Jemima Lovatt

Administrative and Public

Jemima has a broad and growing practice in administrative and public law, acting in judicial review proceedings and statutory appeals across a range of contexts. Her work spans criminal justice, immigration and asylum, human rights, and public‑sector decision‑making, with experience advising both claimants and government departments. Jemima is frequently instructed in cases requiring careful analysis of procedural fairness, the duty of candour, disclosure obligations, and the proper limits of public authority decision‑making.

She combines clear, strategic advice with meticulous written work, and is trusted to handle matters involving sensitive material, privilege, and significant public interest considerations. Jemima’s experience includes appearing as sole counsel in the High Court, drafting grounds and skeleton arguments, advising on disclosure in complex group litigation, and managing high‑volume judicial review work on behalf of the Government Legal Department and the Home Office.

The following examples illustrate the breadth and depth of Jemima’s recent administrative and public law work.

R (on the application of CPS) v Maidstone Crown Court [2025] 4 WLUK 208 

Acted for the successful applicant in a judicial review of a circuit judge’s decision not to extend custody time limits. The High Court granted the judicial review, finding that the circuit judge had erred in law and that his decision regarding “good and sufficient cause” was a decision that no court acting reasonably could have reached. Jemima prepared the written grounds and skeleton argument as well as making the permission and substantive application in a rolled-up hearing before the High Court. The case was reported on Westlaw.

R (on the application of HS, MA and MYA) v SSHD (Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Successfully applied to strike out an application for judicial review before the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber.

MRU2025 v The District Council of Savanne [2024] SCJ 218
Advised an NGO in Mauritius, in seeking a judicial review of a local council’s decision to grant a building permit on one of the last preserved beaches in Mauritius, despite it being an area protected by the National Planning Policy. The applicant’s judicial review was refused for not being brought promptly. Jemima drafted an application to the Mauritius Supreme Court for permission to appeal and an application for special leave to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Jemima worked closely with the local NGO to understand complex expert reports on biodiversity and environmental harm in order to challenge the decision under review. This showed how the local authority’s decision to grant the planning permission was inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework thus giving rise to an arguable case for judicial review. Jemima also drafted arguments on how the decision breaches environmental regulation and human rights including the right to life because of the protections the beach provides against tsunamis and other natural disasters.

CAT v NYC

Advised the claimants and drafted the Pre-Action Protocol Letter in a proposed judicial review of a County Council’s decision to grant planning permission. The grounds advanced were: irrationality, the right to a fair hearing, that relevant considerations were not taken into account and because it the decision was incompatible with the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan, the District Local Plan and the NPPF. Ultimately the claimants decided not to launch due to the risk of adverse costs.

ML v MBC

Advised the claimant in a proposed judicial review against a Borough Council in respect of a decision to grant planning permission and associated infrastructure for failing to consider road safety. Initially the County Council objected to the plans but changed its position following an “Agreement” with the Borough Council. The Claimant made an FOI request in respect of the “Agreement” and sought to challenge the decision as unlawful and procedurally improper.

GLD OB Judicial Review Challenge

A judicial review concerning an immigration practice adopted by the Home Office. Jemima advised the GLD on disclosure issues arising from material including decision-making training documents, internal interview notes, witness statements, and ministerial submissions. Jemima carefully reviewed the material to identify documents that should be disclosed to the claimant group, as well as material protected by legal professional privilege and therefore exempt from disclosure. Jemima’s advice ensured that the duty of candour was fully complied with, while sensitive information and privileged communications were properly protected. This required balancing transparency and fairness to the claimant with safeguarding the integrity of government decision-making processes. Jemima took a structured approach, applying the principles underpinning the disclosure regime and PII to provide clear and reliable guidance to the instructing team.

Immigration appeals

Instructed in 30+ judicial reviews of immigration decision making by the Home Office. This includes providing merits opinions, drafting summary grounds and, where applicable, providing advice on costs.

Manston Human Rights Challenges

Instructed to draft annexe defences to claims brought under the Human Rights Act 1998 for breaches of Articles 1 Protocol 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the ECHR, for false imprisonment, trespass to the person and disability discrimination. Each case requires a detailed review of Home Office materials, taking instructions from immigration officers through the GLD team and clear drafting of the individual annexe defence for each claimant

Crime and Regulatory

Jemima has a busy and diverse practice across criminal and regulatory law, acting in serious, sensitive and complex cases in the Crown Court, specialist tribunals and regulatory proceedings. She is regularly instructed as sole counsel in trials involving allegations of sexual offences, violence, dishonesty and public protection issues, demonstrating strong courtroom advocacy, strategic case preparation and an ability to handle vulnerable witnesses with care and precision. Jemima has secured acquittals in cases prosecuted by King’s Counsel and in trials where identification, credibility, and evidential nuance were central to the jury’s determination.

Her regulatory practice spans health and safety, professional discipline, food hygiene and care‑sector compliance. She acts for regulators including the CQC, HSE and the RSPCA, delivering clear written advocacy, persuasive submissions and effective witness handling. Her work often involves analysing technical evidence, understanding organisational systems and applying the regulatory frameworks that govern workplace and professional standards. Jemima’s secondment to the Nursing and Midwifery Council further strengthened her regulatory expertise, giving her extensive experience in case presentation, interim orders work and the management of complex evidential material.

Across both criminal and regulatory matters, Jemima is valued for her meticulous preparation, incisive cross‑examination and confident courtroom presence. She brings a balanced and pragmatic approach whether defending individuals or acting on behalf of corporate bodies and regulators.

The following examples illustrate the range and depth of Jemima’s recent criminal and regulatory work.

R v OM (Northampton Crown Court):

Prosecuted by King’s Counsel, Jemima secured the unanimous acquittal of a defendant who faced two charges of rape, two charges of assault by penetration and one charge of sexual assault. The prosecution case included the complainant, a friend of the complainant who was present in a room near to the alleged incident and contemporaneous text messages reporting the alleged incident. Despite the strength of the case against the defendant, Jemima was able to undermine the credibility of the witnesses by drawing out their inconsistencies in cross examination and bringing the case for the defence together in her closing speech.

R v KD (Woolwich Crown Court)
Secured unanimous acquittals for all nine counts on the indictment. The allegations arose out of a relationship between KD and his former partner for whom he now acted as a carer. She had taken illegal drugs over the course of three days and made a number of false allegations during the withdrawal from those drugs. Jemima successfully undermined the credibility of the original allegations, her subsequent statement and the police investigation resulting in an acquittal after less than 90 minutes of deliberation.

R v AG (Woolwich Crown Court)
Successfully defended AG who was charged with robbery. The entire incident was captured on CCTV. The trial turned on the identification evidence given by a Police Officer who had stopped and searched the defendant 15 days prior, and who identified him in the CCTV based on his facial features and distinctive clothing. Following Jemima’s cross-examination of the Officer on the identity issue and after the directions in the summing up, the defendant was acquitted by the jury.

R v LF (Canterbury Crown Court)
Secured a conviction against LF who was prosecuted for kidnap and threats to kill. The complainant’s evidence was that he had willingly entered the vehicle but then the incident became a kidnap when LF made threats to kill. The complainant ultimately sought his escape by jumping from the vehicle whilst it was in motion but sustained no injuries. Despite these challenges in the prosecution case, Jemima successfully secured a conviction of LF.

R v LA (Isleworth Crown Court)
Prosecuted this complicated trial of issue where self-defence was raised based on comments made upon arrest and in interview. Despite this, Jemima successfully secured a conviction. Confidently dealt with the trial of issue procedure and disposal by way of a hospital order with restrictions under s.37 and 41 Mental Health Act 1983.

R v S
Under the supervision of Mark Watson KC, conducted a thorough review of the evidence for sentencing this corporate manslaughter case. I identified an additional aggravating factor in that the Defendant had failed to comply with crucial safety procedures and drafted this additional section for the prosecution sentencing note.

Sakthis Care Ltd v CQC [2025] UKFTT 1134 (HESC)

Successfully defended this appeal against the CQC decision to refuse the company’s application to register as a service provider with the CQC for regulated activities. Jemima drafted the summary grounds of defence and appeared for the CQC in the First Tier Tribunal Health, Education and Social Care Chamber (Care Standards) where she advocated the case through careful witness handling, compelling cross examination and an effective summing up.

The judgment is available here.

W Ltd v CQC

Acting for the CQC, successfully resisted an unusual application to strike out the Respondent’s Response to the appeal pursuant to rule 8(4)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Heath, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008. At short notice, delivered submissions on the real prospect of the Respondent’s opposition to the Appellant’s appeal succeeding drawing on the relevant caselaw.

HSE v B&O & SS

Instructed for the HSE in this prosecution brought under section 33(1)(c) and Scheule 3A of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. I provided an initial advice and am advising in the ongoing matter of pleas, a potential trial and disposal.

HSE v iS & M

Instructed for the HSE in this prosecution brought under section 33(1)(c) and Scheule 3A of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. I prepared an initial advice, a further advice following representations from the director defendant and the prosecution sentencing note as well as representing the HSE at the oral hearings.

Chelmsford City Council v Yue Tao Ltd
Prosecuted a sentencing hearing following the Defendant company’s guilty plea to two offences under Regulation 6(2) Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013. The Council was expecting a £5000 fine. I identified that a customer had suffered an anaphylactic shock, submitted that this aggravated the offending and secured a fine of £28,293. In addition, I successfully applied for a Hygiene Prohibition Order, such that the foot outlet had to close immediately.

RSPCA cases
Prosecuted a number of private prosecutions brought by the RSPCA for breaches of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

Nursing and Midwifery Council Secondment
Completed a six month secondment to the NMC, gaining significant prosecutorial experience in the regulatory sector. During this period, Jemima prosecuted 12 substantive cases and 29 interim orders. These cases required careful management of factual evidence arising from a workplace setting and a thorough understanding of the regulatory framework in order to demonstrate how the respondents had breached professional standards. This experience reinforced Jemima’s ability to
adapt to different legal contexts and deliver successful outcomes in regulatory prosecutions.

Environmental and Planning

Jemima has a developing practice in environmental and planning law, acting in matters that engage complex questions of land use, environmental protection, regulatory enforcement and community rights. Her work spans judicial review, statutory appeals and local authority prosecutions, involving issues such as biodiversity loss, coastal protection, sewage pollution, agricultural regulation and the operation of national planning frameworks. She has experience acting both for public bodies and for community groups and NGOs, giving her a balanced understanding of the competing interests that shape modern environmental decision‑making.

Jemima regularly handles cases requiring the interpretation of technical expert evidence, including environmental impact assessments, ecological reports and scientific data on pollution and natural hazards. She is adept at translating such material into clear legal arguments, whether challenging a planning decision, advising on potential civil and criminal liabilities, or supporting regulators in the enforcement of environmental obligations. Her work often involves grappling with procedural issues such as promptness, standing, remedies, disclosure and the appropriate standard of review in environmentally sensitive judicial review claims.

Her experience also includes advising government departments and regulators on specialist statutory regimes, from plant variety listing to water industry regulation. In all matters, Jemima brings rigorous analysis, precise written advocacy and a collaborative working style, particularly in cases involving local communities and expert stakeholders.

The following examples illustrate the breadth of Jemima’s environmental and planning law work.

MRU2025 v The District Council of Savanne [2024] SCJ 218
Advised an NGO in Mauritius, in seeking a judicial review of a local council’s decision to grant a building permit on one of the last preserved beaches in Mauritius, despite it being an area protected by the National Planning Policy. The applicant’s judicial review was refused for not being brought promptly. Jemima drafted an application to the Mauritius Supreme Court for permission to appeal and an application for special leave to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Jemima worked closely with the local NGO to understand complex expert reports on biodiversity and environmental harm in order to challenge the decision under review. This showed how the local authority’s decision to grant the planning permission was inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework thus giving rise to an arguable case for judicial review. Jemima also drafted arguments on how the decision breaches environmental regulation and human rights including the right to life because of the protections the beach provides against tsunamis and other natural disasters.

Water pollution action.
Assisting a community group on potential legal action to stop sewage deposits made by the area’s wastewater services into the coastal area. The community group are collecting complainants about sewage deposits from which potential avenues including public nuisance, private nuisance, a statutory nuisance action with the local authority or a judicial review of Ofwat’s decision making in relation to regulating the wastewater service will be explored. Jemima has provided advice on how these different areas of law function as well as the technical and legal requirements to bring an action.

CAT v NYC

Advised the claimants and drafted the Pre-Action Protocol Letter in a proposed judicial review of a County Council’s decision to grant planning permission. The grounds advanced were: irrationality, the right to a fair hearing, that relevant considerations were not taken into account and because it the decision was incompatible with the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan, the District Local Plan and the NPPF. Ultimately the claimants decided not to launch due to the risk of adverse costs.

ML v MBC

Advised the claimant in a proposed judicial review against a Borough Council in respect of a decision to grant planning permission and associated infrastructure for failing to consider road safety. Initially the County Council objected to the plans but changed its position following an “Agreement” with the Borough Council. The Claimant made an FOI request in respect of the “Agreement” and sought to challenge the decision as unlawful and procedurally improper.

 Chelmsford City Council v G&G

Prosecuted this fly-tipping trial for a city council. I advised on disclosure of audio recordings and managed challenges to their admissibility. By ensuring that the unused material schedule was properly considered and that disclosure was limited to relevant evidence, I protected the integrity of the case. The court accepted my submissions, the evidence was admitted and the defendants were convicted.

WNC & Whittlebury Village v Anglian Water
Under the supervision of Richard Banwell, drafted a research note on a proposed prosecution under section 111 Water Industry Act 1991 against a hotel in Whittlebury Village that is causing a smell through the discharge of effluent into public drains. Jemima advised on the merit of any potential action against Anglian Water.

Limagrain v National List; RAGT v National List
Under the supervision of Nicholas Ostrowski, wrote an advice for DEFRA on two appeals brought under the Seeds (National List of Varieties) Regulations 2001 and the Seed Marketing Regulations 2011. The two seeds had been rejected for admission onto the ‘national list’ and so their owners were seeking an appeal of that decision to the plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal, which had not sat since 1984. The Advice addressed how to constitute the Tribunal, its approach when it had last heard cases, whether it would conduct a review or a de novo hearing and the merits/weaknesses of these appeals.

Net Zero Judicial Review
Under the supervision of Christopher Bader, researched whether giving reasons can be a remedy to a judicial review of a government department’s decision not to publish risk assessments to support broader net-zero commitments. Jemima reviewed caselaw on procedural impropriety to analyse whether, if valid reasons were given, that could satisfy a judicial review.

Awards

– Churchill Fellowship (2025)
– Commonwealth Youth Awards Europe and Canada Winner (2022)
– Lincoln’s Inn Lord Denning Scholar (2019)
– Universal Peace Federation Award Winner (2019)
– Inspirational Women in Law Awards Finalist (2019)
– Royal Commonwealth Society Associate Fellow (2017)
– One Young World Carol Stone OBE Scholar (2016)
– University of London Society Shield Award (2016)
– Lincoln’s Inn Lord Brougham Scholar (2016)

Publications

“Chapter 4: Regulator Reform” in the “The Water Industry Group Summary and Analysis of the Report of the Independent Water Commission” (August 2025). Available here. Jemima was interviewed by the ENDS Report on her chapter.

“British Legal Reform” published by Bristol University Press in October 2024.

“Legal Privilege in Light of SFO v ENRC”, Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn, 2020.

UK Supreme Court Blog Case Comments on Reilly v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council [2018] UKSC 16; Re an application by Kevin Maguire for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2018] UKSC 17; Mitsui & Co & Ors v Beteiligungsgesellschaft LPG Tankerflotte MBH & Co KG & Anor [2017] UKSC 68; and R (Fore Care Homes Ltd & Ors) v Cardiff and Vale University Health Board & Ors [2017] UKSC 56.

Memberships

JUSTICE

UKELA

Appointments

• Attorney-General’s Regulatory List of Counsel (B List)
• CPS Panel Advocate Grade 3

Notable Cases

Criminal and Regulatory Law

R v OM (Northampton Crown Court):

Prosecuted by King’s Counsel, Jemima secured the unanimous acquittal of a defendant who faced two charges of rape, two charges of assault by penetration and one charge of sexual assault. The prosecution case included the complainant, a friend of the complainant who was present in a room near to the alleged incident and contemporaneous text messages reporting the alleged incident. Despite the strength of the case against the defendant, Jemima was able to undermine the credibility of the witnesses by drawing out their inconsistencies in cross examination and bringing the case for the defence together in her closing speech.

R v KD (Woolwich Crown Court)
Secured unanimous acquittals for all nine counts on the indictment. The allegations arose out of a relationship between KD and his former partner for whom he now acted as a carer. She had taken illegal drugs over the course of three days and made a number of false allegations during the withdrawal from those drugs. Jemima successfully undermined the credibility of the original allegations, her subsequent statement and the police investigation resulting in an acquittal after less than 90 minutes of deliberation.

R v AG (Woolwich Crown Court)
Successfully defended AG who was charged with robbery. The entire incident was captured on CCTV. The trial turned on the identification evidence given by a Police Officer who had stopped and searched the defendant 15 days prior, and who identified him in the CCTV based on his facial features and distinctive clothing. Following Jemima’s cross-examination of the Officer on the identity issue and after the directions in the summing up, the defendant was acquitted by the jury.

R v LF (Canterbury Crown Court)
Secured a conviction against LF who was prosecuted for kidnap and threats to kill. The complainant’s evidence was that he had willingly entered the vehicle but then the incident became a kidnap when LF made threats to kill. The complainant ultimately sought his escape by jumping from the vehicle whilst it was in motion but sustained no injuries. Despite these challenges in the prosecution case, Jemima successfully secured a conviction of LF.

R v L (Isleworth Crown Court)
Prosecuted this complicated trial of issue where self-defence was raised based on comments made upon arrest and in interview. Despite this, Jemima successfully secured a conviction. Confidently dealt with the trial of issue procedure.

R v S
Under the supervision of Mark Watson KC, conducted a thorough review of the evidence for sentencing this corporate manslaughter case. I identified an additional aggravating factor in that the Defendant had failed to comply with crucial safety procedures and drafted this additional section for the prosecution sentencing note.

Sakthis Care Ltd v CQC [2025] UKFTT 1134 (HESC)

Successfully defended this appeal against the CQC decision to refuse the company’s application to register as a service provider with the CQC for regulated activities. Jemima drafted the summary grounds of defence and appeared for the CQC in the First Tier Tribunal Health, Education and Social Care Chamber (Care Standards) where she advocated the case through careful witness handling, compelling cross examination and an effective summing up.

The judgment is available here.

 W Ltd v CQC

Acting for the CQC, successfully resisted an unusual application to strike out the Respondent’s Response to the appeal pursuant to rule 8(4)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Heath, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008. At short notice, delivered submissions on the real prospect of the Respondent’s opposition to the Appellant’s appeal succeeding drawing on the relevant caselaw.

HSE v B&O & SS

Instructed for the HSE in this prosecution brought under section 33(1)(c) and Scheule 3A of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. I provided an initial advice and am advising in the ongoing matter of pleas, a potential trial and disposal.

HSE v iS & M

Instructed for the HSE in this prosecution brought under section 33(1)(c) and Scheule 3A of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. I prepared an initial advice, a further advice following representations from the director defendant and the prosecution sentencing note as well as representing the HSE at the oral hearings.

Chelmsford City Council v Yue Tao Ltd
Prosecuted a sentencing hearing following the Defendant company’s guilty plea to two offences under Regulation 6(2) Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013. The Council was expecting a £5000 fine. I identified that a customer had suffered an anaphylactic shock, submitted that this aggravated the offending and secured a fine of £28,293. In addition, I successfully applied for a Hygiene Prohibition Order, such that the foot outlet had to close immediately.

RSPCA cases
Prosecuted a number of private prosecutions brought by the RSPCA for breaches of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

Nursing and Midwifery Council Secondment
Completed a six month secondment to the NMC, gaining significant prosecutorial experience in the regulatory sector. During this period, Jemima prosecuted 12 substantive cases and 29 interim orders. These cases required careful management of factual evidence arising from a workplace setting and a thorough understanding of the regulatory framework in order to demonstrate how the respondents had breached professional standards. This experience reinforced Jemima’s ability to
adapt to different legal contexts and deliver successful outcomes in regulatory prosecutions.

Environmental and Planning

CAT v NYC

Advised the claimants and drafted the Pre-Action Protocol Letter in a proposed judicial review of a County Council’s decision to grant planning permission. The grounds advanced were: irrationality, the right to a fair hearing, that relevant considerations were not taken into account and because it the decision was incompatible with the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan, the District Local Plan and the NPPF. Ultimately the claimants decided not to launch due to the risk of adverse costs.

ML v MBC

Advised the claimant in a proposed judicial review against a Borough Council in respect of a decision to grant planning permission and associated infrastructure for failing to consider road safety. Initially the County Council objected to the plans but changed its position following an “Agreement” with the Borough Council. The Claimant made an FOI request in respect of the “Agreement” and sought to challenge the decision as unlawful and procedurally improper.

Chelmsford City Council v G&G

Prosecuted this fly-tipping trial for a city council. I advised on disclosure of audio recordings and managed challenges to their admissibility. By ensuring that the unused material schedule was properly considered and that disclosure was limited to relevant evidence, I protected the integrity of the case. The court accepted my submissions, the evidence was admitted and the defendants were convicted.

Water pollution action.
Assisting, on a pro bono basis, a community group on potential legal action to stop sewage deposits made by the area’s wastewater services into the coastal area. The community group are collecting complainants about sewage deposits from which potential avenues including public nuisance, private nuisance, a statutory nuisance action with the local authority or a judicial review of Ofwat’s decision making in relation to regulating the wastewater service will be explored. Jemima has provided advice on how these different areas of law function as well as the technical and legal requirements to bring an action.

WNC & Whittlebury Village v Anglian Water
Under the supervision of Richard Banwell, drafted a research note on a proposed prosecution under section 111 Water Industry Act 1991 against a hotel in Whittlebury Village that is causing a smell through the discharge of effluent into public drains. Jemima advised on the merit of any potential action against Anglian Water.

Limagrain v National List; RAGT v National List
Under the supervision of Nicholas Ostrowski, wrote an advice for DEFRA on two appeals brought under the Seeds (National List of Varieties) Regulations 2001 and the Seed Marketing Regulations 2011. The two seeds had been rejected for admission onto the ‘national list’ and so their owners were seeking an appeal of that decision to the plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal, which had not sat since 1984. The Advice addressed how to constitute the Tribunal, its approach when it had last heard cases, whether it would conduct a review or a de novo hearing and the merits/weaknesses of these appeals.

Net Zero Judicial Review
Under the supervision of Christopher Bader, researched whether giving reasons can be a remedy to a judicial review of a government department’s decision not to publish risk assessments to support broader net-zero commitments. Jemima reviewed caselaw on procedural impropriety to analyse whether, if valid reasons were given, that could satisfy a judicial review.

Admin & Public Law

R. (on the application of CPS) v Maidstone Crown Court [2025] 4 WLUK 208
Appeared for the successful applicant in a judicial review of a circuit judge’s decision not to extend custody time limits. The High Court granted the judicial review, finding that the circuit judge had erred in law and that his decision regarding “good and sufficient cause” was a decision that no court acting reasonably could have reached. Jemima prepared the written grounds and skeleton argument as well as making the permission and substantive application in a rolled-up hearing before the High Court. The case was reported on Westlaw.

MRU2025 v The District Council of Savanne [2024] SCJ 218
Acting for MRU2025, an NGO in Mauritius, in seeking a judicial review of a local council’s decision to grant a building permit on one of the last preserved beaches in Mauritius, despite it being an area protected by the National Planning Policy. The applicant’s judicial review was refused for not being brought promptly. Jemima drafted an application to the Mauritius Supreme Court for permission to appeal and an application for special leave to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The case is ongoing.

R (on the application of HS, MA and MYA) v SSHD (Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
Successfully applied to strike out an application for judicial review before the Upper Tribunal of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber.

MRU2025 v The District Council of Savanne [2024] SCJ 218
Acting for MRU2025, an NGO in Mauritius, in seeking a judicial review of a local council’s decision to grant a building permit on one of the last preserved beaches in Mauritius, despite it being an area protected by the National Planning Policy. The applicant’s judicial review was refused for not being brought promptly. Jemima drafted an application to the Mauritius Supreme Court for permission to appeal and an application for special leave to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Jemima worked closely with the local NGO to understand complex expert reports on biodiversity and environmental harm in order to challenge the decision under review. This showed how the local authority’s decision to grant the planning permission was inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework thus giving rise to an arguable case for judicial review. Jemima also drafted arguments on how the decision breaches environmental regulation and human rights including the right to life because of the protections the beach provides against tsunamis and other natural disasters.

CAT v NYC

Advised the claimants and drafted the Pre-Action Protocol Letter in a proposed judicial review of a County Council’s decision to grant planning permission. The grounds advanced were: irrationality, the right to a fair hearing, that relevant considerations were not taken into account and because it the decision was incompatible with the Minerals and Waste Joint Plan, the District Local Plan and the NPPF. Ultimately the claimants decided not to launch due to the risk of adverse costs.

ML v MBC

Advised the claimant in a proposed judicial review against a Borough Council in respect of a decision to grant planning permission and associated infrastructure for failing to consider road safety. Initially the County Council objected to the plans but changed its position following an “Agreement” with the Borough Council. The Claimant made an FOI request in respect of the “Agreement” and sought to challenge the decision as unlawful and procedurally improper.

GLD OB Judicial Review Challenge

A judicial review concerning an immigration practice adopted by the Home Office. Jemima advised the GLD on disclosure issues arising from material including decision-making training documents, internal interview notes, witness statements, and ministerial submissions. Jemima carefully reviewed the material to identify documents that should be disclosed to the claimant group, as well as material protected by legal professional privilege and therefore exempt from disclosure. Jemima’s advice ensured that the duty of candour was fully complied with, while sensitive information and privileged communications were properly protected. This required balancing transparency and fairness to the claimant with safeguarding the integrity of government decision-making processes. Jemima took a structured approach, applying the principles underpinning the disclosure regime and PII to provide clear and reliable guidance to the instructing team.

Immigration appeals

Instructed in 30+ judicial reviews of immigration decision making by the Home Office. This includes providing merits opinions, drafting summary grounds and, where applicable, providing advice on costs.

Manston Human Rights Challenges

Instructed on behalf of the Home Office to draft annexe defences to claims brought under the Human Rights Act 1998 for breaches of Articles 1 Protocol 1, 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the ECHR, for false imprisonment, trespass to the person and disability discrimination. Each case requires a detailed review of Home Office materials, taking instructions from immigration officers through the GLD team and clear drafting of the individual annexe defence for each claimant.

Recommendations

“Jemima Lovatt demonstrated exceptional professionalism throughout the recent tribunal, demonstrating high-quality drafting skills and outstanding client care. She engaged in active listening to fully grasp and incorporate all instructions, which allowed her to present the case with persuasive clarity and achieve a successful outcome that upholds our regulatory standards. Her ability to navigate complex evidence while remaining approachable and responsive was invaluable. I would not hesitate to instruct her again.” – Instructing Solicitor

“We were fortunate to be represented by Jemima in a challenging tribunal case. Jemima presented a very clear, concise and knowledgeable case, taking on board our comments and clearly explaining the process that was being followed. It was apparent how much research had been undertaken by Jemima and the approach was highly professional. I would have no hesitation to recommend Jemima” – Director, Lay Client

“Jemima Lovatt represented the Care Quality Commission (‘CQC’) with exceptional professionalism throughout the recent tribunal, demonstrating high-quality drafting skills and outstanding client care. She engaged in active listening to fully grasp and incorporate all instructions, which allowed her to present the case with persuasive clarity and achieve a successful outcome that upholds our regulatory standards. Her ability to navigate complex evidence while remaining approachable and responsive was invaluable. I would not hesitate to instruct her again for future CQC matters.”

Lee-Ann Frampton-Anderson 

Senior Lawyer, Civil Litigation – CQC

“We were fortunate to be represented by Jemima in a challenging tribunal case.

Jemima presented a very clear, concise and knowledgeable case, taking on board our comments and clearly explaining the process that was being followed.

It was apparent how much research had been undertaken by Jemima and the approach was highly professional. I would have no hesitation to recommend Jemima”

Tracy Sibley

Deputy Director – CQC

“Jemima came on board a week before a 4-day Rape x 4 trial commenced at Northampton CC. Her attention to detail was spot-on, her ability to cut through inconsistencies in the Crown’s case was truly impressive. Her faultless preparation of the cross-examination questions, excellent communication with those instructing and of course formidable advocacy resulted in an acquittal on the indictment faced by the defendant remanded for over 8 months – highly recommended for serious sexual offences.”

Nyara Goonewardena

Solicitor – SVS Solicitors

“Jemima has recently been instructed by Bond Joseph for several trial matters at extremely short notice. Her communication has been exceptional, providing daily trial attendance notes, ensuring we were kept up to date with the latest developments. She received positive feedback from one of our more challenging clients, who described her as brilliant. I would not hesitate to instruct Jemima going forward and I look forward to working with her in the future.”

Joe O’Hara

Solicitor – Bond Joseph Solicitors

Latest news