Acland Bryant

Overview

Acland has experience and expertise in administrative & public law and accepts instructions in all aspects of this area. Acland’s public law practice is at the heart of his multi-disciplinary work.

Acland is happy to be engaged at an early stage in the process and provide advice assistance on scoping, framing, and pre-action correspondence to help shape any potential challenge all the way through to final determination. Acland also works extensively as junior counsel to silks in complex and high-profile judicial reviews. Acland invites both led and un-led instructions.

Acland regularly publishes, presents at workshops, events and conferences on an array of topics in this practice area. For event speaking enquiries, please contact Acland’s clerks.

Notable Cases

In the Matter of an Application for Judicial Review by Declan Conlon – Acland, led by David Wolfe KC, acts for River Action, who are intervening in a judicial review against the NI Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (“DAERA”) over its duties to protect Loch Neagh from nutrient pollution and to protect his livelihood. Lough Neagh in Northern Ireland is an internationally protected site and is the UK’s largest lake by surface area. The lake is experiencing ecological collapse and harm to local wildlife due to phosphorus and nitrogen from agriculture, including farm runoff, fertilisers and animal waste, as well as inadequate wastewater treatment facilities and septic tank leakage. River Action has been granted to intervene on two grounds, which concerns River Basin Management Plans (“RBMP”) and the Habitats Directive and Regulations in Northern Ireland.

Alternative A5 Alliance [2026] NIKB 10 – Acland, led by Marc Willers KC, acted for the applicants in this case. This judgment concerned part of the case before the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland that was remitted back to Mr Justice McAlinden, following the Department for Environment, Agriculture and Rural Affairs (“DAERA”) and Friends of the Earth (“FoE”) being granted permission to intervene. The remitted hearing was to consider DAERA’s new affidavit evidence and determine its responsibilities under s 52(1) of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (“CCANI 2022”), and how those responsibilities related to DfI’s functions in authorising the road. Having listened to further submissions over five days McAlinden J handed down his addendum judgment. The Judge distinguished between substantive statutory obligation and methodological prescription. Section 52 of the CCANI 2022 requires departments to exercise their functions consistently, so far as possible, with carbon budgets and emissions targets. But it does not oblige DAERA to include every major infrastructure project expressly in the Climate Action Plan. Additionally, a department must defend the decision it actually made, on the basis it actually advanced. If it tells the public, the Executive and the court that project-level emissions have been specifically factored into climate planning, it must be able to prove that proposition. The wider public law lesson is therefore one of candour and discipline. Climate compatibility assessments may be technically complex, but the planning authority’s case must remain stable, transparent and evidenced. A materially new modelling rationale may support a fresh decision, but it cannot ordinarily be used to retrofit legality onto an earlier decision taken on a different basis.

Alternative A5 Alliance, Re The Trunk Road T3 (Western Transport Corridor) (Rev1) [2025] NIKB 42 – Acland, led by Marc Willers KC, acted for the applicants in this case. In the High Court in Belfast, Mr Justice McAlinden handed down his judgment in the important case of the Alternative A5 Alliance v the Department for Infrastructure, and in doing so, quashed the decision of the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) to proceed with the controversial new A5 road project, which has been described as the ‘single most extensive infrastructure project in the history of Northern Ireland’. The applicants succeeded on three grounds of challenge: (1) the Department for Infrastructure (“DfI”) acted irrationally and in breach of s.52 of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (“CCANI 2022”). The Judge concluded that, in the absence of an approved Climate Action Plan (“CAP”), the DfI needed to provide the Court with cogent evidence demonstrating that the project would not undermine the interim and net zero greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emission targets laid down by the CCANI 2022 and that it had failed to do so.; (2) DfI breached the domestic environmental impact assessment regulations by failing to provide the public with new and important environmental information that it had produced in relation to the GHG emissions arising from induced trips by those travelling in the Republic of Ireland en route to the new A5; so as to give the public the opportunity to consider that information and comment upon it and the methodology underlying it; and (3) the Judge concluded that the DfI had failed properly to consider the PAC’s recommendation that any decision to proceed should be time limited – and to consider the impact of the project on the human rights of the AA5A members.

R (on the application of Coalition Against Factory Farming) v Newcastle-Under-Lyme Borough Council – Acland acted on behalf of the claimant in this judicial review. The case concerned the defendant local authority’s decision to grant planning permission for two poultry houses producing over 500,000 broiler chickens a year. The local authority conceded the claim after a pre-action protocol letter was sent on behalf of the claimant. the proposed grounds for CAFF’s claim were that: (a) The EIA screening was unlawful because it was incomplete, unpublished, and failed to properly assess cumulative and downstream environmental impacts; (b) The Planning Officer misrepresented water abstraction concerns, wrongly advised that wider impacts couldn’t be considered, and applied the wrong test for sustainability; and (c) A councillor mistakenly believed animal welfare could not be taken into account, which materially impacted the decision and rendered it unlawful.

R (on the application of Coalition Against Factory Farming) v North Norfolk District Council and CJC LEE (Saxthorpe) ltd – Acland, led by Alex Shattock, acted on behalf of the Claimant in this judicial review. The case concerned the defendant local authority’s decision to grant planning permission for “…six poultry sheds and associated development, including a biomass plant, general purpose block, pump house, switch room, substation, welfare block, changing unit, water tank, feed silos, LPG tanks, access road and surface water pond”. The local authority conceded the claim on Ground 2, which alleged that the planning officer fell into legal error in his report when addressing the legal materiality of animal welfare concerns. Animal welfare can be a material consideration in principle: see R (Animal Equality UK) v North East Lincolnshire [2025] EWHC 1331 (Admin) (“Animal Equality”). However, the Officer Report mistakenly proceeded on the basis that these concerns can never be material and accordingly fell into error.

R (on the application of James Stewart) v East Riding of Yorkshire Council – Acland acted on behalf of the Claimant in an application for judicial review. The case concerned the defendant local authority’s refusal to determine an application for planning permission. The Defendant conceded the claim on Ground 1 which concerned the application of section 70C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, having considered the statement of facts and grounds drafted by Acland and filed on behalf of the Claimant.

R (On the application of EC (by her litigation friend KC) v Essex County Council – Acland acted on behalf of a claimant. The case concerned the defendant local authority’s failure to comply with its duties to provide special education provision to a young child with disabilities and special educational needs under section 42 of the Children and Family Act 2014. Essex County Council conceded the case after permission was granted by the Court on all grounds of challenge. There was a substantive contest on costs, which the claimant succeeded in and was awarded full costs. Judgment on costs handed down by Tom Little KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge.

Basildon Borough Council v Saunders and Others [2024] EWHC 2954 (KB) – Acland, led by Stephen Cottle, acted for a number of claimants in respect of Basildon Borough Council’s application for a final injunction under s.187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The court declined to exercise its discretion to make the final injunction requested and instead, continued a previous interim injunction order as suggested by the Claimants.

Finch v Surrey County Council and Horse Hill Developments Ltd (with Friends of the Earth Ltd intervening) [2024] UKSC 20 – Acland, acting as an in-house lawyer at Friends of the Earth, was involved in preparing Friends of the Earth’s submissions for the Supreme Court. The main issue in the appeal concerned the adequacy of the environmental impact assessment (“EIA”) and focused on the requirement to include, within the EIA, an assessment of the significant indirect effects of the development on the climate. Since the development’s very purpose is the extraction of oil; and following refinement, distribution and sale, it will in future, be used in a way that will generate GHG emissions, the claimant argued that the EIA had to include an assessment of those GHG emissions (known as “scope 3 emissions”).

In the Matter of an Application by No Gas Caverns Limited and Friends of the Earth Limited for Judicial Review [2024] NICA 50 – Acland was the lead in-house lawyer at Friends of the Earth for the Court of Appeal stage of proceedings in this case, where Friends of the Earth acted as co-claimants with the local action group No Gas Caverns. This case concerned a public law challenge to the ministerial approval of a major energy infrastructure development in Northern Ireland, and raised significant constitutional issues regarding when matters should be referred to the Northern Ireland Executive Committee. It also raised whether the Minister for DAERA, when taking the decision to approve the project, took into account an irrelevant consideration, namely the provision of a ‘community fund.’.

R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero; ClientEarth v SSESNZ; Good Law Project v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero [2024] EWHC 995 (Admin) (challenges to the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan) – Acland, acting as an in-house lawyer at Friends of the Earth, was involved in preparing Friends of the Earth’s application for judicial review. This judicial review sought to challenge to the legality of the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan (“CBDP”) under the Climate Change Act 2008.

In the Matter of an Application by Derry City and Stabane District Council for Judicial Review [2024] NIKB 84 – Acland, acting as an in-house lawyer at Friends of the Earth, assisted in preparing Friends of the Earth’s submissions in support of their legal intervention. This case is a public law challenge to the Department for Economy’s grant of mineral prospecting licences. Friends of the Earth’s intervention focuses on the precautionary principle and cumulative impacts. This case is listed for a substantive hearing in April 2024.

In the Matter of an Application by Friends of the Earth for Judicial Review – Acland acted as the lead in-house lawyer at Friends of the Earth. This case concerned a public law challenge to the Northern Ireland Department for Infrastructure’s failure to comply with its statutory duty to conduct a smoke test during a state-run MOT testing of diesel vehicles. In this case, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People is an intervener to make submissions on how the failure to conduct a smoke test impacts children and young people.

Overview

Acland is involved in several innovative challenges and appeals that materially shape how the law is applied for the protection of animal welfare.

Acland works for and represents animal activists, NGO’s and local action groups in a wide range of animal welfare related issues, including:

• Planning permissions for factory farms
• Enforcement issues at factory farms
• Regulatory issues such as enforcement of animal testing regulations
• Advertising complaints against misleading animal welfare claims
• National and local animal welfare policies
• Animal rights and welfare protesting issues
• Private prosecution of animal abusers
• Challenges to public bodies who refuse to prosecute or enforce against breaches of animal welfare law, regulation and policy
• Reporting mechanisms
• Cross border disputes

Notable Cases

R (on the application of Coalition Against Factory Farming) v Newcastle-Under-Lyme Borough Council – Acland acted on behalf of the claimant in this judicial review. The case concerned the defendant local authority’s decision to grant planning permission for two poultry houses producing over 500,000 broiler chickens a year. The local authority conceded the claim after a pre-action protocol letter was sent on behalf of the claimant. the proposed grounds for CAFF’s claim were that: (a) The EIA screening was unlawful because it was incomplete, unpublished, and failed to properly assess cumulative and downstream environmental impacts; (b) The Planning Officer misrepresented water abstraction concerns, wrongly advised that wider impacts couldn’t be considered, and applied the wrong test for sustainability; and (c) A councillor mistakenly believed animal welfare could not be taken into account, which materially impacted the decision and rendered it unlawful.

R (on the application of Coalition Against Factory Farming) v North Norfolk District Council and CJC LEE (Saxthorpe) ltd – Acland, led by Alex Shattock, acted on behalf of the Claimant in this judicial review. The case concerned the defendant local authority’s decision to grant planning permission for “…six poultry sheds and associated development, including a biomass plant, general purpose block, pump house, switch room, substation, welfare block, changing unit, water tank, feed silos, LPG tanks, access road and surface water pond”. The local authority conceded the claim on Ground 2, which alleged that the planning officer fell into legal error in his report when addressing the legal materiality of animal welfare concerns. Animal welfare can be a material consideration in principle: see R (Animal Equality UK) v North East Lincolnshire [2025] EWHC 1331 (Admin) (“Animal Equality”). However, the Officer Report mistakenly proceeded on the basis that these concerns can never be material and accordingly fell into error.

Overview

Acland has experience and expertise in all aspects of domestic and international environmental law & climate justice. His environmental practice is broad and includes cases which raise issues pertaining to animals and animal welfare. Acland has worked with and/or for international environmental NGOs, charities, activists, campaigners, political figures, protestors, and individuals (including children) who have been or are at risk of being impacted by environmental degradation and climate change.

Acland is a doctoral candidate at the University of East Anglia (“UEA”) and a member of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Acland’s thesis looks at climate change litigation in common-law jurisdictions and has assisted his development of a deep knowledgebase of litigation in this practice area.

Acland regularly publishes, presents at workshops, events and conferences on an array of topics in this practice area. For event speaking enquiries, please contact Acland’s clerks.

Notable Cases

OECD Complaint – Acland is currently acting on behalf of an NGO in relation to a complaint which has been filed under the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct (OECD Guidelines). The complaint argues that the company is failing to adequately address its climate impact. The complaint was submitted to the Luxembourg National Contact Point (NCP) in December 2025 and is awaiting the outcome of the initial assessment.

Curraghinalt Project (Dalradian) – Acland, led by Monye Anyadike-Danes KC, acts for Friends of the Earth in relation to the public local inquiry on Dalradian Gold Ltd’s plans for a £750 million gold-silver-copper mine in County Tyrone. The public local inquiry on Dalradian Gold Ltd’s plans for a £750 million gold-silver-copper mine in County Tyrone. Friends of the Earth’s statement of case focuses on the Environmental Impact Assessment regime, the assessment of greenhouse gas emissions, the need to consider the worst-case scenario, the precautionary principle, the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Friends of the Earth has also been significantly involved in the inquiry procedures, raising issues relating to the Aarhus Convention, public participation, procedural fairness, and natural justice.

In the Matter of an Application for Judicial Review by Declan Conlon – Acland, led by David Wolfe KC, acts for River Action, who are intervening in a judicial review against the NI Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (“DAERA”) over its duties to protect Loch Neagh from nutrient pollution and to protect his livelihood. Lough Neagh in Northern Ireland is an internationally protected site and is the UK’s largest lake by surface area. The lake is experiencing ecological collapse and harm to local wildlife due to phosphorus and nitrogen from agriculture, including farm runoff, fertilisers and animal waste, as well as inadequate wastewater treatment facilities and septic tank leakage. River Action has been granted to intervene on two grounds, which concerns River Basin Management Plans (“RBMP”) and the Habitats Directive and Regulations in Northern Ireland.

Alternative A5 Alliance [2026] NIKB 10 – Acland, led by Marc Willers KC, acted for the applicants in this case. This judgment concerned part of the case before the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland that was remitted back to Mr Justice McAlinden, following the Department for Environment, Agriculture and Rural Affairs (“DAERA”) and Friends of the Earth (“FoE”) being granted permission to intervene. The remitted hearing was to consider DAERA’s new affidavit evidence and determine its responsibilities under s 52(1) of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (“CCANI 2022”), and how those responsibilities related to DfI’s functions in authorising the road. Having listened to further submissions over five days McAlinden J handed down his addendum judgment. The Judge distinguished between substantive statutory obligation and methodological prescription. Section 52 of the CCANI 2022 requires departments to exercise their functions consistently, so far as possible, with carbon budgets and emissions targets. But it does not oblige DAERA to include every major infrastructure project expressly in the Climate Action Plan. Additionally, a department must defend the decision it actually made, on the basis it actually advanced. If it tells the public, the Executive and the court that project-level emissions have been specifically factored into climate planning, it must be able to prove that proposition. The wider public law lesson is therefore one of candour and discipline. Climate compatibility assessments may be technically complex, but the planning authority’s case must remain stable, transparent and evidenced. A materially new modelling rationale may support a fresh decision, but it cannot ordinarily be used to retrofit legality onto an earlier decision taken on a different basis.

Alternative A5 Alliance, Re The Trunk Road T3 (Western Transport Corridor) (Rev1) [2025] NIKB 42 – Acland, led by Marc Willers KC, acted for the applicants in this case. In the High Court in Belfast, Mr Justice McAlinden handed down his judgment in the important case of the Alternative A5 Alliance v the Department for Infrastructure, and in doing so, quashed the decision of the Department for Infrastructure (DfI) to proceed with the controversial new A5 road project, which has been described as the ‘single most extensive infrastructure project in the history of Northern Ireland’. The applicants succeeded on three grounds of challenge: (1) the Department for Infrastructure (“DfI”) acted irrationally and in breach of s.52 of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (“CCANI 2022”). The Judge concluded that, in the absence of an approved Climate Action Plan (“CAP”), the DfI needed to provide the Court with cogent evidence demonstrating that the project would not undermine the interim and net zero greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emission targets laid down by the CCANI 2022 and that it had failed to do so; (2) DfI breached the domestic environmental impact assessment regulations by failing to provide the public with new and important environmental information that it had produced in relation to the GHG emissions arising from induced trips by those travelling in the Republic of Ireland en route to the new A5; so as to give the public the opportunity to consider that information and comment upon it and the methodology underlying it; and (3) the Judge concluded that the DfI had failed properly to consider the PAC’s recommendation that any decision to proceed should be time limited – and to consider the impact of the project on the human rights of the AA5A members.

Finch v Surrey County Council and Horse Hill Developments Ltd (with Friends of the Earth Ltd intervening) [2024] UKSC 20 – Acland, acting as an in-house lawyer at Friends of the Earth, was involved in preparing Friends of the Earth’s submissions for the Supreme Court. The main issue in the appeal concerned the adequacy of the environmental impact assessment (“EIA”) and focused on the requirement to include, within the EIA, an assessment of the significant indirect effects of the development on the climate. Since the development’s very purpose is the extraction of oil; and following refinement, distribution and sale, it will in future, be used in a way that will generate GHG emissions, the claimant argued that the EIA had to include an assessment of those GHG emissions (known as “scope 3 emissions”).

In the Matter of an Application by No Gas Caverns Limited and Friends of the Earth Limited for Judicial Review[2024] NICA 50 – Acland was the lead in-house lawyer at Friends of the Earth for the Court of Appeal stage of proceedings in this case, where Friends of the Earth acted as co-claimants with the local action group No Gas Caverns. This case concerned a public law challenge to the ministerial approval of a major energy infrastructure development in Northern Ireland, and raised significant constitutional issues regarding when matters should be referred to the Northern Ireland Executive Committee. It also raised whether the Minister for DAERA, when taking the decision to approve the project, took into account an irrelevant consideration, namely the provision of a ‘community fund.’.

R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero; ClientEarth v SSESNZ; Good Law Project v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero[2024] EWHC 995 (Admin) (challenges to the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan) – Acland, acting as an in-house lawyer at Friends of the Earth, was involved in preparing Friends of the Earth’s application for judicial review. This judicial review sought to challenge to the legality of the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan (“CBDP”) under the Climate Change Act 2008.

In the Matter of an Application by Derry City and Stabane District Council for Judicial Review[2024] NIKB 84 – Acland, acting as an in-house lawyer at Friends of the Earth, assisted in preparing Friends of the Earth’s submissions in support of their legal intervention. This case is a public law challenge to the Department for Economy’s grant of mineral prospecting licences. Friends of the Earth’s intervention focuses on the precautionary principle and cumulative impacts. This case is listed for a substantive hearing in April 2024.

In the Matter of an Application by Friends of the Earth for Judicial Review – Acland acted as the lead in-house lawyer at Friends of the Earth. This case concerned a public law challenge to the Northern Ireland Department for Infrastructure’s failure to comply with its statutory duty to conduct a smoke test during a state-run MOT testing of diesel vehicles. In this case, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People is an intervener to make submissions on how the failure to conduct a smoke test impacts children and young people.

Overview

Acland has experience and expertise in planning law matters and has particular expertise in considering environmental and climate impacts of planning applications. Acland has been involved in several judicial review’s which concerned a decision to grant planning permission for a large project (see Administrative and Public Law heading). Acland is recognised as a “rising star” in the Legal 500 2026.

In his previous local government capacity as a Parish Councillor, Acland gained experience in considering and responding to planning applications impacting the Parish and its residents, neighbourhood development plans, enforcement applications and appeals. Acland has since gained experience of planning inquiries held in respect of major infrastructure and energy projects, and public law challenges to planning decisions.

Notable Cases

Curraghinalt Project (Dalradian) – Acland, led by Monye Anyadike-Danes KC, acts for Friends of the Earth in relation to the public local inquiry on Dalradian Gold Ltd’s plans for a £750 million gold-silver-copper mine in County Tyrone. The public local inquiry on Dalradian Gold Ltd’s plans for a £750 million gold-silver-copper mine in County Tyrone. Friends of the Earth’s statement of case focuses on the Environmental Impact Assessment regime, the assessment of greenhouse gas emissions, the need to consider the worst-case scenario, the precautionary principle, the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Friends of the Earth has also been significantly involved in the inquiry procedures, raising issues relating to the Aarhus Convention, public participation, procedural fairness, and natural justice.

Great North Leisure Park public hearing | London City Hall – Acland has advised an interested party in relation to the called-in planning application relating to the Great North Leisure Park. Acland provided strategic advice on the called-in application, environmental issues, protected species and impacts on habitats, planning policy, and the applicability of the public sector equality duty.

EP Kilroot (LA02/2024/0733/CLOPUD) – Acland acted for Friends of the Earth in relation to this appeal submitted by EP Kilroot with regards to a Certificate of Lawful Use and Development (“CLOPUD”). Friends of the Earth acted as an interested party. This appeal was the first time the Planning Appeals Comission considered the scope of section 23 Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 and whether a CLOPUD amounts to an authorisation, permission or consent, so as to engage the Habitat Regulations. This was also probably the first appeal to consider the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling in GC Fry (having been handed down by the Supreme Court on the morning of the appeal).

Airfield/Methworld Planning Application– Acland acted for a number of local residents and interested parties in relation to an application for planning permission. for the demolition of certain buildings and the construction of pig rearing units to house 14,000 pigs at Feltwell Farm and poultry sheds to house 714,000 chickens at Airfield/Methwold Farm. Acland advised and drafted submissions on behalf of a number of local residents and interested parties in relation to the assessment of greenhouse gas emissions (applying the Finch case), the impact on climate change, the impact on air quality, protected sites and animal welfare. The planning officer recommended refusal due to the site’s proximity to a number of European protected sites and that the council had insufficient environmental information to consider whether the development would have significant effects on the environment, including on the climate.

Cory Decarbonisation Project Development Consent Order Examination (EN010128 Cory Decarbonisation Project) – Acland acted for Save Crossness Nature Reserve (“SCNR”), a rule 6 party, to this examination into this significant proposed carbon capture project, which was to be built, partially, on nature reserve land. The Inspectors recommendation report can be accessed here, and the Secretary of State’s decision can be accessed here. SCNR’s submissions are references in both the recommendation report and the Secretary of State’s decision letter. SCNR made submissions on, inter alia, the application of planning policy and the mitigation hierarchy, land designations, the applicability of Best Available Techniques, the wording of conditions, habitats and protected species, ecological mitigation and harm and botanical impacts.

Overview

Acland’s international practice focuses on public international law and international environmental law. He is interested in complex public international law issues, such as the law of state responsibility, extra-territorial jurisdiction, and all areas of international environment and climate change law.

Acland is also interested in how other areas of international law may be used to promote environmental protection. For example, the extent to which the Rome Statute currently protects the environment and whether the Statute should be amended to include a new fifth crime against peace – “ecocide”. Acland and his co-authors are set to publish a book chapter on ecocide, which is due to be published later in 2026.

Notable Cases

Acland recently acted as part of an international team of lawyers, assisting an animal rights and environmental activist detained in Greenland subject to an international arrest warrant.

Acland has provided advice on the planning process and subsequent approval of a fossil fuel project in a British Overseas Territory. The case concerned the international agreements and the complex approval process, which in part concerned the role of the UK Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero in the approval process and how the emissions from the scheme would be assessed and accounted for.

R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for International Trade/UK Export Finance (UKEF) and another (Respondents) [2023] EWCA Civ 14– Acland, acting as an in-house lawyer at Friends of the Earth, was involved in preparing and reviewing submissions in support of Friends of the Earth’s application for permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court case, which they dismissed. This case concerned the legality of the decision to approve funding for the LNG project in Mozambique and its purported compliance with the Paris Agreement.

Overview

Acland regularly appears in the Court of Protection accepting instructions from families, local authorities, accredited legal representatives (ALRs), integrated care boards (ICBs) and the Official Solicitor. Acland acts in a full range of the Court of Protection’s jurisdiction, including;

• Contested appointments of deputies
• Personal Welfare Disputes
• Best interest decisions
• Challenges to Deprivations of Liberty
• Lasting Powers of Attorney Disputes
• Capacity disputes
• Disputes involving property and financial affairs
• Forced marriage
• Serious medical treatment
• International travel and relocation to another jurisdiction

Notable Cases

Re SH – Acland acted for SH, by their litigation friend, the Official Solicitor. This was a complex case which concerned the transfer of a child to adult social care. There were complex issues of fluctuating capacity, detention under the Mental health Act 1983, residence and care.

Re CJO – Acland acted for SH, by their litigation friend, the Official Solicitor. This was a complex case where there were concurrent health and welfare proceedings, with property and financial affairs proceedings. The case raised issues as to the relationship between the two pathways and the limits of what best interests decisions can be made in relation to residence and a potential purchase of a substantial property for CJO, having received a significant personal injury award.

Re MP – Acland acted for MP, through their litigation friend, the Official Solicitor, in a case where MP was a hoarder, but managing to continue to live in his property, despite fire and health risks.

Re JG – Acland acted for the local authority in a case concerning hoarding, where JG owned a substantial property that was not habitable due to hoarding, and was instead living in hotel accommodation that was also becoming cluttered and a fire hazard.

Re TK – Acland acted for TK, by their litigation friend, the Official Solicitor. TK was found to have mixed capacity and later litigation capacity, which meant that TK was able to instruct solicitors and counsel directly. The considered the practical difficulties that can arise when P can be found to have litigation capacity but lack capacity in the relevant domains.

Re NB – Acland acted for NB, by their litigation friend, the Official Solicitor. The case raised significant issues as to interim capacity and best interests decisions pending the birth of NB’s child, and then, following the birth, the relationship between Court of Protection proceedings and care proceedings.

Re EZ – Acland acted for EZ, by their litigation friend, the Official Solicitor. The case concerned issues regarding international travel to Nigeria, where EZ posed significant risks to themselves and the community. There were additional issue regarding residence, care and education.

Overview

Acland has experience and expertise in respect of representing children in family court proceedings, but also has an interest in children’s rights in the context of climate change and climate security.

Acland has authored an article published in Family Law Week, titled: ‘Is the Environment a Relevant Consideration under the Children Act 1989?‘  In this article, Acland explored the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 in the context of climate change.

Notable Cases

In the Matter of an Application by Friends of the Earth for Judicial Review – Acland acted as the lead in-house lawyer at Friends of the Earth. This case concerned a public law challenge to the Northern Ireland Department for Infrastructure’s failure to comply with its statutory duty to conduct a smoke test during a state-run MOT testing of diesel vehicles. In this case, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People is an intervener to make submissions on how the failure to conduct a smoke test impacts children and young people.

Overview

Acland has experience and expertise in respect of representing individuals in human rights cases, with a particular interest in how climate change and climate security can impact human rights.

Acland has been involved in several discrimination cases that have arisen out of a refusal to provide service. Acland has managed to:

• Summary judgment
• Resist set-aside applications
• Secure damages
• Secure costs, including indemnity costs
• Resist applications to join funders and solicitors as parties to proceedings

Overview

Acland acts for children, young people and families in education cases, focusing on public law challenges and higher education cases.

Acland also represents children, young people, and families in civil proceedings that allege breach of contract and/or negligence.

Acland has significant insight and experience of higher education law and related issues from personal experience, having embarked on a PhD, lectured and tutored at University level.

Acland also provides teaching and training to law firms and NGO’s in relation to education law work.

Notable Cases

NS v A University – Acland acted for a PhD student who had left her course following bulling and harassment by supervisors. The university upheld the complaint and found a number of instances of bullying and harassment by one of NS’ supervisors.

R (On the application of EC (by her litigation friend KC) v Essex County Council – Acland acted on behalf of a claimant. The case concerned the defendant local authority’s failure to comply with its duties to provide special education provision to a young child with disabilities and special educational needs under section 42 of the Children and Family Act 2014. Essex County Council conceded the case after permission was granted by the Court on all grounds of challenge. There was a substantive contest on costs, which the claimant succeeded in and was awarded full costs. Judgment on costs handed down by Tom Little KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge.

R (on the application of EW (by his father and litigation friend RW) v Hampshire County Council – Acland acted on behalf of the Claimant. The case concerned a 12-year-old child with recognised disabilities and special educational needs, who had not attended school or over a year. The claimant raised three grounds of challenge: (a) The Defendant’s failure to secure the provision in section F of his EHCP in breach of section 42 Children and Families Act 2014; (b) The Defendant’s failure to secure suitable education, in breach of section 19 Education Act 1996; and (c) Breach of the Claimant’s right to education under Article 2 of Protocol 1 ECHR. The case was granted full permission on the papers and was subsequently settled by consent.

R (on the application of KD, by her mother and litigation friend PB) v Slough Borough Council – Acland acted for the Claimant. The case concerned a child with no diagnosed disabilities but with recognised special educational needs. This case concerned a child with recognised special educational needs (but no diagnosed disabilities). The claim for judicial review raised two grounds of challenge: Ground 1: Failure to notify PB on the outcome of KD’s Educational Health and Care Needs Assessment in breach of: (i) s.36(9) CFA 2014; (ii) s. 38 CFA 2014; (iii) s. 39(2) CFA 2014; and (iv) Regulation 13 SEND Regulations 2014; and Ground 2: Failure to secure a finalised Education Health Care Plan for KD, in breach of Regulation 13(2) of the SEND Regulations 2014. The Defendant conceded the claim and agreed to a consent order.

R (on the application of HM by his litigation friend KM) v Oxfordshire County Council – Acland acted for the claimant in this matter. The case concerned a young child with disabilities and special educational needs. An application for judicial review was made on the following grounds: Ground 1: Failure to secure special educational provision in accordance with section 42 CFA 2014; Ground 2: Irrationality by refusing to provide adequate learning materials; and Ground 3: Irrationality by failing to provide an appropriate laptop for the child’s remote education. This matter settled after filing the claim.

DA v A Primary School – Acland acted pro bono on behalf of the family of a four-year old child with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities under the Equality Act, who had been permanently excluded from his primary school. Acland was successful before the Independent Review Panel, who ordered that that the permanent exclusion be quashed, and directed that the school governing board consider re-instatement.

A Local Authority v Mr and Mrs L – Acland successfully resisted an appeal by the local authority against the First-tier Tribunal’s decision, raising five grounds of appeal. The appeal was dismissed on the basis of the written representations, made on behalf of the parents in the skeleton argument.

FB v A University – Acland acted on behalf of a PhD student accused of plagiarism and falsification within their thesis. The student was cleared of plagiarism and allowed to continue their research before submitting their thesis for consideration.

NS v A University – Acland acted on behalf of a PhD student regarding a complaint which raised issues of breach of contract, discrimination, and negligence.

Overview

“We had a meeting with Acland where he took the time to help us understand every aspect of the process. His professionalism and compassion made a significant difference, and we cannot thank him enough for this. ” – Public Access Client

“We left the meeting with a far clearer understanding and months down the line, the divorce is nearing conclusion. I do not believe this would’ve been possible without Acland’s help from the meeting.” – Public Access Client

“I would highly recommend Acland to anyone in need of legal support.” – Public Access Client

“I wanted to take a moment to thank Acland for covering and handling the client’s case with such care and expertise during our recent meeting. I was particularly impressed with how well he grasped the key issues and guided the discussion.” – Professional Client