We represented a young migrant survivor of domestic abuse to challenge the student finance rules requiring three years' lawful ordinary residence. Our client had been unable to maintain lawful residence after her abusive partner withheld her immigration documents and exercised coercive control, causing her to fall out of lawful status for a period prior to being granted indefinite leave to remain.

Supported by evidence from Let us Learn, Latin American Women's Rights Service, Southall Black Sisters and Solace Women's Aid, the case exposed how the regime failed to account for the realities of domestic abuse, including documentary control and barriers to regularising immigration status.

Outcome: The High Court held that the absence of any exemption for victims of domestic abuse rendered the scheme unlawfully discriminatory, in breach of Article 14 ECHR read with Article 2 of Protocol 1. The case contributed to subsequent regulatory changes introducing an exemption for survivors of domestic abuse and it is an important authority illustrating the need for residence-based eligibility rules to accommodate those facing barriers as a result of domestic abuse.

We represented three members of HASL with whom we worked closely to challenge Lambeth Council's “Temp2Settled” homelessness prevention scheme.

The case exposed a systemic practice in which applicants were encouraged to accept offers of private rented accommodation on the basis that this would improve their housing priority, without clear or accurate information about the longer-term consequences. These included being placed outside the borough and losing their local connection, while in practice having no realistic prospect of successfully bidding for a property and losing their place on the housing register.

Outcome: Lambeth Council agreed to discontinue the policy and review affected cases, writing to households to confirm that they would be reinstated on the housing register.

We represented a survivor of domestic abuse who was suffering from significant mental health issues and the effects of serious trauma. Despite her vulnerabilities, she was placed in shared emergency accommodation with men, a situation that was triggering and retraumatising.

Supported by evidence from Solace Women's Aid, clinical psychologists, and trauma-informed therapists, this case exposed systemic failings in Camden Council's approach to emergency accommodation for survivors of domestic abuse, particularly the placement of survivors in shared accommodation with men. The claim highlighted the significant risks, harm, and retraumatisation that can arise from these practices.

Outcome: Camden Council agreed to review its policies and practices before the claim reached trial. The case reinforced the council's obligation to provide accommodation that safeguards survivors from further harm, supports their recovery, and ensures they are not retraumatised by the very systems that are supposed to protect them.

We represented Ricky Tomlinson and Arthur Murray (and, in a later appeal, the family of Brian Williams) against the convictions of the Shrewsbury 24, building workers prosecuted following the national building workers' strike of 1972. This extraordinary case involved the criminalisation of trade unionists, the destruction of evidence by the police and the involvement of secret services.

In 1973-74, Ricky Tomlinson, Des Warren and John McKinsie Jones were convicted of conspiracy to intimidate, unlawful assembly and affray. Our client Ricky Tomlinson received two years' imprisonment and Des Warren three. Others, including Arthur Murray, were convicted at subsequent trials and jailed.

The consequences lasted far beyond the prison sentences. Many of the men were subsequently blacklisted and unable to obtain work in the construction industry. Des Warren was subjected to solitary confinement and forcible medication, the notorious “liquid cosh”. He died in 2004 without seeing his conviction overturned.

Outcome: For decades, the Shrewsbury picketers and their supporters had campaigned to clear their names. The Court of Appeal found the convictions unsafe and quashed the original verdicts.

Our client moved to the UK in 2016 and lived with his wife and two children in a one-room studio flat. Despite experiencing severe statutory overcrowding, Southwark Council had refused to award him the highest level of housing priority on the basis that he had “deliberately” caused his overcrowding.

We worked closely with HASL, which had been supporting other families in the exact same situation. This judicial review challenged Southwark Council's irrational approach to treating overcrowding as “deliberately caused” where families had no meaningful choice over their housing situation. The case formed part of a wider challenge to Southwark's approach to overcrowded households, particularly those from low-income, racially minoritised, and migrant communities.

Outcome: The High Court quashed the Council's decision, strengthening protections for overcrowded households seeking fair access to social housing and helping to challenge the unlawful penalisation of families experiencing severe overcrowding.

We represented an applicant under the EU Settlement Scheme who had been in the UK for almost 20 years but whose application had been ‘paused’ by the Home Office because he was subject to ongoing criminal proceedings, leaving him in prolonged legal uncertainty about his immigration status and residence rights, and without support for which he was eligible.

We worked with the3million, Refugee and Migrant Justice, Praxis and the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens' Rights Agreements to challenge the Home Office's policy, which automatically paused thousands of applications without any meaningful individual assessment. The case exposed a blanket system of delay affecting around 20,000 people and challenged the Secretary of State's unlawful fettering of discretion by failing to consider applications on a case-by-case basis.

Outcome: The Upper Tribunal found the policy unlawful. The Home Office was required to review the paused applications, marking an important limitation on blanket administrative decision-making and strengthening protections for EU citizens seeking to secure their residence rights in the UK.

We represented Aysen Dennis, a long-standing resident of the Aylesbury Estate and community campaigner, who challenged Southwark Council's attempt to change the terms of the planning permission governing the estate's regeneration. Aysen and other residents were concerned that significant changes to the redevelopment were being pushed through without the level of scrutiny, transparency and community involvement that such decisions required.

We worked with Aysen, local residents and campaigners fighting for fair and accountable regeneration of the Aylesbury Estate. The case challenged the Council's use of a supposedly “non-material” amendment to alter the original planning permission in a way that would have given the developer greater flexibility to depart from the masterplan agreed with the community. We argued that this was not a minor technical adjustment but a significant change with real consequences for the future of the estate.

Outcome: The High Court agreed and found that the Council had acted unlawfully by using a simplified process to introduce a material change to the planning permission. The decision was quashed. The judgment was an important victory for residents facing large-scale regeneration schemes, confirming that councils and developers cannot use procedural shortcuts to avoid proper scrutiny where decisions have significant consequences for people's homes and communities.

We represented bereaved partners who were unable to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain for themselves and their qualifying children following the death of their spouse because they could not afford the Home Office application fee. Despite meeting the substantive requirements for settlement, they faced the prospect of being left without secure immigration status solely because of their financial circumstances.

We worked closely with RMJ (then RAMFEL) and the Unity Project, whose casework and evidence from affected individuals revealed the systemic impact of the Home Office's refusal to allow fee waiver applications for bereaved partner settlement cases and the two-tier system created by the lack of fee waiver. The challenge exposed a policy that effectively denied some of the most vulnerable applicants access to settlement, creating an unjust barrier for people already dealing with bereavement, financial hardship and insecurity.

Outcome: Following the challenge, the Home Office agreed to change the law and introduce a fee waiver process for bereaved partner Indefinite Leave to Remain applications. This ensured that bereaved partners would no longer be denied access to settlement solely because they could not afford the application fee.

We represented a resident living in a marina in mobile home-style accommodation who faced the risk of being denied basic housing rights because of the terms of her agreement with the marina owner. The case raises important issues about security of tenure for people living in non-traditional forms of housing, including many Gypsy and Traveller households and others who are disproportionately affected by housing insecurity.

We worked with the resident and challenged attempts to exclude her from the protections of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 by relying on technical planning concepts rather than the reality of the construction of the home. We argued that the resident should not lose statutory protection simply because the home was described as a “houseboat” rather than a caravan where, in substance, it fell within the Mobile Homes Act regime.

Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the resident could not be denied statutory protection simply because the home was labelled a “houseboat” rather than a caravan, and where, in substance, it fell within the Mobile Homes Act 1983. The judgment potentially strengthens housing protections for people living in marina and mobile home-style accommodation and reinforced the principle that legal rights should be determined by the reality of a person's housing circumstances, not by technical distinctions that undermine security and stability in the home.

We represented a social housing tenant whose child had been subjected to serious sexual abuse by a neighbour. Although remaining in the family home was unsafe, Westminster City Council refused her application for a reciprocal transfer into the borough, a mechanism designed to allow social tenants to move between landlords while retaining their secure tenancy. We worked closely with frontline domestic abuse organisations supporting survivors who are often forced to choose between remaining in dangerous homes and losing the security of their social tenancy.

The case exposed how Westminster's reciprocal transfer policy operated in practice to disadvantage women fleeing violence and abuse. We challenged the policy as discriminatory and argued that the Council had failed properly to consider its impact on survivors and their children.

Outcome: The High Court found that the reciprocal transfer policy gave rise to unlawful indirect discrimination and that the Council had failed to comply with its Public Sector Equality Duty. The Court also found that Westminster had failed to consider adequately the welfare of AK's child. The judgment is a significant intervention in housing law, making clear that social tenants forced to flee abuse should not have to surrender their security of tenure in order to find safety, and strengthening protections for survivors seeking access to secure alternative accommodation.

We represented a Romani Gypsy family who were living on a disused park-and-ride site after being moved there by the local authority. The family faced possession proceedings despite having nowhere suitable to go and despite experiencing acute welfare needs, including pregnancy, serious health issues and the care of young children.

The case raised urgent issues about the chronic shortage of authorised Traveller sites and the consequences of local authorities seeking to evict Gypsy and Traveller families without providing lawful and workable alternatives. We argued that, in circumstances where no suitable alternative accommodation was available, eviction would cause devastating consequences for the family and amount to a disproportionate interference with their rights under Article 8 ECHR.

Outcome: The County Court refused possession, finding that the proposed eviction would be a disproportionate interference with the family's right to respect for their private and family life and a breach of s11 of the Children Act 2004. The judgment is an important reminder that eviction powers have limits, particularly where local authorities have failed to provide realistic accommodation options, and strengthens protections for Gypsy and Traveller families facing displacement and homelessness.

We have represented residents of Enfield involved in a protracted legal battle with their local council and Tottenham Hotspur Football Co Ltd since 2023, after proposals to lease more than 50% of the park to THFC emerged in 2021, including the development of fenced-off training facilities that ended nearly 100 years of the Park being held in trust for the enjoyment of the public.

The Agreement for Lease to Spurs was unsuccessfully challenged in 2024, with the judgment confirming the ability of councils to sell public open space held in trust to private companies. The Agreement for Lease is, however, subject to a suitable planning permission being granted, which we successfully challenged in 2026.

Outcome: The High Court found the planning permission to be unlawful because Enfield Council misled its own planning committee and breached transparency provisions. If the decision stands and no further planning permission is granted, the controversial lease to Spurs will be cancelled. We hope the huge amounts of money and time wasted on this attempt to take over a public park will be a warning to councils and companies that residents care deeply about public open spaces and will fight hard to keep them.