Andrew Tabachnik QC

Year of call:
1991
Silk:
2017
Email:
andrew.tabachnik@39essex.com

Clerks:
+44 (0)20 7832 1111

“Gets outstanding results”
Chambers UK

Andrew Tabachnik QC has a versatile and wide-ranging practice, specialising in cases of complexity, and encompassing (in particular) planning and compulsory purchase; and disciplinary and regulatory law. He has been a Recommended Silk and 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 took Silk in 2017.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase


A legal powerhouse with a persuasive presence as an advocate” (Legal 500)

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, marinas, Habitats, Health & Safety Executive issues, waste, Green Belt, and heritage / listed buildings. In addition, he advises and acts on compulsory purchase and compensation claims, and acted in what is believed to have been the largest claim before the Lands Tribunal (relating to the development of Farnborough Airport as a business airport).  He has substantial experience in dealing with large residential and student housing projects.  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 units.  He has substantial recent experience of planning disputes in the Caribbean.

By way of example, significant cases in these fields include:

Substantial urban extensions

Promotion of substantial Green Belt sites (consisting of many thousands of proposed new homes) through local plan examinations.

Student housing scheme in Guildford

Securing consent for 519 student units at prominent site in Guildford.

Canterbury district

Representing Redrow defending a 250 home consent against legal challenge raising Habitats issues.

CPO schemes

Involvement in proposed CPOs for a derelict former greyhound racing stadium, a former steelworks, and a listed building in a historic regeneration district.

Marina developments in the Caribbean

Involvement in two cases concerning the lawfulness of different Marina expansion proposals.

Abbott Murex

Securing revocation of Hazardous Substances Consent, so permitting adjacent residential development to proceed

Wapping conservation area

Promoting residential development in highly sensitive locations.

Plymouth

Securing substantial residential consent on prominent site adjacent to AONB.

North Newbury

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

Acting for developer of flagship regeneration project in Tottenham proposing substantial retail and residential development.  Successful outcome following 3 week CPO Inquiry.

Farnborough Airport compensation claims

Acting for Airport resisting compensation claims under Land Compensation Act 1973

Callerton judicial review

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 [2017] EWHC 688.

Kirby Cross

Successful representation of developer at inquiry.  240 homes in the Strategic Gap consented.

Guildford district

Acting in respect of Green Belt site proposed for 1100 new homes.

Wokingham district

Successful representation of two schemes at Inquiry (for Hicks and CALA respectively) raising substantial 5 year supply issues.

Caledonian House, Watford

Successful representation at inquiry of scheme to redevelop substantial building.

Tackley, West Oxfordshire

Successful representation at inquiry of Barwood scheme for 70 new homes.

Cockaynes Lane, Arlesford

Successful appeal for scheme proposing 145 homes in Tendring District

William Hill v Transport for London

Successful representation of claimant resisting argument by TfL that claim was time-barred.

Luton Borough Council v Central Bedfordshire Council

Instructed by LBC. Judicial review of 5,000 home consent. Important NPPF and Green Belt issues considered in the Court of Appeal

Bushwood, West of Luton

Acting for developer of proposed Substantial Urban Extension to the west of Luton

Winchfield new town

Acting for objectors to proposed new town at Winchfield.

West End, Surrey Heath

Acted for developer securing consent for 85 unit scheme with substantial SANGS, including resisting a judicial review of the grant

Lymington Bottom Road, Medstead

Secured consent on appeal for substantial CALA scheme.

Hare Street North, Buntingford, East Hertfordshire

Successful appeal, securing planning consent for substantial new housing scheme.

Anaerobic digestion plant, Yorkshire

Acted for claimants in judicial review. Council and IP consented to judgment.

Lavant Road, Chichester

Represented developer of substantial scheme in Strategic Gap at appeal.

Crossrail compensation claims

Advising on compensation claims arising from compulsory purchase of buildings adjacent to Oxford Street.

Crewe Road, Crewe

Planning Appeal.  Consent granted for substantial new housing scheme.

Attleborough, Norfolk

Acting for developer.  Secured consent for 375 new homes.

Midsomer Norton, Somer Valley

Successful appeal, securing planning consent for 135 new homes.

Fulmar Drive, Louth, Lincolnshire

Successful appeal on behalf of Taylor Wimpey Limited obtaining planning permission for a development of up to 149 new dwellings

West Hay Moor, Somerset

Acting in judicial review of modification order regarding peat extraction consent at 20 hectare site.

Land adjacent to Aldermaston nuclear facility

Acted for developer securing consent for substantial residential proposal immediately adjacent to Aldermaston, over HSE objection at call-in inquiry.

Cala Homes v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government &Ors (no 3)

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

(High Court x2, Planning Inquiry x2) – Planning permission secured for 1900 homes adjacent to Gatwick Airport after lengthy battle

The Brit Oval

Planning Inquiry–Redevelopment of Oval, opposed by HSE due to proximity of gasholders

Regulatory & Disciplinary


“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 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 concerned with the regulation of doctors and architects.

By way of example, significant cases include:

Solicitors Regulation Authority v Philip Shiner et al

Represented SRA at Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, in prosecution arising primarily out of Al-Sweady issues.

Malik Law Chambers

Representing Law Society in relation to high profile intervention

Civil Aviation Authority v Baker & Neale

Appearing for CAA in lengthy trial of whistle-blower claims brought in relation to alleged flight safety concerns by former flight inspectors.

Middle v Architects Registration Board

Representing ARB in respect of challenge to disciplinary decision

Solicitors Regulation Authority v Evans & Whiteley

Representing SRA in high profile disciplinary prosecution for conflict of interest breaches

Solicitors Regulation Authority v Leigh Day et al

Represented SRA at Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal and before the Divisional Court, in prosecution arising primarily out of Al-Sweady issues.

Axiom prosecutions

Representing SRA in numerous prosecutions arising out of Axiom Fund issues.

Williams v Architects Registration Board

Represented Architects Registration Board resisting a High Court challenge of a decision to “erase” the claimant’s registration.

Solicitors Regulation Authority v Alexander

Represented SRA in prosecution before SDT.

Solicitors Regulation Authority v Whitwell

Represented SRA in prosecution before SDT.

Standard Life v Corr, Collins, Blake & Miller

£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

Acted for Law Society successfully resisting challenge to intervention by solicitor.  Subsequently acted for Law Society in disciplinary proceedings before SDT, and at the ensuing appeal to the Divisional Court.

Law Society v Chan

Acted for Law Society. First claim issued for intervention costs from a non-party.

Solicitors Regulation Authority v Wood-Atkins

Represented SRA at SDT prosecution. Dishonesty charges proven and solicitor struck off.

Law Society v Twist

Acted for Law Society successfully resisting challenge to intervention by solicitor.

Solicitors Regulation Authority v Heer Manak et al

Represented SRA during long prosecution at SDT.

Law Society v Elsdon

Represented Law Society in s44B application against solicitor.

LIBOR investigation – ICAP

Advising and representing firm in respect of FCA investigation into alleged LIBOR manipulation.

Catalyst Investments – Timothy Roberts

Representing Chief Executive of Catalyst facing FCA investigation and charges for want of integrity regarding life-insurance backed structured product.

Keydata – Stewart Ford

Representing former Chief Executive of collapsed company in relation to FCA investigation and charges.

Solicitors Regulation Authority v Shahrokh Mireskandari et al

(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

Represented former senior FIFA official accused of corruption by FIFA.  Following internal FIFA hearings, the case proceeded to the Court of Arbitration for Sports.

Sport


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 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.

Recommendations


Chambers & Partners (2009 – 2019) rank him in Planning, and Professional Discipline. Legal 500 (2009 – 2019) rank him in Planning, and Professional Discipline. Nominated by Chambers & Partners as Professional Discipline Junior of the Year 2012.

Comments in these publications include:

“He is always very thorough and is extremely analytical in his terms of approach.” “He takes horrendously complex work and distils it down for everyone.” (2020)

“Utterly superb strategic skills, advocacy and writing, all delivered with common sense and commercial awareness.” “Provides high-quality legal advice and pragmatic strategic contribution to our matters. He is a precise and thorough draftsman and a highly persuasive advocate.” (2020)

“legal powerhouse with a persuasive presence as an advocate” (2020)

A silk who focuses on the detail” (2020)

“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)

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.

Barrister Call CV Email

3