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.

Featured cases list

Smith v (1) SOSLHC (2) The London Borough of Hackney [2022] EWHC 3209 (Admin)

• Instructed as Junior Counsel to Anne Williams, in 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.
• A link to the case can be found here

The Roydon Chalet Estate Appeal

• Instructed by a third party, a Parish Council, at a multi-day planning inquiry who sought to submit representations at a planning enforcement appeal submitted on a traveller site and pertaining to just under 10 plots principally on Grounds A and D.
• A link to the case can be found here

A Major Application

• Instructed by a group of residents who sought to oppose an application for a major application for planning permission at a development in a site, currently being used as garages (B8 use) to residential (C3) use for backland/backgarden development in a constrained site, with two Grade II listed buildings within 10 metres of the site;
• The written submissions addressed the application of the Local Plan and the impact on heritage/conservation as well as the principle of development, landscape and the impact on parking, amenity and transport.

S Homes v A London Borough

• Instructed by the successful Local Planning 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;
• The Inspector found (amongst other matters) that whilst the entire back garden as originally designed no longer existed, and the Local Plan envisaged that some sites may not fit squarely within the categories, as defined. Further, it was held that a more nuanced and considered approach was necessary when considering the principle of whether the proposed development would – or would not – be acceptable.
• A copy of the decision can be found here

Christ Hospital School Planning Inquiry

• Junior to Anne Williams, instructed on behalf of the successful applicant 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 application was refused several times over a two-year period primarily on landscape grounds. In addition, there was also considerable local objection. The School submitted a planning appeal following refusal of the scheme, as well as an application for costs, which was fixed to be heard at an Inquiry in November 2021. The Inquiry itself was scheduled to last several days with 7 expert witnesses being called to give evidence across a range of topics, including: heritage, landscape, lighting, noise and highways;
• Since the submission of the appeal, and in light of the additional landscape evidence, the Council was required to reconsider its original refusal to the scheme and subsequently resolved to grant consent;
• Links to the case can be found here.

W v Chelmsford City Council (Chelmsford Crown Court)

• 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.
• Links to media coverage of the case can be found here and here

Burfield Lakes Planning Inquiry

• Junior to William Upton QC acting on behalf of the Environment Agency (an interested party) at a multi-day planning inquiry in relation to a large scale development sought in a high flood risk zone;
• Links to the case can be found here

Opinion (LB v Local Authority)

• Advised on the merits of challenging a large scale residential development which had been included in Local Plans, amidst significant controversy.
• The Land sought to be appropriated for the development is currently subject to an Act of Parliament protecting its use as pleasure grounds for the benefit of the public.

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.

Featured cases list

A Company v A Local Authority

• Instructed on behalf of the 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.
• Following discussions with the Local Authority, undertakings were agreed and the notice withdrawn in full.

A Company v A Regulator

• Instructed to advise and draft representations on behalf of a 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.

D v Epping Forest District Council (Southend Magistrates’ Court)

• Instructed on behalf of the Local Authority to prosecute multiple fly-tipping offences and obtain a Criminal Behaviour Order upon conviction;
• Links to the case can be found here

S v London Borough of Harrow (Harrow Crown Court)

• Prosecuted a four-day breach of planning enforcement trial – subsequently obtained a guilty verdict and a fine of £24,000;

S v London Borough of Newham (Barkingside Magistrates’ Court)

• Instructed at sentencing hearing, following a guilty plea – subsequently obtained a fine of over £10,000.

Regulatory

• Currently instructed to draft representations and defend proceedings brought by a Local Authority against a well-known restaurant in relation to fire safety breaches alleged to involve risk to life;
• Currently instructed to prosecute a private statutory nuisance under section 82 of the EPA 1990 brought against a listed property development and a major distribution company;

• 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 to prosecute food safety offences for a Local Authority in relation to a well-known London business;

• 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;

• 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.

Employment

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 probono at full contested trials on behalf of individuals without access to legal representation.

Featured cases list

X v Y

• 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.

A Firm v An Associate

• 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.

L x A University

• 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.

A Local Authority v X

• 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.

X v HSE

• 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.

O v F

• 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.

S v F

• 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.

G v K

• 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.

AM v An Academy

• 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.
• A news report on the case can be found here

T v B

• 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.

P v N

• 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.

P v I

• 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.

A Director v A Director

• 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.

JP v A University

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

GD v A Care Home

• 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.

LB v A News Corporation

• 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.

MM v W 

• 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 is a case presenter for the NMC. In addition, she has an interest in representing students facing disciplinary hearings.

Featured cases list

A University Disciplinary Hearing

• Instructed by the Respondent, a University student 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.

Commercial

Angelica has experience of representing clients, both Claimant and Defendant, in small, fast and multi-track cases, case management hearings and appeals.

Featured cases list

LB v RVA (Central London County Court)

• Instructed on behalf of the Respondent, Lili Baston, and successfully resisted Appellant’s application to appeal judgment of the County Court;
• Click here for news coverage of the case.

M v EW Ltd Co (Milton Keynes County Court)

• Successfully set aside a judgment obtained in default, which had been escalated to the High Court for enforcement.
• The application was a complex one given that the Claimant sought to rely on the production of fraudulent documents by the Defendant, which was, in part, accepted by the Judge determining the matter.
• Angelica also secured a favourable costs order following the hearing.

M v V (Cambridge County Court)

• Successfully represented an applicant who sought an ex-parte interim civil injunction pursuant to the Protection of Harassment Act 1997, later upheld on the return date.
• Upon breach of the final injunction being proven, the respondent was duly imprisoned.

Crime

Angelica spent five months of her pupillage with Simon Taylor QC observing trials where the offences included manslaughter and kidnapping. She regularly appears in the Crown and Magistrates’ Court undertaking trials and in the Crown Court, prosecuting and defending committals for sentence and appeals against conviction and sentence.

Featured cases list

RSPCA v Davies

• Acted for the RSPCA in securing a ban and custodial sentence for a dog owner. Links to the case can be found in the Birmingham Mail and Express and Star 

R v C (Canterbury Crown Court)

• Advised client to appeal against a sentence of a 12 month DTO for multiple offences on the grounds that the Youth Court imposed an excessive sentence, in light of the mitigating factors which were present;
• On appeal, the Court were persuaded to impose a YRO ISSP instead of a custodial sentence, with immediate effect;
• A link to the case can be found here

R v S (Medway Magistrates’ Court)

• Secured an acquittal for a Defendant charged with four counts of assault by beating, where the Prosecution evidence included two independent witnesses. The Magistrates’ acquitted on the basis of inconsistencies outlined during cross-examination.

Kent Police v Grant (Folkestone Magistrates’ Court)

• Successfully obtained a final closure order of a premises, following a police operation to respond to antisocial behaviour linked to county line drug supply.
• See press report

R v Dabner (Canterbury Crown Court)

• See press report

Awards

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

Appointments

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