Lisa Giovannetti QC

Year of call:
1990
Silk:
2011
Email:
lisa.giovannetti@39essex.com

Clerks:
+44 (0)20 7832 1111

“A go-to silk for clients with a difficult case on their hands.” …

“Extremely thorough, quick and entirely reliable.”

Legal 500 2016

Lisa has a broad public law practice, with a particular focus on human rights, asylum,immigration, and civil liberties. She is recommended by Legal 500 2016 for Administrative & Public Law, Civil Liberties & Human Rights and Immigration, and by Chambers & Partners 2017 for Administrative & Public Law, Immigration and Civil Liberties & Human Rights.

An experienced and versatile advocate, Lisa advises and represents a wide range of clients, including Government Departments and agencies, public bodies and private individuals. She has extensive experience of a wide range of courts and tribunals including the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and has represented the UK before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights.

Lisa’s notable recent cases include appearing for the Claimants in the successful challenge to the widespread delays in the scheme for administering personal independence payments (“PIP”) and representing the Government in the series of Supreme Court cases concerning the interplay between Article 8 ECHR and the Immigration Rules.

Administrative & Public


  • Hashi v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 1136 The deprivation of UK citizenship of a Somali national awaiting trial for terrorism offences in the USA did not breach the statelessness provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981.
  • Makhlouf v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Northern Ireland) [2016] UKSC 59 The Secretary of State did not fail to make adequate inquiries or otherwise breach the Article 8 rights of the children of a foreign criminal subject to deportation proceedings.
  • NA (Sudan) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 1060 Third country asylum returns to Italy upheld by the Court of Appeal.
  • The Secretary of State for the Home Department v EB [2016] EWHC 1970 (Admin) Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures in respect of person assessed to have travelled to Syria for terrorism related purposes upheld as lawful.
  • Sood, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 831; [2016] Imm AR 61 Section 10 removals: Court of Appeal holds that out of country appeal is the appropriate remedy and not Judicial Review.
  • C & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work And Pensions & Anor [2015] EWHC 1607 Challenge to the delays in administering PIP payments to disabled claimants.
  • GS (India), & Ors v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 40 [2015] WLR 3312, [2015] Imm AR 608, (2015) 143 BMLR 79 Human Rights challenges to immigration removal of Claimants with end stage renal failure.
  • MF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1192, [2014] INLR 18, [2014] 2 All ER 543, [2013] EWCA Civ 1192, [2014] WLR 544 Immigration Rules lawful in establishing exceptional/compelling circumstances requirement for Article 8 claims by foreign criminals facing deportation.
  • London Borough of Redbridge v G & Ors [2014] EWCOP 17 Court intervenes to protect vulnerable elderly person from intimidation and manipulation by carer.
  • Ms (Algeria) v Secretary of state for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 306.
  • Secretary of State for the Home Department v CD [2011] EWHC 2087 (Admin) The Secretary of State had lawfully imposed a control order on a person assessed to be involved in a terrorist group engaged in attack planning.
  • HM (An Adult), PM v KH & Anor [2010] EWHC 1579 (Fam)
  • HM (An Adult), Re [2010] EWHC 2107 (Fam) The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to make a wide range of orders, including against third parties, to secure the return of a vulnerable adult who had been removed from the jurisdiction in defiance of the court a vulnerable adult who had been removed from the jurisdiction in defiance of the court.
  • Secretary of State for the Home Department v Nasseri (HL) [2009] UKHL 23: The Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 laid down an irrebuttable presumption that the removal of an asylum seeker to certain named countries would be lawful.
  • Secretary Of State For The Home Department v AV 30 April 2009 [2009] EWHC 902 (Admin): There was no reasonable basis to conclude that, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from the risk of terrorism, it was necessary to continue to impose a non-derogating control order on an individual.
  • MA (Ethiopia) v Secretary Of State For The Home Department 2 April 2009 [2009] EWCA Civ 289: Whilst the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal had erred in law by considering whether an asylum seeker of Ethiopian nationality was likely to be allowed to return to Ethiopia, she had not made a bona fide attempt to obtain the necessary documentation.
  • Secretary of State for the Home Department v AHK and Others (2009) 1 WLR 2049 2 April 2009 [2009] EWCA Civ 287: The court set out the principles to be adopted in determining whether a special advocate should be appointed to represent an applicant seeking judicial review of a refusal of his application for British citizenship, where the refusal was on the ground that the applicant had not demonstrated good character and where the Home Secretary was not willing to disclose relevant material to the applicant on public interest grounds.

Human Rights & Civil Liberties


  • Hashi v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 1136 The deprivation of UK citizenship of a Somali national awaiting trial for terrorism offences in the USA did not breach the statelessness provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981.
  • Makhlouf v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Northern Ireland) [2016] UKSC 59 The Secretary of State did not fail to make adequate inquiries or otherwise breach the Article 8 rights of the children of a foreign criminal subject to deportation proceedings.
  • NA (Sudan) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 1060 Third country asylum returns to Italy upheld by the Court of Appeal.
  • The Secretary of State for the Home Department v EB [2016] EWHC 1970 (Admin) Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures in respect of person assessed to have travelled to Syria for terrorism related purposes upheld as lawful.
  • Sood, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 831; [2016] Imm AR 61 Section 10 removals: Court of Appeal holds that out of country appeal is the appropriate remedy and not Judicial Review.
  • Giri, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 784; [2016] 1 WLR 4418, [2016] INLR 94 Obtaining leave to remain by deception: precedent fact or Wednesbury?
  • GS (India), & Ors v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 40 [2015] WLR 3312, [2015] Imm AR 608, (2015) 143 BMLR 79 Human Rights challenges to immigration removal of Claimants with end stage renal failure.
  • MF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1192, [2014] INLR 18, [2014] 2 All ER 543, [2013] EWCA Civ 1192, [2014] WLR 544 Immigration Rules lawful in establishing exceptional/compelling circumstances requirement for Article 8 claims by foreign criminals facing deportation.
  • London Borough of Redbridge v G & Ors [2014] EWCOP 17 Court intervenes to protect vulnerable elderly person from intimidation and manipulation by carer.
  • Ms (Algeria) v Secretary of state for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 306.
  • Secretary of State for the Home Department v CD [2011] EWHC 2087 (Admin) The Secretary of State had lawfully imposed a control order on a person assessed to be involved in a terrorist group engaged in attack planning.
  • HM (An Adult), PM v KH & Anor [2010] EWHC 1579 (Fam)
  • HM (An Adult), Re [2010] EWHC 2107 (Fam) The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to make a wide range of orders, including against third parties, to secure the return of a vulnerable adult who had been removed from the jurisdiction in defiance of the court a vulnerable adult who had been removed from the jurisdiction in defiance of the court.

Immigration


  • MM (Lebanon) & Ors, R( on the applications of) v Secretary of State and another [2017] UKSC 10; 2017 1 WLR 1260 The Supreme Court upholds the minimum income requirement for foreign partners & spouses seeking to come to the UK.
  • Agyarko and Ikuga, R (on the applications of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] UKSC 11 ([2017] 1 WLR 823 The Supreme Court upholds the immigration rules relating to over-stayers as compatible with Article 8 ECHR and EU law.
  • Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60([2016] 1 WLR 4799 The Supreme Court upholds the immigration rules governing the deportation of foreign criminals as compatible with Article 8 ECHR.
  • Makhlouf v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Northern Ireland) [2016] UKSC 59 The Secretary of State did not fail to make adequate inquiries or otherwise breach the Article 8 rights of the children of a foreign criminal subject to deportation proceedings.
  • NA (Sudan) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 1060 Third country asylum returns to Italy upheld by the Court of Appeal.
  • MA (Pakistan) & Ors, R (on the application of) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 705; [2016] 1 WLR 5093 Interpretation of the Immigration Rules relating to private life in the UK.
  • Sood, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 831; [2016] Imm AR 61 Section 10 removals: Court of Appeal holds that out of country appeal is the appropriate remedy and not Judicial Review.
  • GS (India), & Ors v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 40 [2015] WLR 3312, [2015] Imm AR 608, (2015) 143 BMLR 79 Human Rights challenges to immigration removal of Claimants with end stage renal failure.
  • Mehmood & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 744; [2016] WLR 461, [2016] Imm AR 25 Section 10, out of country appeals and sequencing.
  • MF (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1192, [2014] INLR 18, [2014] 2 All ER 543, [2013] EWCA Civ 1192, [2014] WLR 544 Immigration Rules lawful in establishing exceptional/compelling circumstances requirement for Article 8 claims by foreign criminals facing deportation.
  • ST Eritrea, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 12 ; [2012] 2 AC 135 The interpretation of Article 32 of the Refugee Convention: when is a refugee “lawfully in” the UK.
  • Ms (Algeria) v Secretary of state for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 306.
  • (1) JA (Ivory Coast) (2) ES (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 14 December 2009 [2009] EWCA Civ 1353.
  • R (on the application of EW (Eritrea)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWHC 2957 (Admin).
  • Secretary of State for the Home Department v Nasseri (HL) [2009] UKHL 23: The Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 laid down an irrebuttable presumption that the removal of an asylum seeker to certain named countries would be lawful.
  • MA (Ethiopia) v Secretary Of State For The Home Department 2 April 2009 [2009] EWCA Civ 289: Whilst the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal had erred in law by considering whether an asylum seeker of Ethiopian nationality was likely to be allowed to return to Ethiopia, she had not made a bona fide attempt to obtain the necessary documentation.

Recommendations


Lisa Giovannetti QC is recommended by Legal 500 2016 for Administrative & Public Law, Civil Liberties & Human Rights and Immigration, and by Chambers & Partners 2017 for Administrative & Public Law, Immigration and Civil Liberties & Human Rights.

Quotes

  • “The Godmother of immigration and the go-to person for government-related work. Incredible.” “She somehow combines being a really charming advocate with being very steely underneath.” Immigration Chambers UK 2017
  • “She’s pleasant to deal with and intellectually very strong.” “She is measured and clear in her advice, and her advocacy goes down very well with the court.” Civil Liberties & Human Rights Chambers UK 2017
  • “She’s a very engaging advocate and has an attractive courtroom style. Judges listen when she speaks.” Administrative & Public Law Chambers UK 2017
  • “A go-to silk for clients with a difficult case on their hands.” Legal 500 2016
  • “Extremely thorough, quick and entirely reliable.” Legal 500 2016
  • “I’m always impressed with her analytical ability and how she gets down to the nub of the problem.” “She’s a very clear and balanced advocate and has a very nice manner in court.” Chambers & Partners 2016
  • “An excellent lawyer and first-rate advocate who is easy to work with.” Legal 500 2015
  • “She represents both the government and claimants with great skill.” Legal 500 2015
  • “She is a very effective advocate.” Chambers & Partners 2015
  • “Her drafting is impeccable and she is a well-established practitioner.” Chambers & Partners 2015
  • “She is straight and exhibits integrity in representing her clients – she doesn’t take unsustainable points and is a fair advocate.” Chambers & Partners 2015
  • “She inspires trust and the court has faith in her judgement.” Chambers & Partners 2015
  • “Loved by clients and feared by opponents.” Legal 500 2014
  • “An excellent command of the law.” Legal 500 2014
  • “Persuasive, with excellent judgement” Legal 500 2014
  • “An effective advocate who is good at dealing with difficult and emotive issues. She manages to put a respondent’s case in a way which is sympathetic.” Chambers & Partners 2014
  • “Quick, clear, incisive, and fair.” Legal 500 2013
  • “Straight talking and gets right to the point.” Chambers & Partners 2012
  • “Fully deserving of the accolade [of silk].” Chambers & Partners 2012
  • Praised for her “sharp wit and logical mind.” in Legal 500 2011
  • “An absolute dream to work with.” Chambers & Partners 2009
  • “Does a first-class job for her clients.” Chambers & Partners 2009
  • “Judges love her.” Chambers & Partners 2009
  • “Straight and honest style and ability to explain things in a beautifully clear way.” Chambers & Partners 2009

Call +44 (0)20 7832 1111 for more information

Barrister portfolio

Close

Click the + icon next to any barrister to add their profile to this portfolio.

BarristerCallCVEmail

3