Jamie Burton

j.burton@doughtystreet.co.uk

Year of Call

1999
Jamie Burton
Profile

Jamie Burton is a public lawyer with expertise in judicial review and human rights. His main areas of practise are human rights, social and clinical care, housing, social security, criminal justice and planning/environmental law.  He acted in several of the cases which challenged the central government cuts to public services pursuant to the Equality Act 2010.

 

In addition to his public law work Jamie is also very experienced in private law claims (both in the county and the high court) in contract, actions against the police, landlord and tenant and leaseholder disputes.

 

Jamie's work is often conducted on an emergency basis - he accepts instructions at short notice and has extensive experience of making urgent applications for injunctive relief.

 

In 2009 Jamie spent six months working on welfare and environmental issues in India. He was involved in a group action concerning the largest anti-poverty scheme in the world ("the Right to Food campaign") and assisted in various claims relating to environmental damage caused by mining in south India.

 

Jamie is also Chair of “Just Fair”, the only domestic human rights charity that seeks exclusively to advance the fulfilment and better recognition of economic, social and cultural rights in the UK.

 

For many years Jamie has presented seminars and given lectures on human rights law and judicial review and is an experienced public speaker. He has written on human rights, public and housing law.

 

What the Directories say

Jamie is recognised by both Chambers and Partners and Legal 500 in the areas of Public/Administrative law and Social Housing:

Jamie Burton, “was singled out by instructing solicitors for being "clever, quick and very good with clients." In judicial review situations, "if there is a way forward he will find it," say his many admirers”.

Jamie Burton continues to impress with his "eagle eye for detail and reassuring manner". (2011 Ed.)

Jamie Burton is "dependable and pragmatic," and is often seen in the highest courts. He attracts praise as a "very forceful advocate" and is a client favourite. (2010 Ed.)

Jamie Burton is regarded as "a very decent and effective opponent." (2009 Ed.)

The "tenacious and effective" Jamie is said to be "enormously able" (2008 Ed.)

Jamie is "exceptionally good", "looks at a case from all angles" and is "creative in his outlook" (2007 Ed).

Administrative and Public Law

The breadth of Jamie's public law work is considerable. He has acted in many cases concerning the provision of support and/or accommodation to vulnerable groups in society and has a thorough understanding of both central and local government's responsibilities in all areas of the welfare state. He regularly advises on NHS continuing care, clinical provision, community care (including charging), clinical provision, children services, welfare benefits, homelessness, housing allocations and asylum support. He has also acted on behalf of persons affected by confiscation orders, the actions of Enforcement Receivers and the decisions of the Independent Safeguarding Authority.

Recent cases:

  • R (M) v. Haringey LBC [2013] EWCA Civ 166. This case concerns the lawfulness of the Council’s consultation on the replacement of Council Tax Benefit.  Permission is currently being sought from the Supreme Court.
  • R (Buckley) v. Sheffield City Council [2013] EWHC 512. This case challenged the changes to Council Tax Benefit on the basis that the new laws failed to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty.  Permission is being sought from the Court of Appeal.
  • R (Almeida) v. LB Kensington and Chelsea [2012] EWHC 1082 (Admin) High Court. This case concerned the right of severely unwell EEA nationals to receive healthcare and accommodation under s.21 National Assistance Act 1948.  One of very few community care claims to be successful on human rights grounds. (Read more).
  • R (Ali Farah) v LB Haringey [2012] C0/11262/11 (Admin) High Court. In this case Jamie argued that medical needs can amount to “care and attention” and trigger a duty on behalf of psychologically unwell applicants to receive accommodation under s.21 National Assistance Act 1948.
  • R (Disability Law Service) v SoS Justice 2012 CO/8595/2011 Court of Appeal. This challenge was against the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill and in particular the withdrawal of welfare benefits from the scope of legal aid pursuant to the s.149(1) Equality Act 2010.  Jamie was against both a leader and junior. (Read more)
  • R (Child Poverty Action Group) v SoS Work and Pensions [2011] EWHC 2616 (Admin) High Court. Child Poverty Action Group challenged Ian Duncan Smith’s reductions to housing benefit. Jamie was led by Martin Westgate QC (Read more)
  • R (Dyde) v SUA Magistrates Court 2009 EWHC 3011 Divisional Court. This case concerned the licensing of hire vehicles, test purchasing and entrapment.  Jamie was against a leader and junior.
  • R (Heffernan) v The Rent Service [2008] UKHL 58 House of Lords. This landmark case established that the government agency responsible for housing benefit, the Rent Service, acted unlawfully when setting local maximum rates of housing benefit nationwide.  Jamie was led by Richard Drabble QC (Read more)
  • B v N aka Re N [2009] EWHC 2884 (Admin) High Court. The lead case on the powers of receivers to confiscate property obtained with proceeds of crime in which innocent tenants reside.  The court found that the tenant is entitled to remain in possession. (Read more)
  • R (W) v North Lincolnshire Council [2008] ALL ER (D) 34 (Admin) High Court. The council not entitled to use s.17 Children Act support in circumstances where the criteria in s.20 Children Act are met.

Housing and Social Welfare

Jamie is a housing specialist and has been recognised as a leader in the field by the main legal profession directories since 2007.  In particular Jamie has appeared in many of the important decisions that have been made in respect of the homelessness legislation since he began practising in 2002.

  • James v LB Wandsworth: Darwish v LB Westminster 2012 CO/ 213414 Court of Appeal. These cases were heard separately but will now be heard together in the Court of Appeal.  They concern important issues regarding the entitlements of homeless women who have been subjected to domestic violence and in particular whether they can be said to have lived in refuge accommodation “as of choice” as opposed to of necessity.
  • R (Almeida) v LB Kensington and Chelsea [2012] EWHC 1082 (Admin) High Court. This case concerned the right of severely unwell EEA nationals to receive healthcare and accommodation under s.21 National Assistance Act 1948.  One of very few successful human rights related community care claims. (Read more)
  • Murphy v. Wyatt 2011 [2011] EWCA 408 Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal regarding the remit of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 has a significant impact on those who live in caravans on land that does not belong to them. (Read more)
  • R (Child Poverty Action Group) v SoS Work and Pensions [2011] EWHC 2616 (Admin) High Court. Child Poverty Action Group challenged Ian Duncan Smith’s reductions to housing benefit. Jamie was led by Martin Westgate QC (Read more).
  • Lambeth short life property litigation 2011-3 County Court. Lambeth Council are seeking to evict several hundred tenants who have occupied buildings originally intended for development in the 1970s but which remain undeveloped. The case is very politically controversial and follows on from the famous case of Lambeth v Kay [2006] UKHL 10 which went to Strasbourg as Kay v UK (66746/01). (Read More)
  • Affinity Sutton Homes Ltd v (i) The Personal Representative of Ernest Cooper (ii) Colin Cooper DJ Brett, Bromley County Court 17th October 2010. The Defendants successfully resisted possession proceedings in relation to their late father’s home on two distinct basis, namely that they had a contractual right to succeed to the property and that an eviction would represent a disproportionate interference with their Article 8 rights.  This is the only case in which an occupier who didn’t have a statutory right to succeed to a property was able to persuade the court that he an eviction would breach his Article 8 rights.
  • Bv.N aka Re N [2009] EWHC 2884 (Admin) High Court. The lead case on the powers of receivers to confiscate property obtained with proceeds of crime in which innocent tenants reside.  The court found that the tenant is entitled to remain in possession. (Read More)
  • R (Heffernan) v The Rent Service [2008] UKHL 58 House of Lords. This landmark case established that the government agency responsible for housing benefit, the Rent Service, acted unlawfully when setting local maximum rates of housing benefit nationwide.  Jamie was led by Richard Drabble QC (Read More).
  • R (W) v North Lincolnshire Council [2008] ALL ER (D) 34 (Admin) High Court. The council was not entitled to use s.17 Children Act support where s.20 Children Act criteria were met.
  • R (Osei) v The London Borough of Southwark [2007] EWCA Civ 787 Court of Appeal. The case concerns the principles applicable to intentional homelessness in respect of foreign nationals who come to the UK to find work.
  • Slater v Lewisham BC [2006] EWCA Civ 394 Court of Appeal (2006) HLR 37:Times, May 3, 2006 Slater is the lead case on the meaning of “reasonable to accept” in the context of decisions to discharge homelessness duties.
  • London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Rahanara Begum [2005] EWCA Civ 116 (2006) HLR 9 : (2005) BLGR 580 : (2005) NPC 23 : Times, February 22, 2005 Court of Appeal. Article 8 and homelessness: this case was one of the first to deal with the relevance of Article 8 in mandatory possession proceedings.
  • R (Ho-Sang) v. Lewisham BC [2004] Legal Action July 2004 (Admin) High Court. In these proceedings against the council the Claimant sought an order requiring the Council to purchase additional housing stock to meet homelessness demand in its area.
  • Lambeth Borough Council v Forbes: R (Forbes) v LBC [2003] EWHC 222 (Admin) High Court Times, March 10, 2003. This was the first case that considered the introductory tenancies regime and in particular the circumstances in which the landlord must serve a second notice seeking possession.
  • R (C) v Lewisham Borough Council [2003] EWCA Civ 927 Court of Appeal. Times, August 12, 2003: Independent, July 10, 2003. This case remains the lead case on the exercise of the discretion to consider out of time requests for reviews of homelessness decisions.

Land and Property

  • Murphy v. Wyatt 2011 [2011] EWCA 408 Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal regarding the remit of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 has a significant impact on those who live in caravans on land that does not belong to them. (Read more)
  • Lambeth short life property litigation 2011-3 County Court. Lambeth Council are seeking to evict several hundred tenants who have occupied buildings originally intended for development in the 1970s but which remain undeveloped. The case is politically controversial and follows on from the famous case of Lambeth v Kay [2006] UKHL 10 which went to Strasbourg as Kay v UK (66746/01).  Jamie represents a large number of the occupiers. (Read More)
  • B v N aka Re N [2009] EWHC 2884 (Admin) High Court. The lead case on the powers of receivers to confiscate property obtained with proceeds of crime in which innocent tenants reside.  The court found that the tenant is entitled to remain in possession. (Read more)
  • Affinity Sutton Homes Ltd v (i) The Personal Representative of Ernest Cooper (ii) Colin Cooper DJ Brett, Bromley County Court 17th October 2010. The Defendants successfully resisted possession proceedings in relation to their late father’s home on two distinct basis, namely that they had a contractual right to succeed to the property and that an eviction would represent a disproportionate interference with their Article 8 rights.  This is the only case in which an occupier who didn’t have a statutory right to succeed to a property was able to persuade the court that he an eviction would breach his Article 8 rights.

Community Care and Health

  • R (Almeida) v LB Kensington and Chelsea [2012] EWHC 1082 (Admin) High Court. This case concerned the right of severely unwell EEA nationals to receive healthcare and accommodation under s.21 National Assistance Act 1948.  One of very few community care claims to be successful on human rights grounds. (Read more)
  • R (Ali Farah) v LB Haringey [2012] C0/11262/11 (Admin) High Court. In this case Jamie argues that medical needs can amount to “care and attention” and trigger a duty on behalf of psychologically unwell applicants to receive accommodation under s.21 National Assistance Act 1948.
  • R (Carvalho) v LB Hackney 2012 (CO 7298/2012). This claim on behalf of a 17 year old Brazilian girl who seeks accommodation and support in the UK under the Children Act on the basis that she is fleeing domestic violence from her father and mother.  She does not wish to return to Brazil.
  • R (Mohomoud) v LB Newham (CO/1106/2012) BC2 Case. This case concerns the acquisition of suitable community care services, including adapted accommodation, for a severely disabled wheelchair bound man and his family.
  • R (Pinchen) v LB Croydon. Claim relating to the failure by the council to provide a disabled facilities grant to Mr Pinchen or lawfully assess his community care needs.
  • R (Cordingly) v  LB Hillingdon 2012. Claim resisting the removal of a child in need from specialist foster care into independent living
  • R (W) v North Lincolnshire Council [2008] ALL ER (D) 34 (Admin) High Court. The council was not entitled to use s.17 Children Act support where s.20 Children Act criteria were met.

Corporate Governance & Policy

Jamie has advised local authorities and health authorities about the interrelationship between their social and health care responsibilities.

Jamie has thus far only been asked to advise public authorities and has not represented them in litigation.

Equality and Discrimination

Jamie regularly advises and acts for individuals who maintain they have been discriminate against in the field of housing, social or heath care.  He also acts for NGOs and other not-for-profit organisations in respect of cuts to public services.

  • R (Buckley) v. Sheffield City Council [2013] EWHC 512. This case challenged the changes to Council Tax Benefit on the basis that the new laws failed to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty.  Permission is being sought from the Court of Appeal.
  • James v LB Wandsworth: Darwish v. LB Westminster 2012 CO/ 213414 Court of Appeal. These cases were heard separately but will now be heard together in the Court of Appeal.  They concern important issues regarding the entitlements of homeless women who have been subjected to domestic violence and in particular whether they can be said to have lived in refuge accommodation “as of choice” as opposed to of necessity.
  • R (Disability Law Service) v. SoS Justice 2012 CO/8595/2011 Court of Appeal. This challenge was against the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill and in particular the withdrawal of welfare benefits from the scope of legal aid pursuant to the s.149(1) Equality Act 2010.   Jamie was against both a leader and junior. (Read more).
  • R (Child Poverty Action Group) v SoS Work and Pensions [2011] EWHC 2616 (Admin) High Court. Child Poverty Action Group challenged Ian Duncan Smith’s reductions to housing benefit. Jamie was led by Martin Westgate QC (Read more) and more

International Law

In 2009 Jamie spent six months working on welfare and environmental issues in India. He was involved in a group action concerning the largest anti-poverty scheme in the world ("the Right to Food") and assisted in various claims relating to environmental damage caused by mining in south India.

Jamie is also a member of the following expert groups: for UNICEF on the EU Convention on the Rights of the Child and for Housing Rights Watch on issues pertaining to homelessness in the EU.

Jamie acted for the claimants in an international tort claim arising from the alleged mistreatment of local inhabitants of Madagascar by an international mining company.

Mental Health and Court of Protection

Jamie regularly appears in the court of protection on behalf of protected persons, local authorities and the Official Solicitor.

Prison Law and Criminal Justice

Jamie has been instructed on numerous judicial reviews relating to prison conditions, the release of prisoners and issues arising out of the criminal justice system.  He advises both victims and suspects in relation to decisions of the CPS.

Currently Jamie acts for a group of inmates at Wandsworth prison in relation to the provision of inadequate healthcare.

Actions Against the Police and Public Authorities

Jamie has acted for claimants in actions against the police since he commenced practise.  He has particular expertise in the field of damages claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 arising from defective investigations into serious allegations regarding Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Recently Jamie successfully sued Staffordshire Police on behalf of a Claimant who maintained that the Police failed to investigate an allegation of rape adequately and as a consequence breached her Article 3 right to an effective investigation.  The case is the first to be determined at trial (T v Chief Constable Staffordshire Police CO/OBMO4476).

Freedom of Information and Data Protection

Jamie acts for Claimants and Defendants in cases which concern potential breaches of the right to privacy under Article 8 ECHR in the context of publications and campaigns of harassment.  He has intervened in criminal proceedings in order to protect the privacy of third parties and appeared in several judicial reviews which involved privacy and data issues.

Memberships

Housing Lawyers Practitioner's Association

The Constitutional and Administrative Law Bar Association

Environmental Law Foundation

Critical Legal Group

UNICEF Expert Group on the EU Convention on the Rights of the Child

Expert Group for Housing Rights Watch on issues pertaining to homelessness in the EU.

Chair of “Just Fair”, the only domestic human rights charity that seeks to advance the fulfilment and better recognition of economic, social and cultural rights in the UK.

About cookies on our website

Following a revised EU directive on website cookies, each company based, or doing business, in the EU is required to notify users about the cookies used on their website.

Our site uses cookies to improve your experience of certain areas of the site and to allow the use of specific functionality like social media page sharing. You may delete and block all cookies from this site, but as a result parts of the site may not work as intended.

To find out more about what cookies are, which cookies we use on this website and how to delete and block cookies, please see our Which cookies we use page.

Click on the button below to accept the use of cookies on this website (this will prevent the dialogue box from appearing on future visits)