms in judicial review and High Court statutory challenges, infrastructure projects, compulsory purchase, compensation and land valuation, and commons and village greens.  He is called to the Bars of England and Wales and Northern Ireland.  He is a member of the Attorney General’s A Panel of junior counsel to the Crown.  Richard appears most frequently in the Planning Court and in the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber.

Richard was ranked as a leading barrister in four separate fields in Chambers and Partners 2019: local government; environment; planning; and agriculture and rural affairs.  He was the environment/planning junior of the year at the Chambers UK Bar Awards in 2018 (nominated in 2016 also).   

In environmental law, Richard has been ranked as a leading barrister by both Chambers and Partners (2010-2019) and Legal 500 (2010-2017).  Richard was listed as the leading junior barrister in environmental law by Who’s Who Legal in 2016.

In planning law, Richard has been ranked as a leading barrister by both Chambers and Partners (2012-2019) and Legal 500 (2008-2017).  He was ranked in the top 10 highest rated planning junior barristers in the Planning magazine survey in 2013, 2015 and 2017.  He is ranked in Band 1 in Chambers and Partners 2019. 

Richard is also ranked by Chambers and Partners in local government (2014-2015, 2019) and in agriculture and rural affairs (2015-2019).

  • “Has an expansive environmental practice that sees him advising on a range of matters including permitting, pollution liability, waste and land contamination, environmental taxation and protected habitats and species. He acts for both government bodies and regulated individuals and organisations.   "He gets to grips with a huge amount of information quickly and his grasp of the detail is really impressive."   "Very clever."”  Chambers and Partners, 2019

  • “"His knowledge of environmental and planning law is fantastic. He brings a fresh approach to criminal cases." "He gains people's trust and confidence very quickly and is extremely responsive and sensible."” Chambers and Partners, 2018

  • “Has a broad environment practice that sees him advising on matters relating to permitting, pollution liability, waste and land contamination, protected habitats and species and environmental crime and taxation.  Strengths: “He offers high-quality legal analysis, has a very quick turnaround of papers and provides advice which is practical, easy to understand and useful.” “Extremely thorough and very communicative, he’s a dream for a solicitor.”“ Chambers and Partners, 2017

  • “An environment focused junior who has experience dealing with permitting issues, nuisance cases and Environmental Agency prosecutions.   Strengths: “He is a very measured barrister who’s mature beyond his years.”“ Chambers and Partners, 2016

  • “He is excellent and is incredibly diligent.” Chambers and Partners, 2015

  • “Seen as an environmental all-rounder, he has expertise in areas such as toxic tort cases, noise nuisance, EIAs, and matters relating to the Habitats Directive. He acts in both criminal and civil cases, and is regularly instructed by public bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England.  Expertise: “He is outstanding” and “very bright.”“ Chambers and Partners, 2014

  • “Sources single out Richard Honey as “a star of the future: he provides clear legal and commercial advice and is an impressive advocate in court.” Honey is regularly called upon to act in a wide range of environmental cases, including matters relating to environmental crime, as well as habitats and nature conservation, contaminated land, waste, statutory nuisance and civil liability for pollution.” Chambers and Partners, 2012

  • “Has “superb knowledge of environmental law, especially when it comes to hard-to-grasp, arcane subject matters.” He practises in all areas of planning and environment work, proving especially good on infrastructure issues.” Chambers and Partners, 2011

  • “Exceptional - the go-to junior for serious environmental cases” Legal 500, 2016

  • “Regularly appears in the High Court, and is an expert on compulsory purchase and infrastructure cases. He also features frequently in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). He is called to the Bars of England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, and represents defendants and claimants of all kinds.  Strengths: "A leading light in regards to CPO work, who is balanced, details-oriented and disciplined in the courtroom."”  Chambers and Partners, 2018

  • “Regularly appears in the High Court, and is an expert on compulsory purchase and infrastructure cases. He also features frequently in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). Strengths: “Richard is extremely good, very thorough and someone who inspires confidence in the instructing solicitor and the client.” “He is meticulous, has a very good eye for detail and is very impressive on his feet.”“ Chambers and Partners, 2017

  • “He has a very measured, never over-the-top, advocacy style and can unpick any legal problem however knotty” Chambers and Partners, 2017

  • “His attention to detail is phenomenal and his advocacy, particularly in cross-examination, is subtle and equally impressive” Legal 500, 2018

  • “many clients’ ‘preferred junior counsel for environmental matters’” Legal 500, 2012

  • “quick thinking, an excellent advocate and unflappable under pressure” Legal 500, 2011

  • “has a vast environmental law practice” Legal 500, 2014

  • “Rated for his assimilation of detail and clear strategy” Legal 500, 2016

  • “A co-operative and collaborative junior with superb judgement and experience of advocacy before the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal. He also regularly appears in the High Court, and is an expert on compulsory purchase and infrastructure cases. He also features frequently in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). He represents defendants and claimants of all kinds.   "Very much a member of the modern Bar. He's very accessible, very commercial, easy to deal with and his advocacy is great."   "He has a real eye for detail and is very commercially aware. He has practised as a surveyor, and you can see that shining through in the nature of his advice and strategic approach he takes."”  Chambers and Partners, 2019

  • “Regularly features in complex infrastructure, planning and compulsory purchase cases, particularly in the High Court. He is also adept at handling judicial reviews.   Strengths: “He has a phenomenal capacity for getting through matters and a very, very strong eye for detail.” “He is incredibly commercial and he previously worked as a surveyor. That shines through in the way he’s able to lend a practical steer to a case.”“ Chambers and Partners, 2016

  • “Particularly adept at handling cases that raise both planning and environment issues.  Expertise: “He is exceptionally good: bright, persuasive and easy to understand. Clients understand what he’s saying even when he’s discussing something very tricky.” “He is superb. He is always well prepared, works very hard, goes the extra mile and has a very good legal brain.”“ Chambers and Partners, 2015

  • “Richard Honey continues to increase his profile as a notable planning junior, and is particularly experienced in matters involving compulsory purchase compensation and infrastructure issues. He frequently appears before the High Court on behalf of both defendants and claimants in challenges to planning decisions. Expertise: “He has very impressive attention to detail and is able to guide you through the case in a very effective manner.” “He is a very creative problem solver.”“ Chambers and Partners, 2014

  • “The rapid rise of the “always excellent” Richard Honey continues unabated. Sources were keen to praise his work, calling him “one of those people who just presents his case very nicely and very convincingly, without making a huge song and dance about it.” His “terrific eye for detail” is often cast over High Court challenges to planning decisions”. Chambers and Partners, 2013

  • “knowledgeable, dependable and highly intelligent”, “whom solicitors like as “he explains his advice to clients clearly and concisely.”“ Chambers and Partners, 2012

  • “very thorough, with good cross-examination and presentation skills” Legal 500, 2015

  • “He is very thorough, very meticulous, and instils confidence in clients.” Chambers and Partners, 2015

  • “Acts both for and against local government bodies in a wide range of matters. He has particular experience in compulsory purchase and compensation cases, as well as highways and planning matters. He is also regularly instructed in cases involving local taxation.   "He has a terrific eye for detail, is very thorough and inspires confidence."   "Richard's advice and advocacy is superb. He relates well to clients and communicates his advice clearly and precisely."”  Chambers and Partners, 2018

  • “Richard Honey demonstrates considerable skill in handling CPOs and compensation matters.  Expertise: “He is unfailingly courteous and really goes the extra mile to assist. He is at his very best when dealing with complex matters requiring a really forensic, high-level approach.”“ Chambers and Partners, 2014

  • “Well regarded for acting in town or village green registrations. His broad practice also covers local government, environment and general public law matters. He is noted for his in-depth expertise in protected habitats and species preservation issues.   "He's done a lot of research into the more obscure areas of the law in this area, and his knowledge is encyclopaedic." "He's a very efficient advocate who never labours a point."”  Chambers and Partners, 2019

  • “Well regarded for acting in town or village green registrations. His broad practice also covers local government, environment and general pubic law matters.  Strengths: "Richard is unquestionably very able and knowledgeable of this area." "A great guy, a good lawyer and someone who is fantastically assiduous."”  Chambers and Partners, 2017

  • “Has significant experience in handling village green cases, and advises on highways and right of way issues. He also acts on countryside access matters, including issues concerning national parks.  Expertise: “He made some strong submissions in a judicial review case and the judge was impressed.” “He is a strong choice for difficult planning and environmental issues.”“ Chambers and Partners, 2016

  • “enjoys an increasingly high profile for matters concerning commons and town and village greens. He acts as both advocate and inspector in cases relating to green registration applications, and also advises on highways, rights of way and other countryside matters.  Expertise: “He clearly has a very comprehensive understanding of highways and footpaths and the law concerning rights of way.”“ Chambers and Partners, 2015

Experience

Public and administrative law

Richard regularly advises on, and appears in, cases involving public and administrative law issues including judicial reviews.  Richard has substantial experience of defending public law challenges to planning decisions, as well as other areas of public law, including regulatory judicial review and local government law.  He is a member of the Attorney General’s A Panel of junior counsel to the Crown.  Richard has appeared in the Administrative Court in London, Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds and Manchester, and the Judicial Review Court in Belfast.

Recent and reported cases include:

  • Cheshire East BC v SSHCLG & Kirkham [2018] EWHC 2906 (Admin)
  • Re Sands’ Application for Judicial Review [2018] NIQB 80
  • St Modwen Developments v SSCLG [2018] JPL 398 (CA)
  • Suffolk Coastal DC v SSCLG & Hopkins Homes [2017] 1 All ER 1011 (CA), [2017] 1 WLR 1865 (SC)
  • Barker Mill Estates v SSCLG & Test Valley BC [2017] PTSR 408
  • Old Hunstanton PC v SSCLG [2017] JPL 205 (CA)
  • Broadview Energy Developments v SSCLG [2015] JPL 1355 (HC), [2016] JPL 1207 (CA)
  • R (Dillner) v Sheffield CC & Amey [2016] Env LR 31 (HC), [2016] EWCA Civ 977 (CA)
  • Cheshire East BC v SSCLG & Renew [2016] JPL 909, [2016] PTSR 1052
  • Howell v SSCLG [2014] EWHC 3627 (Admin), [2015] EWCA Civ 1189 (CA)
  • Koumis v SSCLG [2013] JPL 215 (HC), [2015] JPL 682 (CA)
  • Manchester Ship Canal v United Utilities [2014] 1 WLR 2576 (SC)
  • R (Eaton) v Natural England [2013] Env LR 37 (CA)
  • Welford v Transport for London [2011] RVR 172 (CA)
  • Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2011] RTR 1 (CA)

Environmental law

Richard Honey’s experience as a barrister in the field of environmental law includes habitats and protected species, statutory nuisance, waste, contaminated land, drinking water, watercourses, riparian rights, environmental permitting, packaging waste, nuisance, civil liability for pollution, and environmental crime.  He also has experience of environmental taxation, having been involved in a number of aggregates levy cases, including as junior counsel in MMC Midlands v HMRC [2009] EWHC 683 Ch, [2009] STC 1969.  

Clients include regulators such as Natural England and the Environment Agency, regulated operators such as Thames Water, Anglian Water and Severn Trent Water, and businesses of various types.  Richard has acted for Natural England in a number of judicial review challenges to species licences, including in relation to developments such as an energy-from-waste plant and an urban extension.

Richard has acted for defendants being sentenced under the Definitive Guideline for Environmental Offences in both Magistrates’ and Crown Courts, and was instructed on the first appeal against sentence under the guideline to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division: EA v Thames Water [2015] EWCA Crim 960, [2015] 1 WLR 4411, [2015] Crim LR 739. 

Richard also has considerable advocacy and advisory experience of the law in relation to commons and village greens.  As a barrister, Richard has successfully represented a number of landowners objecting to village green applications at inquiry.  He has also acted in judicial review proceedings for and against registration authorities, and advised registration authorities and landowners.  Richard has also sat as an inspector at inquiries on a number of occasions.  He is co-editor of Gadsden on Commons and Greens published by Sweet & Maxwell. 

Richard has experience of countryside law, and has advised Natural England (formerly the Countryside Agency) on a number of matters connected with national park and AONB designations.  He was junior counsel for Natural England in the re-opened South Downs National Park inquiry, where the inspector was persuaded to change his recommendation, to support the confirmation of the park largely as designated by Natural England.  He has also advised Natural England on the establishment of the South Downs National Park Authority and designation work in the North West of England.  Richard was instructed as sole barrister to represent Natural England at the inquiry which led to the successful confirmation of the orders to modify the boundaries of the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales National Parks to include additional land. 

Richard is familiar with the law of highways and has advised on a range of matters including public and private rights of way, street works, traffic management, traffic regulation, parking, roads orders and highways development.  He has been instructed by the Secretary of State to defend High Court proceedings challenging public rights of way inspectors’ decisions on definitive map modification and stopping up orders. 

Infrastructure

Richard’s experience of major infrastructure projects includes schemes under the Planning Act, the Highways Act, the Transport and Works Act and the Electricity Act, and parliamentary hybrid Bill work, having been instructed for a number of HS2 and Crossrail petitioners, including multiple appearances before the select committees for both Bills, in both the Commons and the Lords.  He is a member of the Parliamentary Bar Mess. 

Richard successfully promoted the £100m Boston flood barrier TWA Order for the Environment Agency at inquiry in 2017.  He represented the Alternative A5 Alliance at the inquiry into the new A5 dual carriageway scheme in Northern Ireland and is currently instructed by Highways England to oppose a railway TWA Order. 

Richard was part of the team of barristers advising BAA on its proposals for the expansion of Stansted Airport.  He was also instructed as junior counsel to London Southend Airport, successfully defending a judicial review of the grant of planning permission for a runway extension, and as counsel for Natural England for the call-in inquiry into the proposals to expand Lydd Airport in Kent. 

Richard advised Natural England on the DCO applications for Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, Able Marine Energy Park on the Humber, and North West Coast Connections.  He is advising Highways England on issues arising from a number of DCO schemes.  Richard has also advised the Secretary of State on legal issues in relation to the acceptance and examination of NSIP applications. 

Richard has extensive experience of compulsory purchase, including appearing for an acquiring authority in the High Court, representing numerous CPO promoters (including housing, planning and highway authorities and utilities companies) and CPO objectors (including Transport for London and businesses).  He has advised BAA on compulsory purchase issues connected with the Stansted second runway scheme, the Environment Agency on a number of compulsory purchase and rights matters, and statutory undertakers on their works powers.  In 2017/2018, Richard successfully promoted housing, highways and utilities CPOs.

Richard’s compulsory purchase work has encompassed for example acquisition of rights over land, compulsory works orders, works powers, powers of entry, omitted interests, material detriment, accommodation works, temporary possession, the Crichel Down rules, purchase notices and blight notices. 

Land valuation

Richard has very considerable experience of disputes relating to land valuation and compulsory purchase compensation.  Richard has been instructed in Lands Tribunal proceedings on behalf of HS2, NNB Generation Co, Network Rail, Crossrail, Transport for London, the London Development Agency, the Greater London Authority, Merseytravel, the Highways Agency / Highways England, the Welsh Ministers, the Environment Agency, the Secretary of State for Transport, National Grid, a port authority, county highway authorities, statutory undertakers and a variety of local authorities.  Richard’s work as sole barrister representing acquiring authorities has included matters where tens of millions of pounds in compensation for compulsory purchase were in dispute.  

Richard has also represented claimants in compensation cases, including businesses such as Homebase, Moto and Esso, as well as developers, farmers and landowners.  He acted as junior counsel for the claimant in arbitration proceedings in Bermuda. 

Richard’s experience of compensation disputes includes the full range of issues such as valuation of land taken, severance, injurious affection (s7 and s10), acquisition of rights, disturbance, business losses, extinguishment, rule 3, rule 4, planning assumptions, scheme disregards (statutory and Pointe Gourde), betterment, loss payments, taxation, fees/costs, and Part 1 claims.  Richard has also worked on cases involving blight notices and purchase notices, highway stopping-up, planning decisions, flood defences, land drainage, utilities, wayleaves - and cases arising from compulsory purchase orders, DCOs, Transport and Works Act Orders and hybrid Acts.

Richard was the barrister who represented the acquiring authority in the first compensation claim to reach the Tribunal arising from the 2012 Olympics CPO, where some £2m was in dispute (Singh v LDA [2010] RVR 41).  He also represented the acquiring authority in Welford v Transport for London, both in the Tribunal ([2010] RVR 200) and in the Court of Appeal ([2011] RVR 172). 

Richard was instructed as junior counsel for a county highway authority defending a compensation claim of around £15m arising from a road scheme (see Clemdell v Dorset CC [2009] RVR 318), and the injurious affection cases of Moto Hospitality v Secretary of State for Transport [2008] 1 WLR 2822 and Bourne Leisure v Great Yarmouth Port Authority [2016] RVR 371.  He was also junior counsel in William Hill v Crossrail [2016] RVR 258. 

Richard has appeared as sole counsel for the successful respondents in cases such as Ramac v Kent CC [2014] RVR 207, Miller v NRIL [2014] RVR 305 and Elitestone v National Grid Gas [2015] RVR 392. 

Richard represented the Secretary of State in Harringay Meat Traders v SSCLG [2013] PTSR 436, a challenge to a decision on a certificate of appropriate alternative development appeal.  He was also junior counsel for the successful claimant in R (Manydown) v Basingstoke & Deane BC [2012] JPL 1188 which concerned ss226 and 227 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Richard has also been instructed for defendants in professional negligence litigation arising from the conduct of Tribunal proceedings. 

Richard has also been instructed by HMRC solicitors in High Court and tribunal rating and valuation cases, including Listing Officer v Callear [2013] RVR 34 and a number of Upper Tribunal cases concerning the valuation of public houses for rating purposes. 

Planning

Richard’s practice includes a significant element of planning law.  Richard regularly advises on and appears in challenges to planning decisions, for both claimants and defendants.  Richard’s planning inquiry work often has an environmental aspect and has included wind farms and airports.  He has also appeared at inquiries successfully resisting appeals for housing schemes involving housing land supply arguments and has advised and represented local planning authorities promoting local plans. 

Arbitration and mediation

Richard has experience as a barrister of arbitration and mediation.  He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and has advised on arbitration law and procedure in connection with Lands Tribunal and other domestic and international arbitration proceedings.  Richard has been a member of the CIArb Faculty and taught on the CIArb’s domestic and international arbitration courses.  He has acted as a party representative in a number of successful mediations, including disputes on compensation for compulsory purchase.  

 

Cases

  • Cheshire East BC v SSHCLG & Kirkham [2018] EWHC 2906 (Admin)
  • Re Sands’ Application for Judicial Review [2018] NIQB 80
  • St Modwen Developments v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 968 (Admin), [2018] JPL 398 (CA)
  • Suffolk Coastal DC v SSCLG & Hopkins Homes [2017] 1 All ER 1011 (CA), [2017] 1 WLR 1865 (SC) (led by Hereward Phillpot QC)
  • Barker Mill Estates v SSCLG & Test Valley BC [2017] PTSR 408
  • Old Hunstanton PC v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 1958 (Admin) (HC), [2017] JPL 205 (CA)
  • Stevens v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 3737 (Admin)
  • Bovis & Miller v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 2952 (Admin)
  • Suffolk Coastal DC v SSCLG & Christchurch [2016] EWHC 2553 (Admin)
  • Harper v SSEFRA [2016] EWHC 1902 (Admin)
  • R (Stryjak) v Hounslow LBC & EFA [2016] EWHC 1897 (Admin)
  • Broadview Energy Developments v SSCLG [2015] JPL 1355 (HC), [2016] JPL 1207 (CA)
  • William Hill v Crossrail [2016] RVR 258 (led by Richard Glover QC)
  • R (Dillner) v Sheffield CC & Amey [2016] Env LR 31 (HC), [2016] EWCA Civ 977 (CA)
  • Catesby Estates v SSCLG [2016] EWHC 593 (Admin)
  • Cheshire East BC v SSCLG & Harlequin [2016] EWHC 694 (Admin)
  • Cheshire East BC v SSCLG & Renew [2016] JPL 909, [2016] PTSR 1052
  • Bourne Leisure v Great Yarmouth Port Authority [2016] RVR 371 (led by Greg Jones QC)
  • Howell v SSCLG [2014] EWHC 3627 (Admin), [2015] EWCA Civ 1189, [2016] JPL 296 (CA)
  • Athlone House Ltd v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 3524 (Admin)
  • Villages Action Group v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 2729 (Admin), [2016] JPL 293
  • Elitestone v National Grid Gas [2015] RVR 392
  • Stroud DC v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 1940 (Admin)
  • Milwood Land v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 1836 (Admin)
  • Bellway Homes v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 4263 (Admin)
  • EA v Thames Water [2015] EWCA Crim 960, [2015] 1 WLR 4411, [2015] Crim LR 739
  • Woodcock Holdings v SSCLG [2015] JPL 1151
  • Calverton PC v Nottingham CC [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin)
  • Cheshire East BC v SSCLG [2015] JPL 860
  • North Cote Farms v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 292 (Admin)
  • Pugh v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 3 (Admin)
  • Dartford BC v SSCLG [2015] 1 P&CR 2
  • Koumis v SSCLG [2013] JPL 215 (HC), [2015] JPL 682 (CA)
  • Hiam v SSCLG [2015] JPL 607
  • Alderson v SSCLG (Admin Court, 25 November 2014)
  • Arsenal FC v SSCLG [2014] EWHC 2620 (Admin)
  • Miller v NRIL [2014] RVR 305
  • Manchester Ship Canal v United Utilities [2014] UKSC 40, [2014] 1 WLR 2576 (led by Douglas Edwards QC)
  • Ramac v Kent CC [2014] RVR 207
  • R (Eaton) v Natural England [2013] Env LR 37 (CA)
  • Colman v SSCLG [2013] JPL 1351
  • Mata v SSCLG [2013] JPL 545
  • Listing Officer v Callear [2013] RVR 34
  • Harringay Meat Traders v SSCLG [2013] PTSR 436
  • R (Manydown) v Basingstoke & Deane BC [2012] JPL 1188 (led by Greg Jones QC)
  • Zihni v SSCLG [2012] EWHC 1617 (Admin)
  • R (Rathakrishnan) v SSHD [2011] EWHC 1406 (Admin)
  • Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2011] RTR 1 (CA)
  • Welford v Transport for London [2010] RVR 200 (LC), [2011] RVR 172 (CA)
  • R (Young) v Oxford CC [2010] EWHC 3337 (Admin)
  • R (Rathakrishnan) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 3822 (Admin)
  • Ortona v SSCLG [2009] JPL 1033 (HC), [2010] 1 P&CR 15 (CA) (led by Paul Brown QC)
  • R (El Gazzaz) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 3755 (Admin)
  • Singh v London Development Agency [2010] RVR 41
  • Mid Beds Model Aircraft Club v SSCLG [2009] EWHC 681 (Admin)
  • Bleaklow v SSCLG [2009] 2 P&CR 21 (CA) (led by Craig Howell Williams QC)
  • Leeds CC v SSCLG [2009] EWHC 1014 (Admin)
  • Amber Valley BC v SSCLG [2009] EWHC 80 (Admin)
  • McCleave v SSCLG [2009] EWHC 1644 (Admin)
  • Bradwell v SSCLG [2009] EWHC 1413 (Admin)
  • Clemdell v Dorset CC [2009] RVR 318 (led by Andrew Tait QC)
  • Moto Hospitality v SSfT [2008] 1 WLR 2822 (CA) (led by Craig Howell Williams QC)
  • Cooper v Attorney General [2008] 3 CMLR 45 (led by Philip Sales QC and James Maurici QC)
  • MMC v HMRC [2008] V&DR 176; [2009] EWHC 683 (Ch), [2009] STC 1969 (led by Craig Howell Williams QC)
  • R (Mahmood) v SSHD [2008] EWHC 2441 (Admin)

Qualifications & Appointments

  • Called to the Bar of England and Wales (2003)
  • Called to the Bar of Northern Ireland (2013)
  • Attorney General’s Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown (A Panel; B Panel 2014-2016; C Panel 2008-2013)
  • Chartered Surveyor
  • Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
  • Associate tenant, KBW Chambers, Leeds
  • Chairman of the Compulsory Purchase Association (2012-2013)
  • Chairman of the steering group of the UK Sierra Leone Pro Bono Network

Although he is clerked exclusively through FTB, Richard holds an associate tenancy at KBW Chambers in Leeds, to assist his work for clients in the north and north-east of England. 

Richard is a member of the Northern Ireland Bar Library in Belfast. 

Richard is a member of the Planning and Environment Bar Association, the Administrative Law Bar Association, the Parliamentary Bar Mess, the Bar European Group, the UK Environmental Law Association, the Environmental and Planning Law Association of Northern Ireland, the Compulsory Purchase Association and the National Infrastructure Planning Association. 

Richard is co-editor of Gadsden on Commons and Greens (Sweet & Maxwell, 2012) and The Law of Compulsory Purchase (Bloomsbury Professional, 2018).  He is the General Editor of the Compulsory Purchase & Compensation Service (Bloomsbury Professional).  He is also a contributor to the National Infrastructure Planning Handbook (Bloomsbury Professional, 2015, 2016 and 2018), the third edition of Burnett-Hall on Environmental Law (Sweet & Maxwell, 2012) and The Law of Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions (OUP, 2011).

Richard was the planning decisions editor of the Journal of Planning & Environmental Law from 2009 to 2016 and an editor of the Planning Appeal Decisions (Sweet & Maxwell) from 2004 to 2012.  He was the author of the chapter on planning appeals in the RICS isurv.com online publication. 

Published articles include:

“The future for costs in judicial review”, Solicitors’ Journal, September 2017;

“The merit in judicial review”, Solicitors’ Journal, September 2014, on the totally without merit test;

“Wind energy case law update”, Env Law 2013, 77, 12-17;

“Making urgent judicial review applications”, Solicitors’ Journal, March 2013;

“Cross-examination in judicial review proceedings”, Solicitors’ Journal, August 2012;

“Claimant-friendly judicial review”, Solicitors’ Journal, August 2011, on costs and consenting to judgment in judicial review;

“Staying in line”, Solicitors’ Journal, March 2011, on the duty of candour in judicial review;

“Expert evidence” Journal of Planning Law, [2010] JPL 1200, with Craig Howell Williams QC;

“How effective is policy in setting boundaries for decision-makers?” Journal of Planning Law, [2010] JPL 404;

“Planning for a new generation of power stations” Journal of Planning Law, [2007] JPL 843, with Keith Lindblom QC;

“Commons Act 2006: developing common land and protecting village greens” Env Law Rev 9 (2007) 132-136;

“Ex parte Beresford” Rights of Way Law Review (Sept 2004) p67 with Greg Jones QC.