This is a core part of Martin’s practice. Many of his recent cases overlap with specific substantive areas and are considered below. 

Others include:

• R (ARC TIME Freehold Income Authorised Fund) and others v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government [2025]  EWHC 2751 (Admin) – Claim seeking a declaration of incompatibility in relation to the provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 changing the methodology for valuing the landlords interest on an enfranchisement by removing marriage value and capping the level of ground rent tro be taken into account. Martin acted for the Trustees of the Portal Trust.
• Pal v Ealing LBC [2018] EWHC 2154 (Admin) - A local authority's decision to dispose of its interest in its town hall for 250 years was quashed. The local authority had failed to have regard to material considerations in making its decision and had failed to have regard to the public sector equality duty.
• Eatherley v Camden LBC [2016] EWHC 3108 (Admin), [2017] PTSR 288 – Whether excavation works for a basement extension were a separate activity of substance so as to fall outside general permitted development rights and require separate planning permission.
• TFL v Uber London Ltd – [2015] EWHC 2918 (Admin) – Whether Uber vehicles involved the use of a taximeter.
• R (Ben Hoare Bell) v Lord Chancellor [2015] EWHC 523 (Admin) 4175, [2016] 2 All ER 46 – Challenge to the Civikl Legal Aid (Remuneration Regulations) 2013 reg 5A restricting legal aid where permission to apply for judicial review has not been granted.
• KM (Jamaica) and WL (Congo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 245.Landmark case on administrative detention decided by a 9 judge Supreme Court establishing that a public law error that bears on the decision to detain renders it unlawful. Martin acted for KM and undertook the argument on behalf of the Appellants in relation to damages.

Martin acts in a range of employment and related disputes, particularly those with a a public law element. He also acts for and advises unions on their internal rules and election procedures and in relation to collective action. He has particular specialism in police and terms and conditions including pensions.

Notable cases include:

• R (FDA) v Minister for the Cabinet Office [2018] EWHC 2746 (Admin) -  Whether the D was obliged to consult before issuing pay guidance and setting a range for average pay increases for civil servants.
• Allard v Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall [2015] EWCA Civ 42, [2015] I.C.R. 875 – Recalls to duty and overtime payments where informant handlers are contacted outside their normal working hours. Martin then acted in a group action for similar cases where lead issues were determined in KSO v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2022] EWHC 2514 (KB), [2023] I.C.R. 34. 

Martin has a long track record in all aspects of housing and social welfare law. 

• Khan v D’Aubigny [2025] EWCA Civ 11, [2025] Ch 168. S. 7 Interpretation Act 1978 which provides for deemed service in relation to statutory provisions which authorise or require any document to be served by post, did not apply to a provision that simply referred to "giving" a document, without any reference to that being done by post. On the facts the documents were covered by contractual provisions about deemed service.
• Rahimi v Westminster CC [2024] EWCA Civ 73, [2024] H.L.R. 17 – Whether a surrender and re-grant of a new sole tenancy could be inferred where a joint tenant had left the property.
• Imam v LB Croydon [2023] UKSC 45, [2025] A.C. 335 – Leading case on when an injunction will be grated to enforce the duties owed under part VII Housing Act 1996.
• A series of cases involving various aspects of the Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 – Kaye v Lees [2022] EWHC 3326 (KB), [2023] B.P.I.R. 689, Seculink v Forbes [2025] 1 W.L.R. 1786 (jurisdiction to determine what is a qualifying debt), Forbes v Interbay Funding Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 690, [2025] 1 WLR 4202 (principal sum of secured debt is “non-eligible debt”)
• R (Ncube) v Brighton and Hove CC [2021] EWHC 578 (Admin), [2021] 1 W.L.R. 4762 – Determination of the powers under which authorities could lawfully provide accommodation to street homeless persons with no recourse to public funds during the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Arkin v Marshall [2020] EWCA, [2020] 1 WLR 3284 – Validity of the stay on possession claims brought imposed by CPR PD 51Z during the coronavirus pandemic. Martin acted for HLPA as intervener.
• Guiste v LB Lambeth [2019] EWCA 1758, [2020] H.L.R. 12 – LA erred in rejecting a consultant psychiatrist’s opinion without good reason.
• Samuels v Birmingham CC [2019] UKSC 28, [2019] P.T.S.R. 1229 – when accommodation is “affordable”.  Martin acted for Shelter as intervener.
• R (DA) v SSWP [2019] UKSC 21 – Whether the revised benefit cap discriminated against lone parents or breached the UNCRC. Martin acted for Shelter as intervener.  
• Alibkhiet v Brent LBC [2018] EWCA Civ 2742, [2019] HLR 15 – discharge of the full housing duty by offers made outside district.
• WB v WDC [2018] EWCA Civ 928, [2019] Q.B. 625 – Whether and how a homelessness application can be made on behalf of a person lacking capacity.
• Panayiotou v Waltham Forest LBC [2017] EWCA Civ 1624, [2018] QB 1232 – Considering the meaning of the term “significantly” for the purpose of determining whether a person is vulnerable and so in priority need.
• Poshteh v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC [2017] UKSC 36 [2017] AC 624 – whether the duties imposed under part VII Housing Act 1996 gave rise to civil rights and obligations under ECHR Art 6.
• R (MA) v SSWP [2016] UKSC 58, [2016] 1 W.L.R. 4550 – whether the “bedroom tax” unlawfully discriminated against claimants with a need for an additional bedroom by reason of disability.   
• R (McLeod) v Peabody Trust Governors [2016] EWHC 737 (Admin), [2016] H.L.R. 27 – Whether refusal to consen to mutual exchange was amendable to judicial review.
• Nzolameso v Westminster CC [2015] UKSC 22, [2015] PTSR 549 –Discharge of temporary accommodation duty by the provision of out of out of borough accommodation.
• R (Jakimaviciute) v LB Hammersmith and Fulham [2014] EWCA Civ 1438 – Allocation scheme declared unlawful for failure to give a reasonable preference to people accepted as homeless but in suitable temporary accommodation.
• Telchadder v Wickland Holdings Limited [2014] UKSC 57 – requirements for and validity of a notice to terminate a Mobile Homes Act 1983 agreement.
• NJ v Wandsworth LBC [2013] EWCA Civ 1373, [2014] P.T.S.R. 497 – local connection acquired through residence in a refuge; decision that intervening events meant that the original decision was deficient so as to require a minded to find notice under Reg 8 of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedure) Regulations 2009.
• Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues [2013] 1 WLR 3848 CA – Appeal establishing that the tenancy deposit regime applies to statutory periodic tenancies arising after the provisions came into force even where the original tenancy was granted beforehand.
• R (CPAG) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] Eq. L.R. 1233 – a challenge to the decision of the Secretary of State to introduce national caps on the amounts of housing benefit payable. Martin acted pro bono for the CPAG.
• Crown Estates Commissioners v Governors of the Peabody Trust [2011] EWHC 1467 (Ch), [2011] L. & T.R. 23 – whether protected crown tenants become secure or assured on transfer of the landlords interest to a private body. Martin was instructed on behalf of the tenants.
• Martin acted for the protester Brian Haw in his successful appeal against the Mayor of London’s action for possession against him of Parliament Square Gardens [2010] EWCA Civ 817, [2011] 1 W.L.R. 504. He also acted on the remitted hearing [2011] EWHC 585.
• Dixon v Rochdale MBC [2012] P.T.S.R. 1336 CA – Power of a local authority to seek possession for non-payment of water rates.

• R (CYK) v Kent CC [2026] EWHC 779 (Admin) – A claim concerning the power (under s, 24A(5) Children Act 1989) to provide accommodation to former asylum seeking children. The issue was whether, in deciding whether or not to exercise its power, the authority coild take into account the actual or potential availability of asylum support. The court held that an authority may not not take this into account where, ignoring the actual or potential provision of asylum support by the Home Secretary, it would in the specific circumstances be required to exercise its power under s.24A(5).
• Ali v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2024] EWCA Civ 372, [2024] 1 W.L.R. 5097 - A First-tier Tribunal judge had erred in his interpretation of Secretary of State for the Home Department v Abbas [2017] EWCA Civ 1393, [2018] 1 W.L.R. 533, [2017] 9 WLUK 427 and in finding that ECHR art.8 was not engaged when a resident non-national who had been granted indefinite leave to remain, whose travel document had been lost whilst abroad, sought re-entry to the UK. The case was remitted to the Upper Tribunal for determination of the appellant's art.8 private life appeal on the merits.
• R (ECPAT) v Kent CC [2023] EWHC 1953 (Admin), [2024] P.T.S.R 243, [2023] EWHC 2199 (Admin) (Remedy)-  The Secretary of State for the Home Department had acted unlawfully in routinely and systematically accommodating newly arrived unaccompanied asylum-seeking (UAS) children in hotels, outside local authority care. Kent County Council had also acted unlawfully in ceasing to accept responsibility for some UAS children, while continuing to accept other children into its care. Martin acted for ECPAT.
• JH (Palestinian Territories) v Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) [2020] EWCA Civ 919, [2021] 1 W.L.R. 455 - The relationship between the costs jurisdiction of the administrative court on judicial review and on appeal in the Upper Tribunal.
• R (JCWI) v SSHD [2020] EWCA Civ 542, [2021] 1 W.L.R. 1151 – Challenge to the operation of “right to rent” legislation on the basis that it was incompatible with Art 14 and 8 ECHR because it caused landlords to discriminate. Martin acted for Liberty as intervener.
• R (MK) v SSHD [2019] EWHC 3573 (Admin), [2020] 4 W.L.R. 37 – No systemic unlawfulness in delay in determining claims by unaccompanied asylum seeking children.   
• R (PK (Ghana) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 98, [2018] 1 WLR 3955 - Guidance issued by the secretary of state, stating that it might be appropriate to grant discretionary leave to a trafficking victim if their personal circumstances were "compelling", was unlawful as it did not properly reflect the European Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings 2005 art.14(1)(a).
• R (HN) Afghanistan v SSHD [2016] EWCA Civ 123 - Whether the worsening security position in Afghanistan gave rise to fresh asylum claims.
• R (G) v SSHD [2016] 1 WLR 4031 – Challenge to the support provisions of Guidance to the competent authority on victims of modern slavery.
• R (MG Iran) v SSHD [2015] EWHC 3142 (Admin), [2015] EWHC 3470 (Admin) – Breach of Art 8 ECHR where an asylum seeker was accommodated more than 100 miles away from his child and without provision of additional travel expenses.

Martin acted for the father baby RB in his opposition to the application by the NHS Trust to withdraw life sustaining treatment [2009] EWHC 3269 (Fam), [2010] 1 FLR 946.  He also acted for the trust in Barts Health NHS Trust v Dance [2022] EWCA 935, [2022] 4 W.L.R. 83 and [2022] EWFC 80.  

Other cases include:

• R (RF) v SSWP [2017] EWHC 3375 (Admin) [2018] P.T.S.R. Amendments to mobility activities to be assessed in determining entitlement for PIP quashed as being unlawfully discriminatory.
• R (Sumpter) v SSWP [2015] EWCA Civ 1033 – Challenge to the 20m threshold for enhanced rate personal independence payment on the basis of inadequate consultation.
• R (MK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 1896 Admin – determining that the Secretary of State’s policy requiring fresh asylum claims to be considered before their applications for support was unlawful because it created an unacceptable risk of a breach of Art. 3 ECHR.
• In G v E [2010] EWCA Civ 822 -  defining the relationship between deprivation of liberty under the best interests jurisdiction in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Article 5 ECHR.
• R (K) v SSHD [2010] EWHC 1002 (Admin); [2011] EWCA Civ 671 - scope of the powers of the Secretary of state to provide support to failed asylum seekers when they are in a mixed household with a person who is not an asylum seeker and so entitled to mainstream benefits.

Human Rights arguments feature across the whole spectrum of Martin’s work. His recent cases have dealt with issues as diverse as the right to life (RB and AP), right to home and family life (see e.g. K, Peabody), private life (Wood), freedom from arbitrary detention (e.g. WL, G v E), rights to protest and free speech (Haw, Castle) rights to property and possessions. His recent cases under this head not already highlighted above include:

• Ismail v Secretary of State for Defence [2013] EWHC 3032 (Admin), [2014] ACD 34 –whether detainees in Afghanistan could be transferred to the Afghan authorities before they had received legal advice.
• R (Catt) v ACPO [2013] 1 WLR 3305 – Martin acted for Liberty as intervener in this case concerning the retention of data in respect of an elderly protester.
• R (AP) V HM Coroner for Worcestershire [2011] EWHC 1453 (Admin), [2011] Med LR 397 – investigative duty where a vulnerable young man was attacked and killed after having complained about his attacker to the police.

Martin advises and represents in a range of issues concerning the law of other jurisdictions – principally those with a right of appeal to the Privy Council. His work in this field has included advice on the powers of the Governor of Gibraltar to dispose of land, the application of state immunity in Gibraltar, the law of prescription in Trinidad and Tobago undue influence and purchase by a company of its own shares (Nature Resorts Ltd v First Citizens Bank Ltd [2022] UKPC, 2022 1 WLR 2788() compulsory purchase in Antigua (HMB Holdings v Antigua [2007] UKPC 37), environmental law (Belize Alliance of Conservation NGOs v Department of the Environment of Belize [2004] UPKC 6; [2004] Env LR 38) and advice on whether forced evictions in Zimbabwe were a crime against humanity. Read More.

Most of Martin’s costs work arises from his substantive practice areas but it is not confined to this. He has represented a number of claimants in cases concerning the costs incurred in inquests or other processes as the costs of subsequent civil proceedings (e.g. Powell v CC West Midlands Police [2018] Inq LR 215) ). He has advised on a range of costs issues including the validity of conditional fee arrangements, recovery of insurance premiums and referral arrangements disputes relating to legal aid and contracting. 

Other cases:

• Covid Enquiry - Martin represented Shelter as a core participant in Module 10: Impact on Society.
• MTA v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2024] EWCA Civ 965, [2025] KB 151 – A claim for damages for false imprisonment and/or HRA damages arising from MTA’s imprisonment for breaches of an injunction granted when he lacked capacity and had no litigation friend. The Court of Appeal held that where HRA damages were claimed in respect of imprisonment in consequence of a judicial act it was not necessarily an abuse of process to bring a claim in the High Court without having first appealed the Order.
• Derby City Council v BA [2021] EWHC 2931 (Fam), [2022] 1 W.L.R. 2723 – The circumstances in which the court will exercise its inherent jurisdiction to authorise the deprivation of liberty of a child under 16 in an unregistered placement.
• Kingston upon Thames RLBC v Moss [2020] EWCA Civ 1381, [2021] P.T.S.R. 536 - The result of an agreement between a local authority and a water utilities company was that the local authority was a "re-seller" for the purposes of the Water Resale Orders 2001 and 2006, made under the Water Industry Act 1991, with the effect that the water charges that it could pass on to its tenants were capped.
• Mackintosh v Ricketts (valuation officer) [2019] RVR 202 - Office premises occupied by a law firm which provided specialist advice to disabled people on matters relating to welfare and housing arrangements were exempt from rating under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 Sch.5 para.16(1)(b), as they were wholly used for "the provision of welfare services for disabled persons".
• Foster v McNicol [2016] EWHC 1966 (QB) – Acted for Jeremy Corbyn MP in a challenge to the decision of the Labour Party NEC that he was entitled to take part in a leadership ballot automatically and without the need to obtain nominations.