Contact clerking team

Download Peter's CV

Choose the Expertise to be included in the CV download:

Select all

Add to shortlist

Choose the Expertise to be included in the shortlist profile:

Select All

Privacy notice

“Peter’s insight and instincts are superb, and he is extremely ‘user friendly’.” The Legal 500 2023

“He’s absolutely outstanding, very intelligent and knows the field backwards.” Chambers and Partners 2022

Peter Mant specialises in administrative law, mental capacity, and regulatory law. He is ranked as a leading junior in The Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners where he is described an “excellent advocate”, “calm in the eye of the storm” and “great on his feet”.

His broad practice spans most areas governed by public law, regulation and human rights. He is a strong advocate, who appears regularly in the High Court, Court of Protection and other tribunals. Clients include individual claimants and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), central and local government departments, and national regulators.

Areas of expertise

Administrative and Public

Peter acts in high-profile judicial review claims and statutory appeals. He advises on complex matters of governance and policy. His areas of expertise include healthcare, social care and human rights.

He is a contributor to a leading textbook on human rights Clayton & Tomlinson (2nd Ed) and he worked at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Cases of note:

  • Welsh Ministers v PJ [2018] UKSC 66 - Limits on the power of a responsible clinician to impose restrictive conditions under a community treatment order. 
  • Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19 - Landmark case on deprivation of liberty in care settings. 
  • R (CXF) v Central Bedfordshire CCG [2018] EWCA Civ 2852 - Scope of duty to provide aftercare services under s117 of the Mental Health Act (MHA). 
  • R (Young) v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 534 (Admin) - Claim by Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department of Health in Northern Ireland against decision to pursue disciplinary case arising out of the Inquiry into hyponatremia-related deaths. 
  • Glatter v NHS Herts Valley CCG [2021] EWHC 12 (Admin) - No duty to hold a full public consultation in respect of hospital reorganisation. 
  • R (Bramhall) v General Medical Council [2019] EWHC 3523 (Admin) - Challenge by leading transplant surgeon to decision to re-open regulatory proceedings following criminal conviction for marking initials on patients’ livers. 
  • R (Hutchinson) v Secretary of State [2018] EWHC 1698 (Admin) - Crowd-funded public interest claim challenging a proposed new model for provision of health and social care in England. 

Regulatory and Disciplinary

Peter has appeared in numerous High Court appeals and judicial review claims for and against regulators. The regulators that he has acted for and/or advised in recent years include the General Medical Council (GMC), Professional Standards Authority (PSA), General Dental Council (GDC), Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS), Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), Bar Standards Board (BSB) and Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). He also acts for regulated professionals, companies and trade unions.

He is a contributor to two of the leading textbooks on regulatory law: Disciplinary and Regulatory Proceedings (10th Ed) and The Regulation of Healthcare Professionals (2nd Ed).

Peter also advised the GMC on parts of its new consent guidance (published in November 2020).

Cases of note:

  • Byrne v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 2237 (Admin) - Appeal against erasure by psychiatrist who engaged in sexual relationship with patient. 
  • Bux v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 762 (Admin) - Conflict of interests and medical report writing. 
  • Yusuff v General Medical Council [2018] EWHC 13 (Admin) - Guidance case on continuing denials at fitness to practise review hearings. 
  • Professional Standards Authority v (1) NMC (2) Judge [2017] EWHC 817 (Admin) - Regulator’s appeal against decision not to strike off nurse who physically and emotionally abused vulnerable patient. 
  • Irvine v General Medical Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1296 and [2017] EWHC 2038 (Admin) - Appeal against erasure for dishonesty in respect of indemnity cover. 
  • Shaw v GOsC [2015] EWHC 2721 (Admin) - Leading case on the scope of “unacceptable professional conduct”. 
  • Professional Standards Authority v (1) General Chiropractic Council (2) Briggs [2014] EWHC 2190 (Admin) - Leading case on “under prosecution”. 

Court of Protection and Medical Treatment

Peter acts and advises in some of the most challenging Court of Protection cases.

Matters in which he has been instructed in recent years include end of life cases, serious medical treatment involving a range of invasive procedures, capacity to enter into sexual relations, and use of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

Peter is particularly expert in matters concerning deprivation of liberty and the overlap between the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Cases of note:

  • Cumbria, Northumberland Tyne & Wear NHS Foundation Trust & Another v EG [2021] EWHC 2990 (Fam) - Community deprivation of liberty of restricted patients under MHA. 
  • A Local Authority v DY [2021] EWCOP 28 - Capacity to decide to engage in sexual relations. 
  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets v PB [2020] EWCOP 34 - Capacity and alcohol dependence. 
  • A Clinical Commissioning Group v AF [2020] EWCOP 16 - First-ever remote Court of Protection trial in case concerning withdrawal of clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH). 
  • London Borough of Croydon v KR & Anor [2019] EWHC 2498 (Fam) - Limits of the inherent jurisdiction to protect vulnerable adults. 
  • A Clinical Commissioning Group v P (Withdrawal of CANH) [2019] EWCOP 18 - Withdrawal of life sustaining treatment. 
  • MASM v MMAM [2015] EWCOP 3 - Leading case on contempt in Court of Protection. 

Inquiries and Investigations

Peter acts and advises in major investigations, inquiries and inquests.

Cases of note:

  • Local Authority IDSC - Acting as legal advisor to a local authority considering disciplinary allegations and grievances against its most senior officers. 
  • Infected Blood Inquiry - Acting for past trustees of the haemophilia society. 
  • Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse - Representing core participant in the Archdiocese of Birmingham case study. 
  • Inquest into the Death of Cheryl James - Acting for family of young soldier who died at Deepcut barracks. 
  • E.coli Public Inquiry - Representing the Food Standards Authority in inquiry into outbreak of E.coli in schools in South Wales. 

Costs and Litigation Funding

Peter has a special interest in costs and litigation funding, particularly where the issues relate to his core practice areas of regulation, public law and judicial review.

Cases of note:

  • R (Hawking) v Secretary of State for Health [2018] EWHC 989 (Admin) - Judicial review costs capping order in crowd funded case (in which the late Stephen Hawking was lead claimant). 
  • R (Raschid) v LB Merton [2016] EWCA Civ 622 - Costs in judicial review proceedings that are withdrawn after grant of interim relief. 


Peter is recommended as a leading junior in Administrative and Public Law, Court of Protection and Community Care, and Professional Disciplinary and Regulatory Law, in The Legal 500. He is ranked in Court of Protection: Health and Welfare, and Professional Discipline, in Chambers and Partners.

“Peter is an excellent advocate, has exceptional judgement and presents complex matters in an accessible manner.” – Chambers and Partners 2023

"Peter is great on his feet. He is clear, concise and puts points across really well." – Chambers and Partners

"An excellent advocate. He is calm [and] super bright." Chambers and Partners 2022

"He's absolutely outstanding, very intelligent and knows the field backwards.” Chambers and Partners 2022

“He is exceedingly bright and has a very calm, unflappable manner. Clients love his understanding of their needs and priorities.” Chambers and Partners 2020

“He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of professional disciplinary case law.” The Legal 500 2020

“Extremely knowledgeable and pragmatic. He has a very calm and approachable manner.” Chambers and Partners 2019

“Outstanding technically and very persuasive in court.” Chambers and Partners 2018

“Highly intelligent and delightful to deal with.” Chambers and Partners 2018

“A go-to junior, he has excellent judgement and is a pleasure to work with.”  Chambers and Partners 2017

“He is incredibly intelligent, yet very practical.” Chambers and Partners 2016

“Technically excellent, he has a persuasive manner in court, and is calm and quietly confident.” Chambers and Partners 2015