Stuart Jessop
Call: 2002
Direct access

Stuart is a highly regarded and experienced regulatory and public law specialist. His practice is deliberately broad and includes judicial review, statutory appeals, case stated, inquests, inquiries, appeals to the first tier and upper tribunal and criminal regulatory proceedings. His practice is focused on the following legal disciplines, food, feed, animal welfare, environment and environmental health, product safety and consumer law, licensing, health and safety, planning enforcement, highways, infrastructure, transport, and other local government generally. He is particularly known for his public law work challenging decisions and actions by regulators on behalf of companies as well as decisions of criminal courts, and tribunals where they affect commercial interests. Stuart has substantial experience of criminal cases, gained over many years of prosecuting and defending serious criminal allegations, particularly in regulatory crime, serious fraud and unfair trading. Invariably, he acts either alone or as leading counsel, against other experienced counsel or Queen’s Counsel in matters of complexity and importance. He is frequently instructed by companies of various sizes and in many different sectors, trade unions, trade associations, local authorities, and regulators. Much of his work involves significant issues of law and or fact and invariably very technical expert evidence.

He is ranked as a leading barrister in the legal directories in Licensing, Environmental, and Consumer Law.

Leading Individual
chambers logo

Administrative & public

Stuart’s practice is almost exclusively focused on cases which have, at their heart, decisions by public bodies, particularly regulatory and enforcement bodies, affecting companies, other organisations, or individuals in different ways. He acts for companies, individuals, and public bodies. He is regularly instructed to advise and act in relation to the bringing or resisting of judicial review claims, statutory appeals and appeals by way of case stated, as well as acting and advising in other public and administrative law matters generally. His judicial review practice covers a wide spectrum of decisions in a broad range of specialisms. Many of his cases are concerned with claims by companies against decisions by regulators as well as cases involving decisions made by local authorities and other enforcement bodies and regulators. Areas covered include commercial judicial review, food and feed regulation, food production and animal welfare, local government powers and governance, environment, environmental health, planning, highways, health and safety, anti-social behaviour, housing human rights and Article 1 Protocol 1 claims, and regulatory law generally. Stuart regularly advises in respect of local authority policies, powers and duties both for Councils and for organisations and individuals affected by those powers and policies. His local government experience is broad. He is instructed in housing, anti-social behaviour, licensing, planning and environment, food safety, health and safety, environmental health and is knowledgeable in local authority powers and decision-making.

Featured cases list

  • J v Welsh Ministers [2022]: acting for Claimant, drafted claim for JR of decision by the Welsh Minister to refuse an appeal in respect of farm subsidies arguing that the decision was made against the policy setting out how such appeals should be conducted. The Welsh Government withdrew the decision and restarted the appeal process afresh.
  • F Ltd v Secretary of Stare for DEFRA [2022]: acting for claimant on going judicial review of SoS decision re uphold an appeal by an animal by product operator against the suspension of his licence. SoS accepted decision was unlawful. Article 1 Protocol 1 damages claim still outstanding.
  • FHF LTD v FSA [2022]: acting for Claimant, on-going JR of FSA decisions concerning pet feed and the withdrawal of several well known pet feed brands. A1 P1 damages claim attached to the value of £7 million.
  • H v SoS for DEFRA [2022]: acting for Claimant, advice and drafting grounds in letter before action in respect of decisions concerning the breeding of cattle. Decision withdrawn on arguments being made.
  • W v FSA [2022]: on-going appeal to Upper Tribunal regarding the issue of whether a withdrawn decision ends the jurisdiction of the First Tier Tribunal in cases under the Welfare at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015. Decision awaited.
  • JL v Natural Resources Wales [2021]: acting for Claimant, advised police and drafted grounds for claim for judicial review of magistrates decision to accept jurisdiction to hear this prosecution for environmental offences.
  • S v FSA [2021]: acting for claimant, JR of FSA decision to unlawful seize and detain meat. Damages claim attached. FSA made out of court settlement to value of £250k.
  • HH Ltd v Neath Port Talbot [2021]: case stated appeal to the High Court in respect of Crown Court decision to dismiss the appeal against the service of a feed improvement notice – concerns the scope of the word “feed” and the applicability of the Animal by-product regulations.
  • L v Natural Resources Wales [2021]: JR of decision to allow a prosecution despite non-compliance with CPR and the case of Bakers of Nailsea v FSA.
  • Ward and others v FSA [2021]: Appeal to the Upper Tribunal against the FTT’s decision to allow the FSA to withdraw its decision to make another more onerous one whilst proceedings were extant before the tribunal (WATOK 2015) and the consequences for appellants in such circumstances.
  • LB Waltham Forest v SoS v Aldi Stores Ltd [2021]: written successful submissions to the Secretary of State regarding a Primary Authority’s decision to block a prosecution of Aldi Stores for food hygiene related offence.
  • LBWF v Thames Magistrates’ Court [2021]: Case stated to High Court regarding decision of court not to make a declaration pursuant to Regulation 8(10) of the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) regulations 2013.
  • D v HSE [2020]: advising national transport company and drafting grounds in a prospective judicial review of the HSE decision to serve a notice of contravention in respect of alleged COVID related breaches. The HSE withdrew the notice.
  • C v Coroner [2020]: advising on a judicial review of a coroner’s decision to compel evidence from two of the Claimants’ employees and the scope of the inquiry and relevance of the information sought.
  • S v FSA [2020]: representing the Claimant company in a Judicial Review of a Food Standards Agency decision to detain food without following the process set out in section 9 of the Food Safety Act 1990.
  • Ward and others v Food Standards Agency [2020]: judicial review of the lawfulness of the regulator’s decision to suspend three slaughtermen’s certificates of competence until the conclusion of criminal proceedings. Stuart represents the claimants in this on-going claim. Permission to proceed granted at a recent oral hearing.
  • Aboutboul v LB of Barnet [2020] EWHC 285 (Admin): case stated and then application for permission to bring claim for judicial review. Stuart represented the Respondent local authority in this appeal against the decision of a magistrates’ court in convicting the Appellant for failing to comply with a planning enforcement notice. The case concerned whether the notices were nullities and the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case.
  • R (On the application of Chesterfield Poultry Ltd) v Sheffield Magistrates’ Court [2019] EWHC 2953 (Admin): Stuart represented the company in its challenge to bring a prosecution under the Welfare at the Time of Killing (England) regulations 2015 arguing that the proceedings were out of time.
  • R (On the application of Beth Golding) v Crown Court sitting at Maidstone v Chief Constable of Kent [2019] EWHC 2029 (Admin): Stuart acted for the interested party, the Chief Constable of Kent. The claim was for judicial review of the crown court’s decision to make a civil destruction order of a pit-bull dog. Stuart successfully argued that the decision was not unlawful.
  • R (On the application of United Cabbies Group (London) Ltd) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court v TFL v LTDA v Uber London Ltd [2019] EWHC 409: Stuart represented (led by a Q.C.) the United Cabbie’s Group Ltd in their judicial review of the Chief Magistrates’ decision to grant them a new operator’s licence.
  • Farmer’s Fresh Ltd v FSA [2020] Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals): an appeal from the FTT (GRC) concerning whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an enforcement notice where it has already been withdrawn. Appeal on-going.
  • Balacescu v FSA [2020] Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals): appeal against the FTT’s decision to refuse an extension of time to appeal against a decision by the regulator to revoke a slaughterman’s licence.
  • BSG Ltd v LB of Haringey [2019] Stuart drafted grounds of claim for a judicial review against the decision of the local planning authority to serve a planning contravention notice under the Town and Country planning act 1990, on a landlord requiring information, when such a requirement was made after the landlord had entered not guilty pleas in respect an alleged breach of a planning enforcement notice. The authority decided to then withdraw the notice.
  • RH Meats Ltd v FSA [2019]: Stuart advised and drafted grounds of claim in this judicial review against the FSA’s alleged policy in respect of the duties of official veterinarians after contracted hours had expired.
  • Judicial review: Advising a resident’s group on the merits of bringing a judicial review against the local authority’s refusal to enforce against an unlawful development of a school on consecrated ground.
  • Case stated: Advising a local authority in respect of a decision by a magistrates’ court not to grant a Hygiene Emergency prohibition Order where it claimed there was no jurisdiction to do so. Stuart was able to produce authority for this decision being wrong and advised asking the court to remake the decision which was done. It did and granted the order.
  • Statutory Appeal to the High Court: Stuart was instructed to advise the local authority on an appeal by a large corporate (represented by Q.C.) against the making of a Road Traffic Order implementing a large Low Emission Zone in London.
  • Judicial review: advising a local authority in its response to a claim for judicial review of its selective housing licensing policy.
  • Advising a local authority on obtaining an injunction for anti-social behaviour against a vexatious resident conducting a course of harassment against the head of a school.
  • Judicial Review of a local authority’s decision to refuse to grant a licence for the Claimant’s music festival shortly before it was due to take place. Stuart acted on behalf of the Festival organiser.
  • Judicial Review of the Food Standards Agency’s decision not to grant approval for the Claimant’s abattoir on animal welfare grounds. Stuart acted for the company.
  • Judicial Review by a claimant seeking to challenge the local authority’s delegated power to bring a prosecution for a breach of planning enforcement notice and the significance of a failure to give reasons for prosecuting the director of the company. Stuart successfully represented the local authority at the oral permission hearing.
  • Acting for a local authority in resisting a claim for Judicial Review in respect of a certificate of lawful use in the context of consideration as to whether there had been compliance with a planning enforcement notice.
  • Advising a police force on the scope and meaning of section 196C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of a request by a local planning authority for police assistance on conducting planning enquiries on a site where other agencies were also present purporting to be acting under the Act.
  • A challenge to a magistrates’ court’s decision to allow an application by the defence in an environmental prosecution to stay the proceedings on the basis that the original proceedings had been dismissed for want of a prosecutor and the new proceedings were therefore unlawful.
  • A case concerning the power of the magistrates’ court to re-open civil proceedings in that court.
  • Advising a property development company on the merits of challenging a Breach of Condition Notice by way of Judicial Review
  • Advising an objector to a grant of planning permission the merits of challenging the decision alleged to be contrary to the local plan, by way of Judicial Review.
  • Advising and representing a Taxi Association in a challenge to a licensing authority’s proposed policy on granting new PHV and taxi licences.

Stuart has a long history of providing representation and advice to businesses and local authorities in relation to a wide variety of trading standards and consumer protection cases. Many cases have concerned trademark infringement and others under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations and related regulations as well as and fraud. He has a wealth of experience defending and prosecuting cases involving infringements to copyright or trademarks. He has lectured widely on the subject and has recently acted in cases where large scale breaches of the law resulted in proceedings against individuals and companies. He is therefore fully conversant with subsequent Proceeds of Crime applications that often follow such cases. Indeed, his background in financial crime and regulation enables him to offer a depth of experience to his clients, whether prosecuting or defending. He is ranked in the independent directories as a leading junior in consumer law.

Featured cases list

  • Defending farmers in large-scale cattle identification fraud
  • Defending an animal by-product operator in conspiracy to defraud by diverting animal waste into human food chain
  • Defending Food manufacturer in trading standard investigation into the misdescription of food
  • Defending in an on-going investigation into alleged fraud by farmers in respect of bovine ear tags [2021]
  • Representing an international food company investigated by T/S re alleged breaches of food law and fraud [2021]
  • Numerous food related cases (see Food Law section above)
  • Prosecuting a company and director under the REACH provisions for dangerous levels of Phthalates in children’s toys.
  • West Berkshire District Council v Andrews: Offences under the CPUTR (Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations).
  • West Berkshire District Council v. A: Trademark offences.
  • West Berkshire District Council v. R: Offences under CPUTR and fraud.
  • West Berkshire District Council v. C: Offences under CPUTR
  • Birmingham City Council v. C and T: Consumer Credit Act offences.
  • Birmingham City Council v. S and S: Consumer Credit Act offences.
  • Birmingham City Council v. T and others: Consumer Credit Act offences.
  • Birmingham City Council v. J: Consumer credit Act offences.
  • Birmingham City Council v G: Financial Services and Markets Act prosecution regarding unauthorised lending.
  • Hillingdon v ZL: Defending in the sentence and POCA proceedings of this prosecution for Trademark offences.
  • Advising a company which provides devices to assist the elderly and disabled, on an investigation by Trading Standards for offences under the CPUTR and also in respect of a restraint order made under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Environment

Stuart is a specialist environmental practitioner. He is appointed to the A list of the Specialist regulatory panel for the Environmental Agency prosecuting the most serious of environmental offences. He is the co-author of a book on environmental enforcement law and regularly speaks on environmental law. Stuart is ranked as a leading junior for Environmental Law in the Legal 500 2021 and 2022 editions.

He covers most environmental issues but has a interest in, environmental enforcement, environmental health, waste, water, contaminated land, climate change, species and habitats, environmental impact assessments, and nuisance.

Featured cases list

  • Stuart v LB of Bexley: Successfully represented a waste operator in a planning enforcement appeal
  • Environment Agency v EAR Ltd [2021]: defending waste operator in a prosecution for breaches of environmental permit
  • B&W Lounge v London Borough [2020]: appeal against an abatement notice for nuisance caused by noise
  • Advising a local authority on its legal duties and obligations in respect of a very large-scale development on contaminate land and nuisance from escaping gasses [2019-2020].
  • Advising a local authority on its obligations in respect of contaminated land [2019]
  • Prosecuting a waste company alleged to have allowed an oil spill to pollute a river [2020]
  • Defending a school in a prosecution by a water company for offences under the Water industry Act 1991 [2020]
  • Defending a school in proceedings for an abatement order under section 80 Environmental protection Act 1990 [2019]
  • Defending a waste company in respect of the unlawful depositing of controlled waste [2019]. Successful in reducing the amount of fine imposed on appeal.
  • Nuisance: representing a local authority in defending this appeal against the service of an abatement notice on a dairy and milk producer {2018].
  • Nuisance: successfully represented this restaurant and bar in challenging the service of an abatement notice [2018].
  • Nuisance: successfully represented a well know London pub in its challenge to the service of an abatement notice [2018].
  • Defending a waste company charged with waste offences and subsequent Proceeds of Crime proceedings [2018].

Food

Stuart is ranked as a leading junior by the Legal 500 legal directory in consumer law, mainly for his food law practice. Advice and representation are provided in cases relating to all breaches of the food safety and hygiene, labelling. Allergens, including prosecutions and other related public law in respect of the service of notices, under the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013 and all other food related regulations. He regularly acts for members of the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers (AIMS), particularly in respect of abattoirs, and for farmers and importers and transporters of livestock as well as those operators within manufacturing, wholesale and retail sectors in respect of food and feed. His work involves him taking cases against decisions by the FSA, APHA, and local authorities and covers criminal proceedings, civil proceedings in the criminal courts, administrative decisions, the tribunals, the High Court, and advisory work. He has a solid understanding of European and domestic legislation which underpins work in this area. He is a member of the Food Law Group and lectures widely on Food Law. He is often asked to advise companies and regulators in respect of investigations and decisions by local authorities, the Food Standards Agency or the APHA or where food regulation issues occur within civil proceedings. He is a specialist in all areas of food law, including health and nutrition claims, packaging and labelling, food information, human medicines, and animal welfare where is arises in food production. He acts for both the regulator and the regulated and has represented, or acted against, some well-known food business operators in the past.

Stuart is a contributor to “Consumer and Trading Standards Law and Practice The Pink Book 2022 edition – Food Law” 10th ed.

Featured cases list

  • J v Welsh Ministers [2022]: acting for Claimant, drafted claim for JR of decision by the Welsh Minister to refuse an appeal in respect of farm subsidies arguing that the decision was made against the policy setting out how such appeals should be conducted. The Welsh Government withdrew the decision and restarted the appeal process afresh.
  • F Ltd v Secretary of Stare for DEFRA [2022]: acting for claimant on going judicial review of SoS decision re uphold an appeal by an animal by product operator against the suspension of his licence. SoS accepted decision was unlawful. Article 1 Protocol 1 damages claim still outstanding.
  • FHF LTD v FSA [2022]: acting for Claimant, on-going JR of FSA decisions concerning pet feed and the withdrawal of several well known pet feed brands. A1 P1 damages claim attached to the value of £7 million.
  • H v SoS for DEFRA [2022]: acting for Claimant, advice and drafting grounds in letter before action in respect of decisions concerning the breeding of cattle. Decision withdrawn on arguments being made.
  • W v FSA [2022]: on-going appeal to Upper Tribunal regarding the issue of whether a withdrawn decision ends the jurisdiction of the First Tier Tribunal in cases under the Welfare at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015. Decision awaited.
  • JL v Natural Resources Wales [2021]: acting for Claimant, advised police and drafted grounds for claim for judicial review of magistrates decision to accept jurisdiction to hear this prosecution for environmental offences.
  • S v FSA [2021]: acting for claimant, JR of FSA decision to unlawful seize and detain meat. Damages claim attached. FSA made out of court settlement to value of £250k.
  • H v APHA (SoS) [2021]: application for interim relief re service of a notice under the Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations 2011.
  • Swansea T/S v K Ltd [2021]: advice in respect of seizure of large quantity of food and investigation into alleged food fraud and regulatory offences.
  • FH v FSA [2021]: on-going advice to company regarding large product recall of pet feed supplied to supermarkets and allegations of links to deaths of substantial number of cats.
  • HH Ltd v Neath Port Talbot BC [2021]: Appeal against the service of a feed improvement notice. Pending appeal by way of case stated. Appeared against Jonathan Kirk Q.C. and Lee Reynolds.
  • FSA v FF Ltd [2021]: prosecution of an abattoir for food safety offences. Arguments raised as to abuse of process and whether the involvement of third party in enforcement was lawful. Prosecution discontinued proceedings before trial.
  • FSA v T [2021]: defending in on-going prosecution of abattoir for alleged breaches of food safety and hygiene.
  • FSA v S [2021]: defending in on-going prosecution of abattoir for alleged breaches of food safety and hygiene.
  • Local authority v H and others [2021]: defending in prosecution for large scale fraud and offences alleging breach of regulations in respect of bovine ear tagging. Legal submissions made in respect of unfair trading regs led to withdrawal of those charges. Matter pending Crown Court trial.
  • F v APHA [2021]: appeal to SoS re animal by-products.
  • H and others v SoS (APHA) [2021]: interim injunction to prevent culling of goats and sheep under a notice served under The Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations 2011.
  • Bexley LBC v P v FPT [2021]: defending a prosecution of a school and catering company for food hygiene offences. Prosecution discontinued after legal submissions regarding jurisdiction.
  • LBWF v B [2021]: for the prosecution is case stated re Magistrates’ decision not to grant a declaration in respect of a Hygiene Emergency Prohibition Order.
  • Pub v Tower Hamlets [2021]: representing public house in respect of an application for a HEPO by the Council.
  • S v FSA [2020]: representing the Claimant company in a Judicial Review of a Food Standards Agency decision to detain food without following the process set out in section 9 of the Food Safety Act 1990.
  • FSA v H [2020]: successfully defended this company in a prosecution brought by the FSA under the Food safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013.
  • Bury BC v BD [2019]: successfully defended this meat wholesaler against alleged offences under the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013, of placing unsafe foods on the market and traceability.
  • FSA v J [2020]: currently defending this abattoir in a prosecution for alleged breaches of EU legislation is respect of food hygiene.
  • FSA v C [2019]: defending this company in respect of food hygiene allegations at its poultry production plant.
  • London Borough of Waltham Forest v L: currently prosecuting this individual food business operator for food safety offences [2020].
  • London Borough of Waltham Forest v Two Companies [2020]: successfully advised on an application to obtain an Emergency Hygiene prohibition Order (HEPO) refused by the magistrates’ court. Stuart advised asking them to revisit the decision with supporting authority to say it was unlawful, thus avoiding a costly case stated appeal.
  • Food Company v LB of WF [2020]: currently advising in resisting this appeal to the FTT by a company served with a notice under the Food Information Regulations [2014] and the food Information to Consumers (FIC) Regulations EC No 1169/2011, concerning information on packaging.
  • FSA v manager: on going advice in respect of a very large-scale investigation into alleged food fraud at a substantial food manufacturer [2019 – 2020]
  • P Foods Ltd [2019]: advising food manufacturer on regulatory aspects of a civil claim for breach of contract.
  • London Borough v Iceland Superstores [2018]: prosecuting for hygiene offences.
  • Borough Council v School: advising on food hygiene offences where the FBO was part of the relevant County Council [2018]. Powers of local authorities and issues of bias considered.
  • NMT v FSA [2018]: successfully appealed the regulator’s decision made under Article 31(2) (c ) EU Regulation 882/2004, not to grant conditional or full approval for the operation of the Appellant’s abattoir. Case also went to JR on a connected matter.
  • LB of Hillingdon v Poundland [2018]: acted for the local authority in this prosecution and sentence for offences under the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013.
  • Borough Council v Brewery [2018]: successfully represented this company and its two directors in a prosecution for food safety offences.
  • LB of Ealing v T [2017]: prosecution involving contamination of foods with salmonella.
  • 6 OZ Burger Ltd v Portsmouth City Council [2017]: regulation 8(10) of the Food Safety and Hygiene (England) Regulations 2013. This involved the service of a Hygiene Emergency Prohibition Notice (HEPN) in relation to the serving of ‘pink’ burgers and the LA seeking a declaration that, at the time the notice was served, the health risk condition (that there was an imminent risk to health) was satisfied.
  • Advice to a chain of bars in London regarding an interview by the local authority investigating allegations of Food Hygiene breaches. A detailed written response was drafted, and the matter resolved successfully [2017].
  • Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency v C: representing this company in an investigation by the regulator under the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 [2017].
  • Oxfordshire CC v D Ltd: defending a company in respect of allegations that it placed misleading information on labels on health supplements and made misleading claims about the products [2017].

Health & safety

Stuart is appointed on the A list of Specialist Regulatory Advocates for Health and Safety. He prosecutes and defends in the most serious of cases. He is often asked to advise at the investigative stages in relation to Inspector’s powers, questioning, providing information and other issues and can deal with the service and appeal of notices. He has expertise in and experience of dealing with the various regulations that arise in such proceedings and has dealt with cases arising in the construction and manufacturing industries and in retailing, hospitality and others. In addition, he has conducted a substantial amount of work in fire safety cases. He is also instructed to advise and represent clients at inquests. Stuart lectures on health and safety generally and has provided several seminars on the sentencing guidelines to business and local authorities.

Featured cases list

  • Prosecuting a national rail engineering operator for health and safety offences resulting serious electrocution of non-employee
  • Local authority v P [2021]: defending landlords in respect of a prosecution for fire safety offences and HMO offences in proceedings in both the magistrates’ court and crown court. Stuart raised various legal arguments including abuse of process which led to all 7 charges being withdrawn and a successful award against the council for costs.
  • advising a company in respect of its evidence given to the Grenfell Inquiry.
  • D v HSE [2020]: advising national transport company and drafting grounds in a prospective judicial review of the HSE decision to serve a notice of contravention in respect of alleged COVID related breaches. The HSE withdrew the notice.
  • C v Coroner [2020]: advising on a judicial review of a coroner’s decision to compel evidence from two of the Claimants’ employees and the scope Of the inquiry and relevance of the information sought.
  • HSE Inspector v H Ltd [2020]: prosecution of this company for breaches of section 2 and 3 Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, for an explosion causing life threatening injuries.
  • Council v Restaurant [2020]: on-going prosecution for health and safety offences and offences in respect of a restaurant involving sections 2 and 3 of the HSWA 1974, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 (MHSWR 1999) and the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) 1998.
  • HSE v Boat Company [2020]: representing and advising this company in respect of an investigation into a serious injury occurring at the company’s factory.
  • Advising a local authority on its powers and obligations in respect of a large derelict site where significant amounts of asbestos was located [2019].
  • HSE v C: sentence for a company that pleaded guilty to several serious breaches under the Act as well as fire safety breaches.
  • HSE v B: represented the defendant on his plea to offences under the HSW Act and offences under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.
  • London Borough of Enfield v M Ltd [2019]: prosecution of a company (regarding chemicals in plastic toys) under the REACH Regulations, EC Regulation 1907/2006.

Inquests & inquiries

Stuart has experience of inquests (including Article 2) particularly where health and safety at work issues arise.

Featured cases list

  • Judicial review of a coroner’s decision in respect of a fatality arising at the company’s place of work.
  • Other inquests and advisory work in respect of them

Licensing

Stuart is ranked as a ‘leading junior’ in Licensing by The Legal 500 for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018/19, 2020, 2021 and 2022 and in Chambers and Partners for 2019, 2020 and 2021. Chambers and Partners [2020] says this about his licensing practice:

Respected barrister who predominantly represents operators as well as local residents in licensing appeals. Jessop also handles SEV, taxi, HMO and alcohol licence matters. Sources are impressed with his regulatory expertise and the pragmatic approach he takes to his cases.”

He is a member of the Institute of Licensing (IOL) and is holder of the Professional Licensing Practitioners Qualification (PLPQ). Stuart is well known as a licensing specialist and has real depth and breadth of experience in all licensing matters, including but not exclusively; alcohol and entertainment, gambling, taxis and PHV’s, SEV’s, SIA licensing, special treatments, firearms, slaughtermen and certificates of competence, as well as cases involving alleged breaches in relation to HMO licences. In Taxi and PHV licensing he has acted for the United Cabbies’ Group, the United Taxi Action Group, and other taxi associations in respect of taxi and PHV licensing law and practice. He appeared in the UCG’s judicial review, in 2019, against the decision of the Chief magistrate to grant Uber London Ltd its licence in 2018. Recently, he acted for the London Borough of Enfield in two applications by a large festival organiser to hold festivals and other entertainment on a continuing basis on a substantial derelict site. Tottenham Hotspur Football Club were the main objector. He appears both at licensing sub-committee review hearings in a range of licensing cases, appeals to the magistrates’ and crown courts and also at appeals and by way of case stated and in judicial review proceedings and is frequently asked to advise on all licensing matters, including local government licensing policy and relevant legislation. He represents companies, trade associations, individuals, local licensing authorities and other responsible authorities. He is a regular lecturer on all licensing matters and author of a book on Hackney Carriage licensing in London.

Featured cases list

  • Legal adviser to the LB of Enfield in two separate applications for a licence for festivals. Tottenham FC were the main objector along with the Metropolitan Police.
  • N v Council: Appeal against a decision by the licensing authority to revoke this premises licence due to immigration offences. Successfully negotiated a consent order restoring the licence.
  • Objector v Platinum Lace: (Westminster Licensing Sub-committee) Represented an objector to the renewal of the SEV’s licence.
  • Objector v Windmill Club (Westminster Licensing Sub-committee): Successfully represented the objectors in opposing the sexual entertainment venue’s application to renew its licence. The case was widely reported in the national press.
  • LB of Barking and Dagenham v The Co-op Food Ltd: defending allegations of underage sales of alcohol. Prosecution withdrawn.
  • R (On the application of United Cabbies Group (London) Ltd) v Westminster Magistrates’ Court v TFL v LTDA v Uber London Ltd [2019] EWHC 409: Stuart represented (led by a Q.C.) the United Cabbie’s Group Ltd in their judicial review of the Chief Magistrates’ decision to grant them a new operator’s licence.
  • A casino v Gambling Commission: Led by Q.C. instructed after largest fine ever imposed by the Gambling Commission imposed. Detailed written submissions made and the Commission reduced the proposed fine by ten million pounds.
  • One Stop Shops Ltd v Liverpool CC: appeal against a refusal to grant a premises licence.
  • A v Council: successfully appealed decision of licensing authority to revoke premises licence for immigration offences.
  • Advising a well know national chain of fast food restaurants on the correctness of the local licensing authority’s stance that a full fresh premise licence application rather than a variation was necessary after the restaurant had undergone structural change.
  • Taxi association: advised on potential challenges to the authority’s policy and decisions in respect of means of payment for fares, the lawfulness of Uber’s operations, plying for hire and other significant licensing matters
  • S v. L.B. of Newham: Appeal against a refusal to grant a new licence in CIZ
  • B v London Borough of Redbridge: Appeal against removal of DPS
  • T v TFL: Advising regarding an appeal against the refusal of a Hackney Carriage Licence
  • DD v. LB of Southwark: Appeal against the suspension of a bar’s premises licence for public nuisance
  • W Berks v J: Appeal to the crown court on behalf of a local authority in taxi licensing case concerning the authority’s policy on wheelchair access.
  • D Hackney Driver’s and PHV Driver’s Association v. Dacorum Borough Council: Successfully represented the association in opposing the introduction of a policy which would have lowered the entry test requirements for new licensees in the borough.
  • Residents v M Restaurant and LB Southwark: Successfully represented the residents in their review of the premises licence for a restaurant.
  • Ali v. Sheffield City Council: successful in acting for the local authority in opposing this appeal of a decision to revoke the appellant’s PHV licence.
  • C v. Canterbury City Council: successfully acted for the applicant for a new premises licence which was opposed by the Licensing Authority.
  • NT Ltd v London Borough of Havering: represented this fast food premises in its appeal against the licensing authority’s decision to revoke its licence for repeated immigration offences, and was successful in quashing the decision and having costs partially awarded against the Council.
  • The C v Canterbury City Council: appeal against the decision of the licensing sub-committee to reduce the operating hours of this bar. The matter was settled to the satisfaction of the Appellant.
  • Advising a London borough on applications it received for the renewal of sexual entertainment venues.
  • SB v FSA: [2020] representing this abattoir owner in his appeal to the FTT against the FSA’s decision to revoke his certificate of competence.
  • Balacescu v FSA [2020] Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals): appeal against the FTT’s decision to refuse an extension of time to appeal against a decision by the regulator to revoke a slaughterman’s licence.

Regulatory

Stuart is a specialist regulatory lawyer. In addition to his specialist areas listed under the headings of Food, environment, consumer, licensing, Stuart also acts in Housing cases, particularly in respect of houses in multiple occupation, planning enforcement, anti-social behaviour cases and at traffic commissioner hearings and in the FTT and UT as well as in other regulatory (criminal and civil) proceedings.

Featured cases list

  • Local authority v P [2021]: defending landlords in respect of a prosecution for fire safety offences and HMO offences in proceedings in both the magistrates’ court and crown court. Stuart raised various legal arguments including abuse of process which led to all 7 charges being withdrawn and a successful award against the council for costs.
  • London Borough of Camden v D: Successfully defending a landlord against a prosecution under the Housing Act alleging that his property was an HMO without being licensed as such. Stuart was able to argue that the property was not, in law, an HMO and that therefore no offence.
  • Advising a local authority on its policy for managing and regulating selective licences and the limits to charges for such a process.
  • Clark v Crawly BC [2021]: Appeal against conviction for breach of a planning enforcement notice. Stuart argued the notice was a nullity. Appeal successful.
  • Planning Inquiry [2021]: Currently acting for waste operator in an appeal against three enforcement notices in respect of land within the Green Belt. A substantial case where Stuart is leading another junior counsel.
  • Prosecution and Proceeds of Crime in respect of an offence under section 179 TCPA 1990.
  • Advising a local planning authority in respect of advertising control.
  • Advising a local planning authority in respect of permitted development and water regulation.
  • London Borough of Camden v D: Successfully defending a landlord against a prosecution under the Housing Act alleging that his property was an HMO without being licensed as such. Stuart was able to argue that the property was not, in law, an HMO and that therefore no offence had been committed.
    Click here for news item
    Click here for coverage in Local Government Lawyer
  • Advising a local authority on its policy for managing and regulating selective licences and the limits to charges for such a process.

Planning

Stuart’s focuses on planning enforcement. He regularly advises and appears at inquiries in such matters. His enforcement works covers the full range of expertise required to practice in this area including representation at hearings and inquiries and in the High Court and extends to cases where there has been a breach of planning control resulting in a criminal prosecution. Stuart is ideally placed to deal with the overlap between planning and criminal law and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which these cases often involve, due to his substantial experience in both legal disciplines.

Recent cases include:

  • Clark v Crawly BC [2021]: Appeal against conviction for breach of a planning enforcement notice. Stuart argued the notice was a nullity. Appeal successful.
  • Planning Inquiry [2021]: Currently acting for waste operator in an appeal against three enforcement notices in respect of land within the Green Belt. A substantial case where Stuart is leading another junior counsel.
  • Prosecution and Proceeds of Crime in respect of an offence under section 179 TCPA 1990.
  • Advising a local planning authority in respect of advertising control.
  • Advising a local planning authority in respect of permitted development and water regulation.
  • Planning Inquiry: Mirza v LB Barking and Dagenham: Inquiry concerning an enforcement notice in respect of the change of use from part storage and retail use to a retail furniture business.
  • Re K: Advice concerning service under section 329 TCPA 1990 within the context of an appeal to the High court by way of case stated.
  • Planning Inquiry: Ali v LB Newham: Challenge to an enforcement notice on the grounds that the change of use was immune from enforcement action.
  • Planning Inquiry: LB Brent: Challenge to an enforcement notice served in relation to car parking around Wembley Stadium on the grounds of immunity and other grounds.
  • Planning Inquiry: Acting for the local Planning Authority in respect of an enforcement notice alleging a material change of use.
  • F v LB Hammersmith and Fulham: Advising in respect of a Planning Inquiry and whether there were any merits of an appeal to the High Court.
  • R v Elmbridge Borough Council: Advising a resident on challenging the legality of a decision to grant planning permission.
  • Mirza v LB of Newham [2017] EWCA Crim 929: An appeal to the Court of Appeal in respect of the defence under section 179(3) Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
  • LB of Newham v Mirza (Snaresbrook Crown Court): successfully represented the Defendant at her sentencing and in POCA proceedings, helping to secure a relatively low fine and confiscation order.
  • LB of Hillingdon v H: represented the Defendant in a prosecution under section 179 TCPA 1990. The Defendant changed his plea to guilty and reached agreement on a confiscation figure whilst securing a relatively low fine.
  • LB of Hackney v Manorgale Ltd: a successful prosecution under section 179 TCPA 1990 involving a legal argument as to the effect of an enforcement notice where there has been a subsequent grant of planning permission.
  • LB of Hackney v Reichman: a successful prosecution under section 179 TCPA 1990 involving lengthy legal argument as to the correct construction of the requirements of an enforcement notice where there has been an amendment by the planning inspector.
  • LB of Hackney v Scharf: successful prosecution under section 331 and 179 TCPA 1990 for a breach of an enforcement notice. The Defendant had challenged the Council’s power to prosecute in the High Court by way of judicial review but was unsuccessful. He was then convicted in the criminal proceedings as the director of the company that owned the property in question.
  • LB of Hackney v. L: POCA proceedings resulting from large scale breaches of TCPA
  • LB of Newham v. S: POCA proceedings from beach of TCPA
  • Advising regarding alleged offences under the Building Regulations and the legal definition of ‘Caravan’.

Recommendations

“... a frequent defender of farmers, farms and meat sellers in criminal cases, and he is adept at food and product safety consumer law disputes.”

― Chambers UK Bar Guide [2022]

“Highly intelligent, commercially focused and tactically astute, as well as someone who can put clients at ease.” “A considered, accomplished and thorough lawyer.”

― Chambers UK Bar Guide [2022]

"His practice further includes the representation of local authorities in criminal prosecutions, and he is praised for his drafting skills, as well as his ability to build strong relationships."

― Chambers UK Bar Guide [2022]

“He is excellent both on his feet and in written submissions, and he can drill down into the evidence and draw out the exact points needed for a legal argument.”

“Stuart is extremely knowledgeable in his field and extremely thorough in his preparation. He is an astute tactician with client’s best interest at heart.”

― Legal 500 [2022]

“Very knowledgeable and has good rapport with the court… He produces high-quality paperwork and is excellent on his feet.”

“He is exceptionally personable, very easy to talk to and easy to work with in a collegiate way…He is seasoned and very user-friendly.”

― Chambers UK Bar Guide [2021]

“A breath of fresh air on the licensing circuit. Tenacious and personable in court. Takes the right points. Strong on the law. Down to earth and approachable. He is my first-choice, go-to junior counsel.”

“He has a comprehensive understanding of law relating to noise nuisance and is a strong team player.”

“A good advocate who displays great attention to detail.”

― Legal 500 [2021]

“Calm, confident, measured and reassuring, he has an impressive memory and excellent recall of the papers. He offers incisive advice and, as well as being an excellent lawyer and strategist, he is also someone who is emotionally intelligent.”

― Chambers UK Bar Guide [2020]

“An extremely personable, efficient and hardworking advocate.”

“Has an excellent eye for detail and provides advice expediently.”

― Legal 500 [2020]

“He simply never fails to impress me with his forensic attention to detail and flexible dynamic thinking.”

“He can come in last minute and turn a case around for his client.”

― Chambers UK Bar Guide [2019]

“Advises in a number of high-profile projects.”

― Legal 500 [2019]

“He can have a case file for five minutes and know it inside out straight away. He doesn’t get caught out by curve balls.”

“The advice he gives to clients is clear and concise.”

― Chambers UK Bar Guide [2018]

“Organised and quick-thinking.”

― Legal 500 [2017]

“He is exceptionally personable and garners the trust of his clients”

― Legal 500 [2016]

“Excellent at identifying issues and setting out the way forward.”

― Legal 500 [2015]
Leading Individual
chambers logo

Publications

  • Contributor to “Consumer and Trading Standards Law and Practice The Pink Book 2022 edition – Food Law” 10th ed. (due 2021)
  • Author of “A Practical Guide to Hackney Carriage Licensing in London
  • Co-author of “A Practical Guide to Environmental Enforcement

Latest news

29th June 2022

Nightclub secures return of its licence

Stuart Jessop represented the nightclub which had its licence revoked after summary review proceedings were brought following the uncovering of significant drug dealing by police.

28th June 2022

Withdrawal of Public Body’s decision did not end the First Tier Tribunal’s jurisdiction

Stuart Jessop acted for the Appellant in an appeal to the Upper Tribunal concerning the jurisdiction of the First Tier Tribunal when the public body decision maker withdraws its decision.

26th November 2021

Discounts of 25% on books by Six Pump Court authors

Today (Friday), Law Brief will be running a Black Friday discount of 25% for all books available on their website.

19th March 2021

A Practical Guide to Environmental Enforcement

Six Pump Court environmental law practitioners Christopher Badger and Stuart Jessop are the authors of a new practical guide to environmental enforcement.

7th September 2020

Stuart Jessop acts for Claimants in judicial review of Food Standards Agency decision

Stuart Jessop acted for the Claimants in a judicial review of the FSA's decision to suspend three slaughter-men’s certificate of competence pending criminal proceedings or the decision not to instigate such proceedings.

18th December 2019

Mock Trial – Food Allergy Prosecution

Stuart Jessop will be acting in this mock sentencing hearing of a food allergy prosecution organised by Food Allergy Aware in associate with Blake Morgan LLP.

18th September 2019

New book on Hackney Carriage Licensing

Six Pump Court is pleased to announce the publication of new book “A Practical Guide to Hackney Carriage Licensing in London” written by Stuart Jessop.

26th July 2019

Stuart Jessop represents Kent Police in judicial review of Dangerous Dogs Destruction Order

The owner of a pit bull dog has failed in a judicial review challenging the decision of Maidstone Crown Court which had ordered the destruction of the dog.

1st April 2019

Mock food allergy prosecution and sentence presented to the food industry

Stuart Jessop took part in this mock prosecution at an event hosted by Blake Morgan LLP and Food Allergy Aware UK.

27th March 2019

Stuart Jessop acts for objector in central London sexual entertainment venue licence renewal hearing

Stuart Jessop, instructed by Woods Whur solicitors, represented the objector who opposed the renewal of the sexual entertainment venue licence for Platinum Lace.

25th March 2019

Gambling Commission fine reduced by millions

Mark Watson QC and Stuart Jessop instructed by Pinsent Masons successfully assisted a very large gambling company in substantially reducing initial fine imposed by the Gambling Commission.

26th February 2019

Reduction in fine for waste company

Stuart Jessop has successfully represented a waste company in its appeal against a sentenced imposed on it in respect of depositing waste without a permit.

25th February 2019

Director and company convicted of toy safety offences

A company director of a toy importer has been convicted along with the company itself after a trial alleging offences under the Toy Safety Regulations and the REACH Regulations.

22nd February 2019

Farmer cleared of 22 allegations of animal cruelty and related offences

Stuart Jessop recently represented a farmer and his two partners charged with various animal welfare and animal by-product offences.

13th February 2019

Black Taxis in High Court challenge to decision to grant Uber their licence

Robert Griffiths QC and Stuart Jessop will represent the United Cabbies Group on behalf of the United Taxi Action Group in the High Court today in the Claimant’s challenge to the decision to grant Uber London Limited a Private Hire Vehicle Operators licence.

18th January 2019

Court rules that premises was not an HMO

Stuart Jessop has successfully represented a landlord in a prosecution by the London Borough of Camden under section 72 of the Housing Act 2004.

18th January 2019

Stuart Jessop successfully represents Wembley parking company at planning inquiry

Stuart Jessop has successfully represented Stadium Centre Management Ltd (SCM Ltd) in its appeal against two enforcement notices.

5th November 2018

Black cab drivers granted permission to bring a claim for judicial review of Uber licence decision

In a High Court decision, the United Cabbies Group represented by Robert Griffiths QC and Stuart Jessop were granted permission to bring a claim for judicial review of the decision to award a new licence to Uber.

19th September 2018

Uber decision to be judicially reviewed

Robert Griffiths QC and Stuart Jessop have been instructed on behalf of a trade association representing Hackney Carriage drivers in London to commence Judicial Review proceedings in respect of a decision to grant Uber London Limited a 15 month licence.

25th May 2018

Regulatory Law Conference 2018 (Birmingham)

Six Pump Court will present a Regulatory Law Conference on 13th July in Birmingham.

12th January 2018

No renewal of licence for historic Soho Windmill Club

A notorious strip club in west London has failed in its application to Westminster City Council to have its sexual entertainment licence renewed.

30th October 2017

Premises licence appeal success despite immigration offences

Stuart Jessop successfully represented the premises licence holder of a fast food establishment.

9th October 2017

Regulatory and Planning Law Conference 2017 (Leeds)

Six Pump Court presents a Regulatory and Planning Law Conference to be held on 20th November in Leeds.

9th May 2017

Stuart Jessop presents food safety session at BALPPA Food and Beverage Seminar

Stuart Jessop, along with Luke Johnson, Pizza Express founder and former chairman of Channel 4, Nigel Rosenthal, managing director of SaferFood Company, and others,...

3rd April 2017

Stuart Jessop helps Taxi Association oppose new policy on knowledge test for new applicants

Stuart Jessop successfully represented a Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Driver's Association in their opposition to a local authority's proposal to replace an existing...

17th March 2017

Stuart Jessop acts for London Borough in case where near-maximum fine for breach of Planning Enforcement notice imposed

Stuart Jessop represented a London borough in its prosecution of a property company under section 179(2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for failure...

17th March 2017

Stuart Jessop represents company in licensing application

Stuart Jessop, instructed by Paddy Whur of Woods Whur solicitors, has successfully represented a restaurant and bar business in the company's application for two...

24th February 2017

Low Fine for Company on Plea of Guilty to a Breach of a Planning Enforcement Notice

Stuart Jessop represented a property company at its sentence hearing for an offence under section 179(1) (2) Town and Country Planning Act 1990, namely...

14th February 2017

Low Fine for Breach of Planning Enforcement

On 10th February 2017 Stuart Jessop represented a landlord who faced a Local Authority prosecution for a breach of a planning enforcement notice under...

13th February 2017

Local Authority withdraw prosecution in HMO licensing case

Stuart Jessop represented a Landlord/ Managing Agent summonsed in a Local Authority prosecution against him for alleged breaches of his House in Multiple Occupation...

2nd December 2016

Stuart Jessop helps residents oppose new premises licence for restaurant

Stuart Jessop has assisted a group of residents with their representations and objections in relation to a new application for a premises licence in...

1st December 2016

Stuart Jessop secures conditional discharge for breach of enforcement notice

Stuart Jessop has secured a conditional discharge for a defendant facing a charge of failing to comply with a planning enforcement notice contrary to...

23rd November 2016

Letting agent represented by Stuart Jessop successful in appeal against house in multiple occupation

Stuart Jessop recently represented a letting agent in his successful appeal to the Crown Court against a sentence imposed by Thames Magistrates Court. The...

23rd November 2016

Residents represented by Stuart Jessop successful in their restaurant premises licence review

Stuart Jessop has successfully represented a group of residents in their Review of the premises licence of a restaurant in Southwark. The Licensing Sub-committee...

28th September 2016

Alcohol Licensing – 2016 Conference

Stuart Jessop spoke at MBL's Alcohol Licensing Conference on 27th September 2016 to delegates from solicitors firms and local authorities. His presentation was on...

25th May 2016

Hot Topics in Food Law Seminar

David Travers QC and Stuart Jessop took part in MBL Seminars' 'Hot Topics in Food Law' on 23rd May. David, who chaired the seminar,...

15th March 2016

Six Pump Court hosts Health & Safety Prosecutions seminar for LBLA practitioners

On Monday, Six Pump Court Chambers hosted a seminar for London Boroughs Legal Alliance (LBLA) practitioners on ‘Health and Safety Prosecutions’. At this event,...

26th November 2015

Planning breach sentence based on ‘financial benefit’ was double counting

Stuart Jessop comments on the recent appeal against a sentence in R v Kohali. The Court of Appeal in R v. Kohali [2015] EWCA 1757,...

21st October 2015

Planning Permission Decision quashed due to apparent bias

Stuart Jessop comments on Kelton v Wiltshire Council [2015] EWHC 2853 (Admin) The grant of planning permission for a residential development, which included affordable...

16th October 2015

Stuart Jessop successfully prosecutes consumer credit business operating without licence

Stuart Jessop has successfully prosecuted two defendants under the Consumer Protection Act for carrying on a consumer credit business without a licence. Both defendants...

5th October 2015

POCA in Planning Enforcement seminar

On 29th September 2015, Stuart Jessop and Laura Phillips spoke to delegates at the Royal Town Planning Institute's seminar entitled, 'POCA in Planning Enforcement'....

5th May 2015

New Supreme Court ruling in licensing case of Hemmings

On April 29th 2015 the Supreme Court delivered judgment in R (on the application of Hemmings (t/a Simply Pleasure Ltd) and others) v Westminster...

29th April 2015

Food Standards Agency: Food Safety Witness Training Seminar

Mark Watson and Stuart Jessop attended the Food Standard Agency’s Witness Familiarisation Programme on 25th March. As part of the Programme, they trained staff...

29th September 2014

New Member of Chambers

Six Pump Court Chambers are delighted to welcome Stuart Jessop who joins our Regulatory and Crime Teams. Stuart has a significant practice in the...

29th September 2014

Chatrooms and 21st Century Insider Dealings

Ian Whitehurst and Stuart Jessop discuss the latest area of financial trading being targeted by regulators. To view the article click here

29th September 2014

Pension Liberation Fraud: New Kid on the Block

Stuart Jessop and Ian Whitehurst discuss the dangers of new pension fraud scams promising savers early access to their pension pots. To view the article click here

Events

6th July 2022

Alcohol Licensing Law Update

Stuart Jessop will be speaking at this very practical half day live and recorded online conference.

Contact my clerks

Michael Hearn

Michael Hearn

Second Junior Clerk
Daniel Jenkins

Daniel Jenkins

Third Junior Clerk