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 QC

Richard Honey

Year of call: 2003 (QC 2021)

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

Public Access

Richard Honey QC

Practice Profile

Richard Honey QC practises as a barrister in the fields of public law and environmental law, with particular specialisms in judicial review and similar statutory challenges, infrastructure projects, compulsory purchase and compensation, and climate change and ESG litigation.  He is called to the Bars of England and Wales and Northern Ireland.  Richard appears most frequently in the Administrative / Planning Court and in the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber.  He is also an experienced appellate advocate, having appeared in the Court of Appeal 18 times, including 14 appearances as lead/sole counsel.  Until he took Silk, he was a member of the Attorney General’s A Panel of junior counsel to the Crown, having spent some 12 years on the AG’s panels in total.

Richard is ranked as a leading barrister in four separate fields in both Chambers and Partners and Legal 500: local government; environment; planning; and agriculture and rural affairs.  He was the environment/planning junior barrister of the year at the Chambers UK Bar Awards in 2018 (nominated in 2016 also).   

In environmental law, Richard has since 2010 been ranked as a leading barrister by both Chambers and Partners and Legal 500.  He was also listed as the leading junior barrister in environmental law by Who’s Who Legal.

In planning law, Richard has been ranked as a leading barrister by both Chambers and Partners (since 2012) and Legal 500 (since 2008).  Prior to taking Silk, he was regularly ranked in the top 10 highest rated planning junior barristers in the Planning magazine survey and was ranked top of Band 1 in Chambers and Partners 2020 and the 2021 Legal 500.  

Richard is also ranked by Chambers and Partners in local government (2014-2015, 2019-2020) and in agriculture and rural affairs (2015-2020), and by the 2021 Legal 500 in local government and agriculture.  

  • “Tenacious litigator and excellent advocate” and “Calm and confident, he is a very strong advocate”  
    Legal 500, 2021

  • “"Brilliant." "He's very thorough and won't beat around the bush if he thinks something is wrong or unnecessary"”  
    Chambers and Partners, 2020

  • “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.”  
    Chambers and Partners, 2020

  •  “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, rating and local government powers.  Strengths: "Richard is a skilled advocate and adviser, and he's also a pleasure to work with." "He skilfully highlights the key issues in a case and is very easy and agreeable to work with."”  
    Chambers and Partners, 2020

  • 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.  Strengths: "He is clear, concise and tactically aware." "He is very good; he puts a tremendous amount of effort into his work and is well organised."”
    Chambers and Partners, 2020

  • “He's a very efficient advocate who never labours a point.”  
    Chambers and Partners, 2019

  • “"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

  • “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

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

  • “A skilled advisor, dogged in his determination, and a go-to for planning, compulsory purchase orders and compensation work in particular”
    Legal 500, 2018

  • “"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

  • “"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

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

  • “Regularly features in complex infrastructure, planning and compulsory purchase cases, particularly in the High Court. He is also adept at handling judicial reviews.”
    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

  • “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

Experience

Richard Honey QC’s experience is summarised in the following sections:

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 public law challenges to planning and environmental decisions, as well as other areas of public law, including regulatory judicial review and local government law.  Prior to taking Silk in 2021, he was 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.  He has dealt with cases involving the law of consultation, legitimate expectation, human rights, equalities, mistake of fact, statutory and policy interpretation, procedural fairness, apparent bias, duty of sufficient inquiry, and all the traditional grounds of judicia review.  He has also frequently dealt with procedural issues such as standing, delay, costs protection, injunctions and the duty of candour.  

Recent and appellate cases include:

  • Gladman v SSHCLG & Corby BC & Uttlesford DC [2020] PTSR 993 (HC), [2021] EWCA Civ 104 (CA) – policy interpretation; statutory duties; reasons
  • DB Symmetry Ltd v Swindon BC [2021] PTSR 432 (CA) – statutory powers; human rights; proportionality; rationality; validity principle
  • Peel Investments v SSHCLG & Salford CC [2020] PTSR 503 (HC), [2021] PTSR 298 (CA) – policy interpretation; statutory duties; reasons
  • Compton PC v Guildford BC [2020] JPL 661 – policy interpretation; reasons; rationality; habitats assessment
  • Gladman v SSHCLG & Medway Council [2020] Env LR 7 – consultation; policy interpretation; procedural fairness; reasons; habitats assessment
  • Burgos & Amayo v SSHCLG & Haringey LBC [2019] EWHC 2792 (Admin) – human rights; equalities; reasons
  • R (Berks, Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Trust) v SSfT [2019] EWHC 1786 (Admin) – consultation; environmental/habitats assessment
  • Wavendon Properties v SSHCLG [2019] PTSR 2077 – procedural fairness; policy interpretation; disclosure; reasons
  • South Glos DC v SSHCLG & Welbeck [2019] EWHC 181 (Admin) – policy interpretation; reasons
  • Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland (No 2) [2019] UKSC 1 – devolution; statutory interpretation; governmental powers
  • Swale BC v SSHCLG & Maughan [2019] JPL 574 – policy interpretation; reasons
  • Re Sands’ Application for Judicial Review [2018] NIQB 80 – statutory duties; policy interpretation; reasons; environmental/habitats assessment
  • St Modwen Developments v SSCLG [2018] PTSR 746 (CA) – policy interpretation; mistake of fact; rationality; reasons
  • Suffolk Coastal DC v SSCLG & Hopkins Homes [2017] 1 All ER 1011 (CA), [2017] 1 WLR 1865 (SC) – governmental powers; statutory interpretation; policy interpretation 
  • Old Hunstanton PC v SSCLG [2017] JPL 205 (CA) – policy interpretation; reasons
  • Broadview Energy Developments v SSCLG [2015] JPL 1355 (HC), [2016] JPL 1207 (CA) – bias; apparent bias; procedural fairness
  • R (Dillner) v Sheffield CC & Amey [2016] Env LR 31 (HC), [2016] EWCA Civ 977 (CA) – consultation; legitimate expectation; procedural fairness; statutory interpretation; local government powers; environmental assessment
  • Howell v SSCLG [2014] EWHC 3627 (Admin), [2015] EWCA Civ 1189 (CA) – statutory interpretation; statutory duties; policy interpretation; reasons 
  • Koumis v SSCLG [2013] JPL 215 (HC), [2015] JPL 682 (CA) – statutory interpretation; reasons; nullity
  • Manchester Ship Canal v United Utilities [2014] 1 WLR 2576 (SC) – statutory interpretation
  • R (Eaton) v Natural England [2013] Env LR 37 (CA) – Aarhus Convention; costs protection; injunction; biodiversity
  • Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors [2011] RTR 1 (CA) – procedural fairness; statutory interpretation; rationality

Environmental law

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

Richard’s clients have included regulators such as Defra, 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.  

Linked to his wide-ranging environmental law practice, Richard has experience in advising on and litigating environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, including climate change, emissions trading, biodiversity, and business and human rights.  He has advised the UK government on international climate, environmental and biodiversity treaty obligations and advised funders on the environmental assessment of infrastructure projects in west and southern Africa.  

Richard’s experience of climate change legislation goes back to 2007-2008, when he undertook advisory and drafting work on the Climate Change Bill.  He has particular experience of climate change risk assessment and climate litigation risk management, including in relation to implementing the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations and the Equator Principles (EP4).  He has acted in a number of contentious climate change cases for BEIS, HM Treasury and UK Export Finance.  

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] 1 WLR 4411, [2015] Crim LR 739.  

Infrastructure consenting

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 has provided strategic advice on a variety of infrastructure schemes, including on road and rail schemes for DfT and on flood management schemes for the Environment Agency, including the Oxford flood alleviation scheme, the new Thames Barrier and the River Thames scheme.  Richard successfully promoted the £100 million Boston flood barrier TWA Order for the Environment Agency at inquiry.  

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 has advised Highways England on issues arising from a number of DCO and TWAO schemes.  Richard has also advised the Secretary of State on legal issues in relation to rights of entry and the acceptance and examination of a number of DCO applications.  

Compulsory purchase

Richard has extensive experience of compulsory purchase, including defending and challenging compulsory purchase instruments in the High Court, and advising and representing numerous CPO promoters (including housing, planning and highway authorities and utilities companies), CPO objectors (including Transport for London and businesses) and CPO development partners.  He has advised the Environment Agency on a number of compulsory purchase and rights matters, and various statutory undertakers on their works powers.  In recent years, Richard successfully promoted housing, highways, planning, flood defence 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, vesting, material detriment, accommodation works, temporary possession, the Crichel Down rules, purchase notices and blight notices.  

Richard appeared for the successful respondent in Anixter v SSfT, in both the Tribunal ([2019] 1 P&CR 16) and the Court of Appeal ([2020] 1 WLR 2547), concerning the general vesting declaration regime, expiring tenancies and material detriment.  He successfully defended the CPO in the High Court in Burgos & Amayo v SSHCLG & Haringey LBC [2019] EWHC 2792 (Admin).  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.

Land valuation and compensation

Richard has very considerable experience of disputes relating to land valuation and compulsory purchase compensation.  Richard has been instructed in Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber 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 up to £70 million in compensation for compulsory purchase was in dispute.  

Richard has also represented claimants in compensation cases, including businesses such as Homebase, Moto and Esso, as well as developers, investors, 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, rule 6 disturbance, business losses, business 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, Elitestone v National Grid Gas [2015] RVR 392, and 599 Developments v NNB Generation [2020] RVR 64 on Hinkley Point C.  

Richard represented the Secretary of State in Harringay Meat Traders v SSCLG [2013] PTSR 436, a High Court challenge to a decision on a certificate of appropriate alternative development appeal.  

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.  

Agriculture and rural affairs

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 & Cousins on Commons and Greens (3rd edition, 2020) published by Sweet & Maxwell.  

Richard has experience of countryside law, and has advised Natural England 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 advised Natural England on the establishment of the South Downs National Park Authority and on national park and AONB management issues.  Richard represented 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.  

Planning law

Richard’s practice includes a significant element of planning law.  Richard regularly advises on and appears in public law challenges to planning decisions, for claimants, defendants and interested parties.  This includes judicial reviews, challenges to planning appeal decisions under s288, and local plan challenges under s113.  He has particular experience of litigation relating to the interpretation of the NPPF, housing land supply, and environmental and habitats assessment.  Richard’s advisory work for MHCLG included legislative reforms, special development orders, local plan intervention, propriety matters, a wide variety of planning casework decision-making, and the OxCam Arc.  

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.  

Northern Ireland

Richard is a full member of the Bar Library in Belfast, having been called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013.  He has advised a number of local authorities on both development management and development plan matters, including Mid Ulster DC, Fermanagh & Omagh DC and Derry City & Strabane DC.  He has appeared before the Judicial Review Court and the Planning Appeals Commission.  Richard appeared for the applicant in the judicial review case of Re Sands [2018] NIQB 80 and represented Chris Murphy in his application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court in relation to the construction of the A6.  He also appeared for the Alternative A5 Alliance in their 2016 judicial review of the programme for government, the 2016 roads inquiry, the 2017-2018 High Court challenge, and their intervention in the Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland (No 2) [2019] UKSC 1.  Richard is currently instructed, with Gregory Jones QC, in a judicial review of three mineral prospecting licences.  Richard is a member of the Northern Ireland Planning Bar Association and the Environmental and Planning Law Association of Northern Ireland.

Arbitration and mediation

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

 

Cases

  • Gladman v SSHCLG & Corby BC & Uttlesford DC [2020] PTSR 993 (HC), [2021] EWCA Civ 104 (CA)
  • DB Symmetry Ltd v Swindon BC [2021] PTSR 432 (CA)
  • Peel Investments v SSHCLG & Salford CC [2020] PTSR 503 (HC), [2021] PTSR 298 (CA)
  • Anixter v SSfT [2019] 1 P&CR 16 (LT), [2020] 1 WLR 2547 (CA)
  • R (Swire) v SSHCLG & Ashford BC [2020] Env LR 29, [2021] JPL 86
  • Compton PC v Guildford BC [2020] JPL 661
  • Gladman v SSHCLG & Medway Council [2020] Env LR 7
  • 599 Developments v NNB Generation Co [2020] RVR 64
  • Burgos & Amayo v SSHCLG & Haringey LBC [2019] EWHC 2792 (Admin)
  • Wavendon Properties v SSHCLG [2019] PTSR 2077
  • R (Berks, Bucks & Oxon Wildlife Trust) v SSfT [2019] EWHC 1786 (Admin) (led by Andrew Tait QC)
  • South Glos DC v SSHCLG & Welbeck [2019] EWHC 181 (Admin)
  • Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland (No 2) [2019] UKSC 1 (led by Gregory Jones QC)
  • Swale BC v SSHCLG & Maughan [2019] JPL 574
  • Highways England v Information Commissioner [2018] UKUT 423 (AAC)
  • 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) (HC), [2018] PTSR 746 (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 Gregory 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 Gregory 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)
  • MMC v HMRC [2008] V&DR 176; [2009] EWHC 683 (Ch), [2009] STC 1969 (led by Craig Howell Williams 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)
     

Qualifications & Appointments

  • Called to the Bar of England and Wales (2003; QC 2021)
  • Called to the Bar of Northern Ireland (2013)
  • Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
  • Former member of the Attorney General’s Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown (A Panel 2016-2021; B Panel 2014-2016; C Panel 2008-2013)
  • Former Chairman of the Compulsory Purchase Association (2012-2013)
  • Member of the Committee of the Administrative Law Bar Association
  • Member of the Committee of the Planning and Environment Bar Association
  • Member of the Planning Court Users’ Group
  • Member of the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber Users’ Group
  • 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 UK Environmental Law Association, the Northern Ireland Planning Bar Association, the Environmental and Planning Law Association of Northern Ireland, the Compulsory Purchase Association and the National Infrastructure Planning Association.  

Richard is the General Editor of the Compulsory Purchase & Compensation Service (Bloomsbury Professional) and co-editor of The Law of Compulsory Purchase (Bloomsbury Professional, 2018) and Gadsden & Cousins on Commons and Greens (Sweet & Maxwell, 2nd edition 2012 and 3rd edition 2020).  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.  
 

 

Events

Court room
Webinar: Acting for Interested Parties and Interveners in Judicial Review

Webinar from 1.00 - 2.15pm.

Chairman: Richard Honey QCSpeakers: Hereward Phillpot QC and Jasveer Randhawa (Herbert Smith Freehills). 

More
Planning image
Webinar: Public Law Principles - Planning

Webinar from 2.00 - 4.00pm.

Topics and Speakers

Principles in relation to planning judicial reviews – Melissa Murphy

Grounds for judicial review of planning permissions – Richard Honey QC

Judicial review procedure - Conor Fegan

Planning Committees - Gregory Jones QC and Jonathan Welch

More