Steph David

Steph has expertise in commercial matters, in particular those that intersect with her other specialisms such as climate, the environment, planning and healthcare. She has a particular interest in procurement, regulatory work (in the energy and financial services sectors), and commercial judicial review.

Notable recent instructions include:

• Advised on whether certain financial arrangements constitute a collective investment scheme falling within section 235 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA 2000”); and whether a principal firm was responsible for activities of its appointed representative, pursuant to section 39 of the FSMA 2000, given its Part 4A permission and the decision in KVB Consultants Ltd v Jacob Hopkins MacKenzie Ltd. [2024] EWCA Civ 765 (led by James Strachan KC)
• R (Hogan) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd [2023] EWHC 1061 (Admin) – Acted as sole counsel for the successful defendant in a claim concerning the transfer of a final salary occupational pension scheme with defined benefits to a self-invested personal pension. Judgment
• Advised on Article 1 Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to respect for property) in the context of energy regulation and environmental and social schemes that incentivise a shift to a low carbon economy
• Advised (as junior to Nigel Pleming KC) an operator on possible constitutional arguments in the context of retrospective change to tax legislation
• Acted as sole counsel in an ad hoc arbitration relating to dispute arising from a service-level agreement.
• Advised on whether certain arrangements constitute an instrument creating or acknowledging indebtedness within the meaning of Article 77 in the Financial Service and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001/544
• R (iDealing.com limited) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd (claim no. CO/1302/2023) – Acted as sole counsel for the successful defendant in a claim, in the context of securities, concerning the meaning of a ‘complaint’ within the Dispute Resolution section of the Financial Conduct Authority’s Handbook
• R (Good Law Project Limited) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWHC 2468 (TCC) – Acted as junior counsel for the Good Law Project (as junior counsel to Joseph Barrett KC) in a procurement challenge to the award of contracts for the manufacture and supply of rapid Covid-19 antibody tests. The case raised a number of complex interlocutory matters, including (i) expert evidence; (ii) searches of private email and WhatsApp accounts held by the Secretary of State for Health ([2021] EWHC 2595 (TCC)), and (iii) costs of third- party disclosure ([2021] EWHC 2783 (TCC)). Judgment on expert evidence and disclosure; Judgment on costs of third party disclosure; and Judgment in case
• Advised, as sole counsel, a Premier League football club on a sponsorship agreement.
• Assisted (as junior counsel to James Strachan KC) in responding to an appeal brought by Berkeley Burke SIPP Administration Ltd, challenging the decision of Jacobs J ([2018] EWHC 2878 (Admin)), which considered the regulatory duties on Self-Invested Personal Pension providers and administrators.
• Seadrill Ghana Operations Ltd v Tullow Ghana Ltd [2018] EWHC 1640 (Comm) – Acted as junior counsel to Sean Wilken KC, Adam Robb KC and Stephen Kosmin in considering whether a provisional measure issued by ITLOS in Case No 23 between Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire was a force majeure within the contract for a deepwater drilling unit.
• Junior counsel to Marion Smith KC advising on advance payment bonds and autonomous guarantees.
• Advised on auditor liability arising from accounts for a financial institution in the Caribbean.

“Stephanie is very responsive, puts forward excellent arguments and is good with clients.” Chambers and Partners 2025

“Stephanie is very thorough and hardworking.” Chambers and Partners 2025

“Stephanie David is often instructed to pursue claims under the European Convention of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. Her work addresses issues of anti-abortion protests, withdrawal of life-saving treatment and consent related to surrogacy agreements.” Chambers and Partners 2025

Steph has expertise in human rights claims in both public and private law proceedings for declarations and damages in relation to trafficking, new and novel medical conditions (raising important issues relating to medical ethics), social care, care leavers, prisoners, and mental health.

Notable recent instructions include:

• EF v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2024] EWHC 3004 (Fam) – Acted for the successful applicant (as junior counsel to Jenni Richards KC) in obtaining a declaration that it is lawful for the applicant to use an embryo created using his sperm and his late wife’s eggs in treatment with a surrogate, notwithstanding the absence of signed, written consent for that use. The application was brought in reliance on the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’), given effect in domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘HRA 1998’), in particular, the applicant’s Article 8, 9 and 14 Convention rights. The same approach had been adopted in Jennings v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2022] EWHC 1619 (Fam) and generally approved by the President of the Family Division in G v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2024] EWHC 2453 (Fam). Judgment
• Advising on the intersection between the Mental Health Act 1981 and offences relating to disclosure of protected information set out in s 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, as well as the human rights and equalities implications
• R (Meenal Viz and Nishant Joshi) v (1) Secretary of State for Health and Social Care(2) Public Health England (case no. CO/2095 /2020) – Acted for the British Medical Association (as junior counsel to Jenni Richards KC) , an interested party, in a challenge to guidance on Personal Protective Equipment during the Covid-19 pandemic.
• Advised on an urgent judicial review relating to an anti-abortion protest outside a hospital engaging Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention.
• Ted Jennings v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2022] EWHC 1619 (Fam) – Acted for the successful claimant (as junior counsel to Jenni Richards KC and Catherine Dobson) and obtained a declaration that it was lawful for him to use an embryo, created using his sperm and the eggs of his late wife, in treatment with a surrogate. The claimed was based upon a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 Convention rights. Judgment
• Represented (as junior counsel to Vikram Sachdeva KC)  two social work managers in Court of Appeal proceedings relating to anonymity, transparency and reporting restrictions in family proceedings, following re S [2005] 1 AC 593 and Abbasi v Newcastle upon Tyne NHS Trust (Fam D) [2022] Fam 180.
• Welsh Ministers v PJ [2018] UKSC 66 – Represented the successful appellant (as junior counsel to Jenni Richards KC and Peter Mant) in this case in which the Supreme Court confirmed that it was not permissible for a responsible clinician to impose conditions on a Community Treatment Order (CTO) that would amount to a deprivation of a person’s liberty. Judgment
• Instructed by Liberty and Bindmans, as junior counsel to Fenella Morris KC and Nicola Greaney, in the claims, brought by former residents of Winterbourne View, for damages under the HRA 1998.

“Stephanie always thought outside the box and made sure the proceedings adapted to the client.” Chambers and Partners 2025

Steph specialises in matters relating to health encompassing public law, commercial disputes (including procurement), Court of Protection (including serious medical treatment) and clinical negligence (including fatal accidents and data protection issues).

She has a particular interest in cases with a human rights aspect and those in the fertility sector.
She regularly appears as sole counsel, as well as being junior to leading silks.

Notable recent instructions include:

• Y NHS Foundation Trust v AN [2024] EWHC 805 (Fam) – Represented (as sole counsel) the successful trust in its application for a declaration, pursuant to the court’s inherent jurisdiction that it was lawful for a 16-year-old diagnosed with acute leukaemia to be kept in hospital against her wishes to administer life-saving treatment immediately. Judgment.
• The Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust v (1) T (by her proposed litigation friend, the Official Solicitor and (2) Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWCOP 20 – Represented (as sole counsel) the trust in its application for an anticipatory declaration in relation to the obstetric care of  in the event that she lost capacity during the course of her obstetric treatment and would be deprived of her liberty. Judgment.
• Re X (Catastrophic Injury: Collection and Storage of Sperm) [2022] EWCOP 48 –Represented (as sole counsel) the trust in an urgent out of hours application made by the parents of a 22-year-old man, X, who suffered from a catastrophic stroke, for a declaration that it would be lawful to retrieve X’s gametes and for them to be stored both before and after his death on the signing of the relevant consents. Raised issues in relation to X’s Article 8 Convention rights and the consent requirements in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Judgment
• Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & Anr v (1) GW (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) and (2) PW [2021] EWHC 2105 (Fam) – Acted (as sole counsel) for the applicant Trusts and sought authorisation for two treatment plans (in relation to multiple sclerosis and self-harm) and the use of physical restraint for a young person. The application raised a complex jurisdictional issue and was determined pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction and section 8 of the Children Act 1989. Judgment
• Re X (Catastrophic Injury: Collection and Storage of Sperm) [2022] EWCOP 48 –As sole counsel, instructed by the hospital trust in an urgent out of hours application made by the parents of a 22-year-old man, X, who suffered from a catastrophic stroke, for a declaration that it would be lawful to retrieve X’s gametes and for them to be stored both before and after his death on the signing of the relevant consents. Raised issues in relation to X’s Article 8 Convention rights and the consent requirements in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Judgment
• Ted Jennings v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2022] EWHC 1619 (Fam) – As junior counsel to Jenni Richards KC and Catherine Dobson, acted for the successful claimant and obtained a declaration that it was lawful for him, a widower, to use an embryo, created using his sperm and the eggs of his late wife in treatment with a surrogate.
• R (LSA Secure Limited) v Care Quality Commission (Case no. CO/028122021) – As sole counsel at the hearing, successfully defended the CQC in a case concerning the meaning of “care and treatment” within the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014/2936.
• R (Hexpress Healthcare Ltd) v Care Quality Commission [2023] EWCA Civ 238 and [2022] EWHC 2943 (Admin) – As junior counsel to Daniel Stilitz KC, successfully represented the CQC in the Court of Appeal and High Court in a challenge to the CQC’s factual accuracy process and inspection methodology; an interim injunction was also sought. Judgment in the Court of Appeal and judgment in the High Court.
• R (Good Law Project Limited) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWHC 2468 (TCC) – Steph was junior counsel for the Good Law Project in their procurement challenge to the award of contracts for the manufacture and supply of rapid Covid-19 antibody tests.

“Stephanie is a phenomenal lawyer who has a really lovely personality, and is capable of condensing very complicated environmental law for clients.” Chambers and Partners 2025

“Stephanie has a brilliant brain and can absorb large volumes of detail in a short space of time.” Chambers and Partners 2025

“Stephanie is thorough, provides strong legal analysis, and is great in a team.” Chambers and Partners 2025

“A brilliant lawyer with a real ability to find the kernel that is likely to win a case, she is going to be a star of the environmental Bar.” Legal 500 2023

“She has an impressively diverse environmental law practice and she is a popular and hardworking member of the team.” Legal 500 2022

Steph has a strong environmental law practice and is ranked as a “leading junior” by The Legal 500. She is an editor and co-author of, “The Law of Net Zero and Nature Positive” (1st edition, London Publishing Partnership, 2025). She is also an editor of the Environmental Law Bulletin (published by Sweet & Maxwell) and a regular contributor to the Journal of Environmental Law.

Steph is involved in cutting-edge climate change litigation; and has experience in regulatory and private law disputes affecting the environment. Her work in this area includes advice and litigation on: the environmental permitting regime (in respect of water discharge activities, waste and air pollution), agriculture, contaminated land, habitats, biodiversity, waste, statutory and private nuisance claims, and renewable energy. She has expertise in energy regulation, including in respect of nuclear and hydrogen power, as well as renewable energy She has been consultant counsel to Ofgem since 2023.

Notable recent instructions include:

• R (Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [2024] EWHC 339 (Admin) and [2024] EWCA Civ 1227 – Acted for the claimant (as junior counsel to David Wolfe KC) in its challenge, both in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, to the development consent order, granted under the Planning Act 2008, for the construction of a new dual carriageway section of A303 between Amesbury and Berwick Down, Wiltshire on the grounds of the impact of the development on the Stonehenge part of the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site and on climate. The case considered, among other things, the meaning and domestic effect of the World Heritage Convention. Judgment in the High Court and Judgment in the Court of Appeal.
• R (Global Feedback Ltd) v (1) Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (2) Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2023] EWCA Civ 1549 [2024] 1 W.L.R. 2923 – Acted for the claimant (as junior counsel to David Wolfe KC) in a claim concerning the meaning and scope of the obligation in section 13(1) of the Climate Change Act 2008 (“CCA 2008”) and whether, in the context of discharging that obligation, the Secretary of State had to consider the advice of the Climate Change Committee. The case was retained by the Court of Appeal given its public importance and considered the meaning of “Secretary of State” in Acts of Parliament. Judgment
• Instructed by the World Wildlife Fund UK (as junior counsel to Estelle Dehon KC) to advise on the legal merits of proposed intensive livestock units in Norfolk, including a unit for 714,000 chickens at Airfield/Methwold Farm and a unit for 14,000 pigs at Feltwell Farm, in particular the implications of the R (Finch) v Surrey CC [2024] UKSC 20 in the context of upstream emissions arising from land conversion
• Representing an appellant in its challenge to a noise abatement notice in the context of critical national infrastructure
• Advised on the merits and strategy relating to a challenge to 5G mast infrastructure
• Advised on the implications of certain infringement proceedings brought by the European Commission in relation to the design, implementation and application of domestic environmental law affecting water quality, blanket bogs, and various consents in the context of a power station.
• Successfully represented a charity in a proposed challenge to the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s statement on the remit and recommendations to the Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England, made pursuant to sections 9D and 9E of the Bank of England Act 1998, to the discharge of the section 19(1) duty in the Environment Act 2021 to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement, which was conceded at the pre-action protocol stage.
• Advised on remedies and strategy under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 in relation to overseas environmental crimes and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
• R (Possible (The 10:10 Foundation)) v Secretary of State for Transport [2025] EWHC 1101 (Admin)  – Represented (as junior counsel to David Wolfe KC) the claimant in a challenge to the Jet Zero Strategy (“JZS”), which sets the Government’s strategy for decarbonising aviation, following the case of R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2022] EWHC 1841 (Admin) (“Net Zero Strategy Case”). Judgment
• R (Transport Action Network Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [2025] EWHC 1273 (Admin) – Acted for the claimant (as junior counsel to David Wolfe KC) in its challenge to the national networks national policy statement on climate and consultation grounds, focussing, in particular, on the material impact test. Judgment
• Advised (as junior counsel to Stephen Tromans KC) a company in respect of whether one of its products, tyre pyrolysis oil made from shredded tyres, meets the end of waste criteria and therefore can, through the self-certification process, demonstrate that the product is no longer waste.
• Advised on a judicial review challenge to a solar farm development and considered, in particular, the threshold for nationally significant infrastructure projects and the implications of R (Galloway) v Durham CC [2024] EWHC 367 (Admin)
• R (Martin) v Folkestone and Hythe District Council [2020] EWHC 1614 (Admin) – Acted for the successful defendant (as junior counsel to Richard Harwood KC), in a judicial review challenge to a large development on the coast, which issues of flooding and interpretation of planning policy. Judgment.
• R (Wasik) v Wealden District Council (case no. CO/4578/2020) – Acted (as junior counsel to Daniel Stedman-Jones) for the claimant in this challenge relating to the impact of nitrogen oxides on the Ashdown Forest Special Area of Conservation and the correct interpretation of the CJEU decision in the Dutch Nitrogen Cases (cases C-293-17 and C-294-17).
• Advised (as junior counsel to Stephen Tromans KC) a Scandinavian company on water pollution offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and related regulations; and the approach under English law to sentencing of environmental offences, in the context of pollution of the sea.
• Acted (as junior counsel to Daniel Stedman-Jones) for Milton Keynes Council and successfully defended the decision of Milton Keynes Council to refuse planning permission for up to 250 houses at Linford Lakes in the open countryside, in an area rich in biodiversity and hosting a local nature reserve (APP/Y0435/W/17/3175391).

Steph’s expertise in sport covers commercial disputes (such as sponsorship contracts and eSports) and regulatory matters (including doping and safeguarding). She was one of seven members of Chambers to be appointed by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) to the panel providing legal advice and representation to athletes and officials in disputes arising out of the 2019 World Athletics Championships in Doha and is a member of chambers’ team of advocates on Sport Resolutions (UK)’s Pro Bono Panel.  She has peer reviewed for the Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Journal.

Notable recent instructions include:

• Advising a national governing body on the compliance of its disciplinary and safeguarding regulations with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
• Represented (as junior counsel to Tom Cross KC) a local authority in a challenge in respect of a ticket allocation at a Premier League football match
• Advised a national governing body in relation to a Paris investment decision.
• Successfully represented a national governing body in safeguarding and disciplinary proceedings brought against a coach and participants in the sport
• As sole counsel, advised a national governing body in respect of UK Sport’s Paris Olympic Games investment decision
• As sole counsel, advised and represented a national level rugby player in relation to an anti-doping rule violation of evasion sample collection and the interpretation of the World Rugby Regulations and the Rugby Football Union’s Regulations
• Advised a number of investigators into safeguarding allegations in relation to data protection and arbitral proceedings
• As sole counsel, represented an amateur rugby player in dealing with whether an anti-doping should be published by the national governing body.
• Advised two national governing body on their safeguarding policies.
• Advised a horse trainer in relation to allegations of doping contrary to the British Horseracing Authority’s Rules of Racing
• Represented an Olympic gold medallist (as sole counsel) in anti-doping proceedings
• Drafted successful responses on behalf of two athletes in relation to doping allegations: one served with notice by UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) of an apparent Domestic Testing Pool filing failure, and the other, who had been designated for inclusion in the UKAD National Registered Testing Pool, concerning an allegation of missed test
• Selected as  part of an ad hoc panel providing advice and representation to athletes and officials at the 2019 Doha World Athletics Championships.
• Advised (as sole counsel)  a Premier League football club on a sponsorship agreement.
• Acted as an arbitral secretary for Sport Resolution and The FA regulatory commissions.

Steph has an extensive practice in the Court of Protection, spanning matters relating to health and welfare, including serious medical treatment and urgent applications. She is ranked as a “rising star” by the Legal 500. She regularly represents the Official Solicitor, family members, NHS Trusts, and Integrated Care Boards.

She is a member of the Court of Protection Bar Association.

Notable recent instructions include:

• Re X (Catastrophic Injury: Collection and Storage of Sperm) [2022] EWCOP 48 – As sole counsel, instructed by the hospital trust in an urgent out of hours application made by the parents of a 22-year-old man, X, who suffered from a catastrophic stroke, for a declaration that it would be lawful to retrieve X’s gametes and for them to be stored both before and after his death on the signing of the relevant consents. Raised issues in relation to X’s Article 8 Convention rights and the consent requirements in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Judgment
• Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & Anr v (1) GW (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) and (2) PW [2021] EWHC 2105 (Fam) – As sole counsel, sought authorisation for two treatment plans (in relation to multiple sclerosis and self-harm) and the use of physical restraint for a young person. The application raised a complex jurisdictional issue and was determined pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction and section 8 of the Children Act 1989.
• Birmingham City Council v (1) MS (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) (2) LS and (3) NHS Birmingham and Solihull CCG (Case No: 13607901) – Raised a discrete issue of information-sharing with P’s mother; and engaged the Article 8 Convention rights of both MS and LS
• CD (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v Suffolk County Council & Others (case no. 13667835) – As sole counsel for the NHS hospital trust, case raised difficult issue ofCD’s capacity to manage her diabetes; and consideration of whether capacity should be assessed on a macro basis or in respect of each micro-decision (Greenwich London Borough Council v CDM [2019] EWCP 32)
• A NHS Hospital Trust v T (by her proposed litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) & Anr (case no. 13960658) – As sole counsel for the applicant NHS Trust, seeking an anticipatory order in the event that T lost capacity to make decisions about her obstetric care and delivery. There was an issue in relation to the authorisation of deprivation of liberty, following the case of NHS Trust 1 and another v G [2014] EWCOP 30 and GSTT v R [2020] EWCOP 4.

Steph has a strong planning practice and is ranked as a “leading junior” by Legal 500. She is an editor and co-author of, “The Law of Net Zero and Nature Positive” (1st edition, London Publishing Partnership, 2025).

Her planning work includes advice and litigation on large infrastructure projects, environmental impact assessment, habitats, biodiversity, waste and minerals, renewable energy and agriculture.

Notable recent instructions include:

• R (Staunch Campaign Limited) v North Northamptonshire Council (case no. AC-2025-LON-004708) – Representing the Claimant (as junior counsel to Paul Stinchcombe KC) in a judicial review challenge to the decision to grant planning permission for 185,000m² of Class B8 warehousing development on greenfield land on the outskirts of Titchmarsh on the grounds that the council, as competent authority, has failed to assess whether the proposed replacement functionally linked land to the special protection area constituted mitigation or compensation under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Permission to proceed granted and the substantive hearing is due to take place in June 2026.
• R (Hilltop Experiences Limited) v Norfolk County Council [2025] EWHC 1447 (Admin) – Acted as sole counsel for the Claimant, a residential outdoor education centre for children and young people, in its challenge to a decision to grant permission for a household waste recycling centre within the Norfolk Coast National Landscape. The claim considered the obligation to consider alternative sites, the lawfulness of the screening opinion for an environmental impact assessment, and discharge of the public sector equality duty. Judgment in the High Court.
• R (Transport Action Network Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [2025] EWHC 1273 (Admin) – Acted as junior counsel for the claimant (as junior counsel to David Wolfe KC) in its challenge to the national networks national policy statement on climate and consultation grounds, focussing, in particular, on the material impact test. Judgment
• R (Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [2024] EWHC 339 (Admin) and [2024] EWCA Civ 1227 – Acted for the claimant (as junior counsel to David Wolfe KC) in its challenge, both in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, to the development consent order, granted under the Planning Act 2008, for the construction of a new dual carriageway section of A303 between Amesbury and Berwick Down, Wiltshire on the grounds of the impact of the development on the Stonehenge part of the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site and on climate. The case considered, among other things, the meaning and domestic effect of the World Heritage Convention. Judgment in the High Court and Judgment in the Court of Appeal.
• Advised on a judicial review challenge to a solar farm development and considered, in particular, the threshold for nationally significant infrastructure projects and the implications of R (Galloway) v Durham CC [2024] EWHC 367 (Admin)
• R (Martin) v Folkestone and Hythe District Council [2020] EWHC 1614 (Admin) – Acted for the successful defendant (as junior counsel to Richard Harwood KC), in a judicial review challenge to a large development on the coast, which issues of flooding and interpretation of planning policy. Judgment.