“Gets outstanding results”
Andrew Tabachnik QC has a versatile and wide-ranging practice, specialising in cases of complexity, and encompassing planning and compulsory purchase; and disciplinary and regulatory law. Prior to taking Silk in 2017, he was a Recommended Junior in all the above areas from 2009 to date in Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500, and was nominated by Chambers & Partners as Professional Discipline Junior of the Year 2012.
“He’s very responsive and good at communicating matters. He is also very quick, and gets to the point very quickly.” Chambers & Partners
In the planning and compulsory purchase field, he regularly appears at Public Inquiries, in the Lands Tribunal, and in High Court challenges to the grant of planning permission. His planning practice is very wide-ranging and spans housing, aviation, energy, Health & Safety Executive issues, landfills and other waste sites, Green Belt, and listed buildings. In addition, he advises and acts on compulsory purchase and compensation claims, and is currently instructed in what is believed to be the largest claim currently before the Lands Tribunal (relating to the development of Farnborough Airport as a business airport), as well as a number of substantial claims arising out of Crossrail. In the last 18 months, he has led the developer team in cases which have resulted in the grant of consent for over 1,000 new homes.
By way of example, significant cases in these fields include:
2016-17. Acting for developer successfully promoting an appeal proposal for 401 homes and a school at North Newbury, adjacent to the Vodafone HQ.
Wards Corner / Seven Sisters CPO
2009-17. Acting for developer of flagship regeneration project in Tottenham proposing substantial retail and residential development. A 3 week CPO Inquiry took place in July 2017, the outcome of which is awaited.
Farnborough Airport compensation claims
2010-17. Acting for Airport resisting compensation claims under Land Compensation Act 1973
Callerton judicial review
2016-17. Successful representation of CEG (interested party to judicial review) whose consent for 550 homes was challenged by Persimmon. Dove J’s ruling is reported at  EWHC 688.
2015-16. Successful representation of developer at inquiry. 240 homes in the Strategic Gap consented.
2016-17. Acting in respect of Green Belt site proposed for 1100 new homes.
2016-17. Successful representation of two schemes at Inquiry (for Hicks and CALA respectively) raising substantial 5 year supply issues.
Caledonian House, Watford
2016-17. Successful representation at inquiry of scheme to redevelop substantial building.
Tackley, West Oxfordshire
2015-16. Successful representation at inquiry of Barwood scheme for 70 new homes.
Cockaynes Lane, Arlesford
2015-16. Successful appeal for scheme proposing 145 homes in Tendring District
William Hill v Transport for London
2015-16. Successful representation of claimant resisting argument by TfL that claim was time-barred.
Luton Borough Council v Central Bedfordshire Council
2014-15. Instructed by LBC. Judicial review of 5,000 home consent. Important NPPF and Green Belt issues considered in the Court of Appeal ( EWCA Civ 537)
Bushwood, West of Luton
2015-16. Acting for developer of proposed Substantial Urban Extension to the west of Luton
Winchfield new town
2015-16. Acting for objectors to proposed new town at Winchfield.
West End, Surrey Heath
2015-16. Acted for developer securing consent for 85 unit scheme with substantial SANGS, including resisting a judicial review of the grant
Lymington Bottom Road, Medstead
2014-5. Secured consent on appeal for substantial CALA scheme.
Hare Street North, Buntingford, East Hertfordshire
2013-14. Successful appeal, securing planning consent for substantial new housing scheme.
Anaerobic digestion plant, Yorkshire
2014. Acted for claimants in judicial review. Council and IP consented to judgment.
Lavant Road, Chichester
2013-14. Represented developer of substantial scheme in Strategic Gap at appeal.
Crossrail compensation claims
2011-16. Advising on compensation claims arising from compulsory purchase of buildings adjacent to Oxford Street.
Crewe Road, Crewe
2012-14. Planning Appeal. Consent granted for substantial new housing scheme.
2012-13. Acting for developer. Secured consent for 375 new homes.
Midsomer Norton, Somer Valley
2013. Successful appeal, securing planning consent for 135 new homes.
Fulmar Drive, Louth, Lincolnshire
2013. Successful appeal on behalf of Taylor Wimpey Limited obtaining planning permission for a development of up to 149 new dwellings
West Hay Moor, Somerset
2014. Acting in judicial review of modification order regarding peat extraction consent at 20 hectare site.
Bizzy B, R (On the Application Of) v Stockton On Tees
Jul 2012 (Court of Appeal) and August 2011 (High Court) – Demolition and Planning, EIA screening
Land adjacent to Aldermaston nuclear facility
2011-12. Acted for developer securing consent for substantial residential proposal immediately adjacent to Aldermaston, over HSE objection at call-in inquiry.
Ashley, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government &Ors
2012 (Court of Appeal)–Fairness of written reps procedure, EIA screening
Cala Homes v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government &Ors (no 3)
2012 Challenge to refusal of planning permission, conceded just before hearing by SS, and leading shortly thereafter to grant of planning permission for 2000 homes
Crawley North East Sector
2006-2010 (High Court x2, Planning Inquiry x2) – Planning permission secured for 1900 homes adjacent to Gatwick Airport after lengthy battle
Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) v Secretary of State for Communities &Ors
2009, High Court and Court of Appeal – challenge to planning permission for redevelopment of substantial mining site
The Brit Oval
2008-9, Planning Inquiry–Redevelopment of Oval, opposed by HSE due to proximity of gasholders
In the regulatory field, Andrew has acted both for and against a number of regulators (including the Law Society / Solicitors Regulation Authority, and the Financial Conduct Authority), and has been involved in numerous matters which have concerned GMC references.
By way of example, significant cases include:
Solicitors Regulation Authority v Philip Shiner et al
2016-17. Represented SRA at Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, in prosecution arising primarily out of Al-Sweady issues.
Solicitors Regulation Authority v Leigh Day et al
2017. Represented SRA at Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, in prosecution arising primarily out of Al-Sweady issues.
2016-17. Representing SRA in various prosecutions arising out of Axiom Fund issues.
Williams v Architects Registration Board
2016. Represented Architects Registration Board resisting a High Court challenge of a decision to “erase” the claimant’s registration.
Solicitors Regulation Authority v Alexander
2016. Represented SRA in prosecution before SDT.
Solicitors Regulation Authority v Whitwell
2016. Represented SRA in prosecution before SDT.
Standard Life v Corr, Collins, Blake & Miller
2014-16. £23m action under FSMA arising from regulatory charges brought by the FCA. Represented one of the defendant parties, the MD of the main operating subsidiary.
Law Society v Ramasamy
2015-17. Acted for Law Society successfully resisting challenge to intervention by solicitor. Subsequently acted for Law Society in disciplinary proceedings before SDT.
Law Society v Chan
2015-16. Acted for Law Society. First claim issued for intervention costs from a non-party.
Solicitors Regulation Authority v Wood-Atkins
2015. Represented SRA at SDT prosecution. Dishonesty charges proven and solicitor struck off.
Law Society v Twist
2014-15. Acted for Law Society successfully resisting challenge to intervention by solicitor.
Solicitors Regulation Authority v Heer Manak et al
2014. Represented SRA during long prosecution at SDT.
Law Society v Elsdon
2014. Represented Law Society in s44B application against solicitor.
LIBOR investigation – ICAP
2013. Advising and representing firm in respect of FCA investigation into alleged LIBOR manipulation. Settlements in September 2013.
Catalyst Investments – Timothy Roberts
2012-13. Representing Chief Executive of Catalyst facing FCA investigation and charges for want of integrity regarding life-insurance backed structured product.
Keydata – Stewart Ford
2009-12. Representing former Chief Executive of collapsed company in relation to FCA investigation and charges.
Solicitors Regulation Authority v Shahrokh Mireskandari et al
2008-2014 (Court of Appeal, High Court, SDT)-Numerous regulatory and disciplinary issues arising out of intervention into practice of former partners of Dean & Dean, including challenge to intervention, various judicial reviews, lengthy disciplinary case before SDT, and subsequent proposed 10 day appeal to Administrative Court.
FIFA v Manilal Fernando
2013-15. Represented former senior FIFA official accused of corruption by FIFA. Following internal FIFA hearings, the case proceeded to the Court of Arbitration for Sports.
Andrew has a versatile and wide-ranging practice, specialising in cases of complexity, and encompassing planning and compulsory purchase; and disciplinary and regulatory law. In the sports sector, Andrew’s recent experience includes advising on contractual issues (for example in particular, restrictive covenants and termination regarding a senior Formula One manager); disciplinary issues in a long-running FIFA ethics prosecution which went to the Court of Arbitration for Sport; and planning issues, including successful resistance of a judicial review of a planning permission for stadium proposals at Fulham FC; and appearance for Surrey Cricket Club / Arora Hotels at a call-in inquiry into the redevelopment of the Oval, where the major opposition was from the Health and Safety Executive concerned about the proximity of the nearby Victorian gasholders. He also advised the MCC on the planning aspects of the floodlights at Lords.
Chambers & Partners (2009 – 2017) rank him in Planning, Employment and Professional Discipline. Legal 500 (2009 – 2017) rank him in Planning and Employment and Professional Discipline. Nominated by Chambers & Partners as Professional Discipline Junior of the Year 2012.
Comments in these publications include:
“A barrister with a very powerful intellect.” “A real black-letter lawyer who can really get down into the rules and regulations, and who is particularly good at cross-examination.” (2017)
“He takes a measured, intellectual approach and is highly capable of persuading judges on the nuances of conflicts.” (2017)
“..provides high-quality legal advice and pragmatic, strategic contributions to matters. He is a precise and thorough draftsman and a highly persuasive advocate.” (2017)
“He has a very acute mind and can be relied upon to grasp and lead complex arguments.” (2016)
“A stunning cross-examiner and entirely adept at dealing with the most difficult legal points.” (2015)
“A very thorough and forensic barrister who is a sure and steady hand in any dispute.” (2015)
“An experienced junior whose practice covers a number of areas.” (2015)
“He’s very responsive and good at communicating matters. He is also very quick, and gets to the point very quickly.” (2015)
“He is a very good technical lawyer who is top-drawer. (2015)
“Amazes with his ability to absorb vast amounts of information.” (2014)
“He is excellent, has good cross-examination skills and can deal with the nitty gritty aspects of regulatory work.”(2014)
“We use him for our more challenging and long-running discrimination matters. He has an incredible ability to turn difficult situations into victory.” (2014)
“He is a master tactician and a forensic genius.”(2014)
“He is good on all levels, and is a very sound, complete and user-friendly senior junior.” (2014)
“Fantastically thorough”, “does good team work” and “gets outstanding results” (2013)
“Gains the respect and confidence of the court and his opponents alike as a result of his reasonable approach even in the face of highly controversial issues”, “leaves no stone unturned”, and “devastating cross-examination technique” (2013)
“He really understands the need for counsel to be an integral part of the team” (2012)
Prized for his “strong intellect, great attention to detail and winning way with clients” (2012)
“Very good at unpicking the threads of convoluted cases” and “forensic in his approach and analysis, but very carefully works as a team to progress matters and consider alternatives and effects” (2011)
“An effective advocate with a persuasive way of presenting a case” (2011)
“[He has] great clarity of thought” and “displays confidence and forcefulness in his opinions” (2011)
“Forensic in his approach and analysis, but very carefully works as a team to progress matters and consider alternatives and effects” (2011)
“Thorough, very pleasant to work with and has a tremendous win rate” (2010)
“Efficient and extremely bright [he] is a dream to deal with” and “a formidable operator” (2010)
“[He] really owns a case and drives it forward. Favoured as a good team player who gives pragmatic advice and strategic input” (2009)