Angelica Rokad

Planning

Angelica receives regular instructions as sole Counsel to represent parties at Inquiry-level, as well as to draft Pre-Action Protocol Letters and grounds of appeal in respect of planning judicial review claims in the High Court. In addition to her busy paperwork practice, she frequently prosecutes planning and housing matters on behalf of Local Authorities, which include: first appearances; full trials; sentencing hearings and advising on confiscation proceedings in both the Crown and the Magistrates’ Court.

In addition, she also has a busy paperwork practice, and has advised a range of individuals in relation to: GDPR rights; prior approval; pre-application discussions; “fall back”; curtilage and the extent of a listed building; purchase notices; common land; listed buildings and frequently provides advice for individuals seeking to judicially review decisions to grant permission.
Angelica is ranked as a “Rising Star” in Planning by Legal 500 (2025).

Specific examples of her planning work include:

• Instructed on behalf of the Prosecuting Authority in relation to a six-handed planning prosecution involving breaches of two planning enforcement notices and stop notices associated with the use of an “illegal bar” in a well-known London site (reported in Hackney Gazette , Enfield Independent , This is Local London – case ongoing);

• Instructed on behalf of a Local Authority seeking advice on whether politicised art murals fell within the definition of an “advertisement” under section 224 of the TCPA 1990 (reported in BBC );

• Prosecuted Tesco Stores Ltd in respect of five charges for failure to comply with a planning enforcement notice (reported in Local Government Lawyer , Planning Resource , The Planner Magazine );

• Instructed on behalf of the successful District Council to defend an adverse possession claim for unregistered land which involved registered common land subject to a scheme made under the Commons Act 1899 prohibiting disclosure which involved the novel question of whether common land can be made subject to a claim for adverse possession, where the Claimant sought to claim possession of a carpark;

• Instructed on behalf of the prosecuting Local Authority in respect of a legal argument concerning whether a freeholder can be prosecuted for breach of a planning enforcement notice on the basis that section 179(4) of the 1990 Act referred to ceasing “activity”;

• Instructed on behalf of a Rule 6 party in relation to enforcement notices issued for 14 plots in the Roydon Lodge Chalet Estate for a multi-day planning inquiry (reported in Epping Forest Guardian) ;

• Instructed on behalf of the Environment Agency in respect of a planning appeal made in relation to a large-scale development sought in a high flood risk zone situated in and around the Burghfield lakes;

• Instructed on behalf of the Local Authority in two conjoined planning appeals which required the Inspector (amongst other matters) to consider the meaning of the phrase “as originally designed” in relation to development sought in the back garden of a dwelling;

• Instructed on behalf of the Appellant, as junior to Anne Williams, for a major application to build a £25m sports ground, to include: a new all-weather running track, sports centre extension, a floodlit 3G sports pitch and uniquely, an Exploratorium. The Council was required to reconsider its original refusal to the scheme and subsequently resolved to grant consent (reported in Sussex World) ;

• Instructed on behalf of the Claimant, as junior to Anne Williams, in Smith v (1) SOSLHC (2) The London Borough of Hackney [2022] EWHC 3209 (Admin), a landmark section 288 planning appeal before Kerr J in which it was held that the Planning Inspectorate’s APO model was unlawful and in applying it, the Inspector determining the appeal had unlawfully delegated his decision to a junior, and more inexperienced and unqualified employee (reported in Planning Resource , Local Government Lawyer ).

In addition, she also has a busy paperwork practice, and has advised a range of individuals in relation to: GDPR rights; prior approval; pre-application discussions; “fall back”; curtilage and the extent of a listed building; purchase notices; common land; listed buildings and frequently provides advice for individuals seeking to judicially review decisions to grant permission.

Angelica is ranked as a “Rising Star” in Planning by Legal 500 (2025).

Environment

Angelica’s recent instructions include advising and appearing in Court in relation to cases touching on: residential fly-tipping; breach of planning enforcement notices; unauthorised work to listed buildings; protecting rights to the “quiet enjoyment” of land and appealing abatement notices.

Specific examples of her environmental work include:

• Instructed on behalf of the successful Appellant, a well-known travel company, in respect of an abatement notice which had the effect of shutting down its operations across a popular holiday park due to alleged noise levels and complaints received by local neighbours;

• Instructed on behalf of a local resident experiencing noise and vibration caused by a statutory undertaker implementing permitted development rights, to advise on issuing proceedings for an urgent interim injunction and statutory nuisance proceedings;

• Instructed to advise and defend a longstanding environmental campaigner for proceedings brought against her by a Local Authority for breach of an abatement notice; following trial, she was acquitted based on the “reasonable excuse” defence being made out (reported in The Local Government Lawyer) ;

• Instructed to prosecute a statutory nuisance claim on behalf of a local residents of a narrowboat moored on the Grand Union Canal in West London complaining of noise and vibration against the nationwide operator, Lloyd Fraser Logistics and the landlord, SEGRO Plc; following the issue of proceedings and pre-trial, the nuisance was abated;

• Instructed to advise and draft representations on behalf of the successful business whose waste exemption was to be deregistered, following complaints of nuisance and a suggestion that the relevant waste operation did not fall within the exemption permitted for wood burning. Following written representations, the concerns were withdrawn, and the exemption retained;

• Instructed on behalf of the Local Authority to prosecute multiple fly-tipping offences and obtain a Criminal Behaviour Order upon conviction (reported in Epping Forest Guardian) .

Regulatory & Inquests

Angelica has considerable experience advising and acting for clients across a range of other regulatory work, including licensing work. She has recently been appointed as a member of the Attorney-General’s Regulatory List (B Panel).

Specific examples of her work include:

• Instructed to successfully defend an appeal brought by a licence holder following a urgent review by Merseyside Police, after a stabbing which took place at the premises (reported in BBC , The Liverpool Echo , Liverpool World );

• Instructed to defend proceedings brought by a Local Authority against a well-known restaurant in relation to fire safety breaches alleged to involve risk to life;

• Instructed by the Local Authority to prosecute multiple unlawful eviction and unlawful harassment charges against a landlord. Having advised on the matter at an early stage, and following a six day trial, the Jury returned guilty verdicts on all four counts on the indictment (reported in Chelmsford City Council , Nearly Legal)

• Advising on the merits of a statutory nuisance claim against TfL in relation to vehicle noise emitted from premises and in a street under section 79(1)(g) and (ga) of the EPA 1990;

• Instructed by the successful licence-holder, a well-known Grade II venue to defend an appeal brought by a person aggrieved against the granting of a premises licence;

• Instructed by the Local Authority to defend an appeal made against the granting of a premises licence for a well-known seaside establishment in Kent;

• Instructed to defend a food business operator in relation to a food safety prosecution brought by a Local Authority involving breaches of gas safety regulations.

Angelica has also been instructed in several inquests, including with a Jury, and is well versed in Article 2 submissions. Specific examples of her work include:

• Appearing for a Police force in an Article 2 inquest touching upon the death of an individual not detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (reported in Kent Online: https://www.kentonline.co.uk/maidstone/news/inquest-jury-finds-dad-intentionally-stepped-in-front-of-l-301777/)

• Appearing for a Police force in an Article 2 inquest touching upon the death of a vulnerable adult which considered the actions of officers in the Force Control Room upon her being reported missing;

• Appearing for a Police force in an inquest touching upon the death of a vulnerable adult which considered the handling and co-ordination of a missing persons investigation in circumstances where the deceased was found by family members, and not the investigating force;

• Appearing for a Police force in an Article 2 inquest touching upon the death of a vulnerable adult which considered whether miscommunication between separate forces in searching for him was causative of his passing.

Employment & Disciplinary

Angelica has a growing employment practice and receives regular repeat instructions to represent both Claimants and Respondents both in the Employment Tribunals and in the Employment Appeal Tribunal. She also has experience of employment crossover disputes, recently appearing as sole Counsel in the High Court in relation to a claim for injunctive relief following a claim issued against former employees relating to breach of restrictive covenants.

She has experience of multi-day breach of contract, unfair dismissal and discrimination claims – the latter of which she has a particular interest in – having volunteered for the Free Representation Unit (FRU) as an Employment Tribunal Representative. During her time with FRU, Angelica acted pro bono at full contested trials on behalf of individuals without access to legal representation.

Specific examples of her work include:

• Advising the Respondent in respect of strike out hearing based on a failure to file claims of high profile and historic racial discrimination within the limitation period – following the filing of a skeleton argument, the Claimant withdrew all claims, in full;

• Represented a solicitor, advising on representations that should be made following an investigation initiated for allegations of gross misconduct– following the intervention, the disciplinary hearing was dropped in full, and employment continued;

• Represented the successful Appellate in EAT proceedings who sought to overturn an order from the Employment Tribunal that the COT3 agreement signed at judicial mediation could not be set aside – the Respondent conceded the point, and the matter was remitted back for redetermination;

• Advising a local authority on pre-termination negotiations and the process to be followed in line with the ACAS Code of Conduct for a dismissal as a result complex allegation of gross misconduct and in circumstances where the employee was off sick due to stress;

• Instructed for the Appellant in an appeal against an improvement notice issued by the HSE – following negotiations, the HSE agreed to withdraw the notice in full on the first day of the appeal;

• Acted for the Respondent, a well-known hotel brand and public listed company in defending a claim for unfair dismissal following a redundancy made during the Covid-19 pandemic;

• Instructed by the Respondent, a well-known electrical company, in persuading the Tribunal to apply a 100% Polkey reduction following a finding of unfair dismissal in respect of an employee who was summarily dismissed from employment, but denied an appeal – as a result, no compensation was ordered to be paid;

• Instructed by the director Claimant of a well-known food manufacturer in respect of hearing concerning employment status – the case settled shortly after the hearing;

• Acted for the successful Claimant on a multi-day claim, involving a gross misconduct dismissal, where the allegation concerned hitting a child. Following cross-examination, the Tribunal unanimously concluded that the Claimant did not carry out the act in question and her claim for wrongful dismissal succeeded (reported in Metro );

• Acted for the successful Claimant in claim against an international inflight entertainment company, involving the unlawful deduction of wages following a failure to obtain written agreement from the employee to the UK furlough scheme. The Tribunal also upheld the Claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal, holding that the Respondent had “entirely failed to provide the Claimant with a fair process”, notwithstanding the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the airline industry;

• Instructed by the Respondent, the UK’s largest independent bulk liquid storage company, in successfully defending a multi-day claim for unfair dismissal. Following the hearing, an application for costs was made on the basis that the Claimant’s pleaded case, drafted by his solicitors, varied substantially from his answers given in cross-examination, with a large part being conceded before the conclusion of the trial;

• Acted for the Respondent in persuading the Tribunal to apply a 100% Polkey reduction and a finding of 85% contributory fault in respect of an unfair dismissal claim involving multiple breaches of the ACAS Codes of Practice;

• Acted for the successful Claimant in establishing employment status and succeeding in his claim for unfair dismissal following a breakdown of a personal relationship between the parties;

• Instructed by the successful Claimant on a multi-day unfair dismissal claim against a UK University;

• Instructed for the Respondent in a claim involving dismissal of an employee for gross misconduct, following a death in a care home. Successfully defended the substantive unfair dismissal claim and persuaded Tribunal to apply a 60% Polkey reduction, following a finding of procedurally unfair dismissal;

• Instructed to draft Grounds of Complaint on behalf of a Claimant who sought to claim unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages against an international news broadcasting corporation and a celebrity news presenter.

• Instructed on behalf of the successful Claimant who sought to resist a claim of litigation privilege over emails which had been obtained in breach of his employer’s internet policy, but which directly discussed his ‘exit’ from the company.

Angelica also has an interest in representing students facing disciplinary hearings. In one case, Angelica was instructed by the student Respondent on a final year medical course, accused of multiple allegations of sexual misconduct against three separate complainants.

• During the hearing several procedural errors were uncovered, including: the University unlawfully restricting the right to full and effective legal representation; combining substantive proceedings with fitness to practice proceedings, in breach of the relevant rules set down by the Office of the Independent Adjudicators for Higher Education; placing the burden of proof on the student to disprove the substantive allegations as opposed to the University; seeking to rely on hearsay evidence on witnesses not proposed to be called and without reference to the Respondent and adopting a definition of “sexual harassment” which prohibited the Respondent relying on a “reasonable belief in consent”, which would have been available if the matter was before a criminal Court;

• Having addressed those matters, the University accepted that the procedure would require modification. The Respondent’s defence was that the complainants had colluded in making these allegations and denied them in full;

• At the final hearing, the University resolved to make no findings against the Respondent and concluded that there was no case to answer for any of the allegations, including in respect of the fitness to practice hearing, and accordingly, the Respondent was able to return to finish his studies and complete his degree.

Recommendations

Awards

• Harmsworth Scholarship, Middle Temple Inn
• Shortlisted entry, The Law Society’s “Graham Turner Human Rights Essay Competition 2015”

Appointments

Attorney-General’s Regulatory List (B Panel)

CPS Level 1 Advocate Panel 2016-2020 (London and South-Eastern Circuits)

Publications

• Editor, Atkin’s Court Forms, Town And County Planning ACF (Volume 37(1) Issue)
• “The ambit of procedural fairness in closed material proceedings: Rahmutullah v Ministry of Defence [2017] EWHC 547 (QB) and K (and Others) v Secretary of State for Defence [2017] EWHC 830 (Admin)”, Civil Justice Quarterly, 2017
• “Appeal by witness: substantive and procedural landmines, breach of convention rights and the unusual case of Re W (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Non Party Appeal) [2016] EWCA Civ 1140”, Civil Justice Quarterly, 2018

Memberships

Employment Law Bar Association (ELBA)
Planning and Environmental Bar Association (PEBA)
UK Environmental Law Association (UKELA)

Languages

Spanish (conversational)

Education

• Law, University of Southampton (Upper Second Class)
• Masters of Law (Public Law), University College London (Distinction)
• Bar Professional Training Course, Kaplan Law School (Very Competent)

Latest news

Events