Monica Carss-Frisk QC

Public law

Monica deals with a wide range of public law cases, including regulatory work and judicial review with a commercial aspect, as well as immigration and cases under the Freedom of Information Act. She frequently acts for regulators and other public authorities but also for claimants.

Examples of recent work include the challenge of the British Bankers Association to the policy of the Financial Services Authority on payment protection insurance (R(British Bankers Association) v FSA) and R(Thames Water Utilities Ltd) v Water Services Regulation Authority concerning the proper interpretation of the Water Industry Act 1991 in the light of Ofwat’s duties in relation to the promotion of competition.

Examples of Monica's work for the government include several cases in the House of Lords or the Supreme Court, most recently ZH(Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ahmed Mahad (Ethiopia) and Ors v Entry Clearance Officer; Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Beoku-Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Chikwamba v Secretary of State for the Home Department; AL(Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R(Baiai) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and EM(Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, all involving challenges in the human rights/immigration area.   Monica represents an NHS Trust in a test case concerning the application of the right to life to a voluntary mental health patient which is due to be heard in the Supreme Court (Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust).  She also represented the Hong Kong Department of Justice in a case involving the right of transsexuals to marry, W v Registrar of Marriages.  

Good examples of Monica’s work for claimants are HJ(Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; HT(Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department concerning the rights of gay asylum seekers, Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police in the House of Lords concerning the positive duties of the police to protect life, Ratcliffe v Secretary of State for Defence in the Court of Appeal, concerning the right to property and discrimination in the context of survivor’s benefit, and Pritpal Singh v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police (in the Court of Appeal) concerning the rights to freedom of speech and assembly.   Monica also represented the Law Society in its support for the claimants in R (Black Solicitors Network) v Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, alleging that proposals for legal aid reform failed to comply with the Race Relations Act. The case of Gray v Marlborough College (in the Court of Appeal), where Monica was instructed by Farrer & Co on behalf of the College, provides an example of an education case which spans both private and public law (involving issues as to the duty of fairness and its application to a private school).

In the area of commercial judicial review Monica’s work has included advising clients in their dealings with regulators such as Ofcom, as well as advising regulators such as the OFT, the Competition Commission, Ofcom, Ofgem and Ofwat.  A good example of Monica’s practice in public law with a commercial aspect is R(British Bankers Association) v FSA concerning payment protection insurance and In the matter of T&N Limited and Others, where Monica was instructed on behalf of asbestos creditors and future claimants in relation to the administration of T&N Limited to argue about the correct interpretation of the Insolvency Rules in the light of the ECHR right to property.  Monica represented Ofgem in National Grid plc v Gas & Electricity Markets Authority in the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal.  She recently represented the applicants on a challenge to the valuation of shares for the purposes of determining compensation due in respect of the nationalisation of Northern Rock, Northern Rock Applicants v (1) Andrew Caldwell and (2) HM Treasury, involving arguments as to the right to property and the right to a fair hearing. 

In relation to the Freedom of Information Act Monica has been involved in a number of cases in the Information Tribunal. She represented the BBC in the first appeal from the Information Tribunal to the High Court and subsequently to the Court of Appeal and House of Lords, Sugar v Information Commissioner.  Monica recently represented the BBC on another aspect of the Sugar case in the Court of Appeal. This aspect of the Sugar case is due to be heard in the Supreme Court.  Monica recently represented Ofcom in Ofcom v Gerry Morrissey and the Information Commissioner, in which the Upper Tribunal clarified aspects of the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner and the Tribunal under the Freedom of Information Act.

Human rights/civil liberties

Human rights and civil liberties form a large part of Monica’s practice. She frequently acts in these areas for public authorities and central government, but also for claimants. Examples of Monica’s work for the government include several cases in the House of Lords or Supreme Court in the immigration field, most recently ZH(Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ahmed Mahad (Ethiopia) and Ors v Entry Clearance Officer; Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Beoku-Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Chikwamba v Secretary of State for the Home Department; AL(Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R(Baiai) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and EM(Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. Monica represented the United Kingdom before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in N v United Kingdom concerning an AIDS sufferer who claimed that removal to her home country of Uganda would involve a breach of Article 3 ECHR given the inadequacy of medical treatment there.  She also acted for the United Kingdom in O’Donoghue v United Kingdom, concerning the right to marry under the ECHR. Monica  represents an NHS Trust in a test case concerning the application of the right to life to a voluntary mental health patient, which is due to be heard in the Supreme Court (Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust).  Monica has recently represented the Registrar of Marriages in Hong Kong on a human rights based challenge to the inability of transgender people to marry, W v Registrar of Marriages.  She also represents the Metropolitan Police in a challenge to containment of protestors (sometimes referred to as ‘kettling’) in connection with the G20 protests (R(Moos) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis), due to be heard in the Court of Appeal.

Other examples of Monica’s work in this field include Tozlukaya v Secretary of State for the Home Department concerning the application of Articles 3 and 8 in the immigration context, and Lin v Secretary of State for Transport concerning the right to life in the context of the Potters Bar rail accident, as well as Girling v Secretary of State for the Home Department concerning the right of life prisoners to have decisions as to release taken by an independent and impartial tribunal. In Sivills v General Social Care Council Monica represented the defendant regulator in a challenge under Article 14 ECHR, read with the right to education.

Good examples of Monica’s work for claimants are HJ(Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; HT(Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department concerning the rights of gay asylum seekers, Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police concerning the positive duties of the police to protect life, Ratcliffe v Secretary of State for Defence in the Court of Appeal, concerning the right to property and discrimination in the context of survivor’s benefit, and Pritpal Singh v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police (in the Court of Appeal) concerning the rights to freedom of speech and assembly.  She also acted for the claimants (instructed by Liberty) in the case of R(Rose) v Secretary of State for Health and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority concerning the application of Article 8 to the quest by donor insemination offspring for information about their biological father.

Monica recently represented the applicants on a challenge to the valuation of shares for the purposes of determining compensation due in respect of the nationalisation of Northern Rock, Northern Rock Applicants v (1) Andrew Caldwell and (2) HM Treasury, involving arguments as to the right to property (A1P1) and the right to a fair hearing.

Monica has represented a claimant in the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the impact of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 on her right to property, and has acted for a Czech landowner claiming a breach of the right to property in relation to the failure of the Czech Republic to restore her properties. She also acted in the European Court of Human Rights for the applicants in The Former King of Greece v Greece (concerning the right to property) and Adali v Turkey (concerning the right to life).  Monica is currently representing the applicants in Van Colle v United Kingdom concerning the right to life.

Public Law

• R(British Bankers Association) v FSA [2011] EWHC 999 (Admin); [2011] ACD 71
  Instructed by the FSA in high profile judicial review by the British Bankers Association of the FSA’s guidance in relation to complaints of mis-selling of payment protection insurance.  
• Northern Rock Applicants v (1) Andrew Caldwell and (2) HM Treasury [2011] UKUT 408 (TCC)
  Instructed by Applicants in a challenge to the valuation of shares for the purposes of determining compensation due in respect of the nationalisation of Northern Rock.  Involved arguments as to the right to property (A1P1) and the right to a fair hearing. 
• R(Thames Water Utilities Ltd) v Water Services Regulation Authority [2010] EWHC 3331 (Admin); [2011] PTSR 857 
  Instructed on behalf of Ofwat in a test case involving the scope for so-called “inset appointments” of water and sewerage undertakers and the proper interpretation of the Water Industry Act 1991 in the light of Ofwat’s duties in relation to the promotion of competition.   
• HJ(Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; HT(Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] 3 WLR 386
  Instructed in the Supreme Court for the claimant in HT(Cameroon) concerning the rights of gay asylum seekers, involving a challenge to the principle that a gay asylym seeker would not qualify as a refugee if he would seek to hide his sexual identity in order to avoid persecution.
• W v Registrar of Marriages, HCAL120/2009, 5 October 2010
  Instructed  by the Department of Justice in Hong Kong concerning the right of transsexuals to marry.  Judgment of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal pending.
• ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] 2 WLR 148
  Instructed by the Secretary of State. The Supreme Court considered the interests of children in immigration decisions.  It held that the best interests of the child were a primary, although not the only or paramount, factor to be taken into account.  The fact that the child has British citizenship is also of importance, although not a “trump” card that will necessarily outweigh the public interest in immigration control.
• David Southall v General Medical Council [2010] EWCA Civ 484; [2010] Med LR 252
  Instructed in the Court of Appeal on behalf of the GMC in a case involving the duty of a Fitness to Practise Panel to give reasons. 
• Ahmed Mahad (Ethiopia) and Ors v Entry Clearance Officer [2010] 1 WLR 48
  Instructed in the Supreme Court on behalf of the ECO in combined cases raising the issue of whether it was permissible to take into account third party financial support when considering whether a person seeking entry to the United Kingdom could maintain him or herself without recourse to public funds.
• Baiai and Trzcinska v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] 1 AC 287
  Instructed in the House of Lords on behalf of the Home Secretary in combined cases involving a challenge to a legislative scheme aimed at preventing “sham” marriages, whereby individuals subject to immigration control are in certain circumstances required to obtain the permission of the Home Secretary to marry.  The cases raised issues concerning the right to marry under Article 12 ECHR. 
• Beoku-Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] 1 AC 115
  Instructed on behalf of the Home Secretary in a claim under Article 8 ECHR concerning the extent to which the interests of members of the appellant’s family as well as of the appellant are to be taken into account in an immigration appeal.
• Sugar v Information Commissioner [2009] 1 WLR 430
  Instructed by the BBC in the first High Court appeal from the Information Tribunal under the Freedom of Information Act and subsequent appeals to the Court of Appeal and House of Lords. Raised the issue of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal where the Information Commissioner has decided that the BBC is not subject to the requirements of the Act.
• Sugar v Information Commissioner [2010] EWCA Civ 715
  Instructed by the BBC in the Court of Appeal on another aspect of this litigation under the Freedom of Information Act, this time considering the test to be applied when deciding whether information is held for purposes other than journalism, art or literature. This case is due to be heard in  the Supreme Court.
• Ofcom v Gerry Morrissey and the Information Commissioner [2011] UKUT 116 (AAC)
  Instructed by Ofcom.  The Upper Tribunal clarified aspects of the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner and the Tribunal under the Freedom of Information Act.
• Ratcliffe v Secretary of State for Defence [2009] ICR 762
  Instructed on behalf of the claimant in relation to a claim concerning the right to property and discrimination in the context of survivor’s benefit.
• Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2009] 110 BMLR 56; [2011] 3 WLR 603
  Instructed on behalf of the defendant NHS trust in the High Court and the Court of Appeal in a case concerning the application of the right to life to a voluntary mental health patient. This case is due to be heard in the Supreme Court.
• EM(Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] 3 WLR 931
  Instructed in the House of Lords on behalf of the Home Secretary in a case involving the right to respect for family life under Article 8 ECHR and Article 14, concerning the extent to which the appellant’s lack of access to her child in the Lebanon involved a ‘flagrant breach’ of her human rights such as to engage the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to a decision to return her to the Lebanon. 
• AL(Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] 1 WLR 1434
  Instructed on behalf of the Home Secretary in a claim alleging discrimination under Article 14 ECHR read together with Article 8 in relation to a discretionary leave policy.
• Chikwamba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] 1 WLR 1420
  Instructed on behalf of the Home Secretary in a claim by the wife of a refugee alleging a breach of Article 8 ECHR in being required to go to Zimbabwe to seek entry clearance to return to the UK.
• Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police [2008] 3 WLR 593
  Instructed on behalf of the claimants in a claim under the Human Rights Act in the House of Lords for a breach of the right to life by the defendant police service in failing to protect the claimants’ son, who was murdered. The case is currently being considered by the ECtHR.

Human Rights / Civil Liberties

• ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] 2 WLR 148
  Instructed by the Secretary of State. The Supreme Court considered the interests of children in immigration decisions.  It held that the best interests of the child were a primary, although not the only or paramount, factor to be taken into account.  The fact that the child has British citizenship is also of importance, although not a "trump" card that will necessarily outweigh the public interest in immigration control. 
• O’Donoghue v United Kingdom (2011) 53 EHRR 1
  Instructed by the United Kingdom Government in a case concerning the right to marry under Article 12 ECHR in relation to a legislative scheme to prevent an immigration advantage being gained by entering into a sham marriage.
• HJ(Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; HT(Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] 3 WLR 386
  Instructed in the Supreme Court for the claimant in HT(Cameroon) concerning the rights of gay asylum seekers, involving a challenge to the principle that a gay asylym seeker would not qualify as a refugee if he would seek to hide his sexual identity in order to avoid persecution.
• R(Moos) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2011] HRLR 24
  Instructed by the Metropolitan Police in relation to a challenge to a decision to contain protestors at the G20 demonstrations.  This case is due to be heard in the Court of Appeal.
• W v Registrar of Marriages, HCAL120/2009, 5 October 2010
  Instructed by the Hong Kong Department of Justice concerning the right of transsexuals to marry. Judgment of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal pending.  
• Ahmed Mahad (Ethiopia) and Ors v Entry Clearance Officer [2010] 1 WLR 48
  Instructed in the Supreme Court on behalf of the ECO in combined cases raising the issue of whether it was permissible to take into account third party financial support when considering whether a person seeking entry to the United Kingdom could maintain him or herself without recourse to public funds.
• Baiai and Trzcinska v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] 1 AC 287
  Instructed in the House of Lords on behalf of the Home Secretary in combined cases involving a challenge to a legislative scheme aimed at preventing “sham” marriages, whereby individuals subject to immigration control are in certain circumstances required to obtain the permission of the Home Secretary to marry.  The cases raised issues concerning the right to marry under Article 12 ECHR. 
• Beoku-Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] 1 AC 115
  Instructed on behalf of the Home Secretary in a claim under Article 8 ECHR concerning the extent to which the interests of members of the appellant’s family as well as of the appellant are to be taken into account in an immigration appeal.
• Sugar v Information Commissioner [2009] 1 WLR 430
  Instructed by the BBC in the first High Court appeal from the Information Tribunal under the Freedom of Information Act and subsequent appeals to the Court of Appeal and House of Lords. Raised the issue of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal where the Information Commissioner has decided that the BBC is not subject to the requirements of the Act.
• Sugar v Information Commissioner  [2010] EWCA Civ 715
  Instructed by the BBC in the Court of Appeal on another aspect of this litigation under the Freedom of Information Act, this time considering the test to be applied when deciding whether information is held for purposes other than journalism, art or literature. Mr Sugar has appealed to the Supreme Court.
• Ratcliffe v Secretary of Sate for Defence [2009] ICR 762
  Instructed on behalf of the claimant in relation to a claim concerning the right to property and discrimination in the context of survivor’s benefit.
• Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2009] 110 BMLR 56; [2011] 3 WLR 603
  Instructed on behalf of the defendant NHS trust in the High Court and the Court of Appeal in a case concerning the application of the right to life to a voluntary mental health patient. This case is due to be heard in the Supreme Court.
• EM(Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] 3 WLR 931
  Instructed in the House of Lords on behalf of the Home Secretary in a case involving the right to respect for family life under Article 8 ECHR and Article 14, concerning the extent to which the appellant’s lack of access to her child in the Lebanon involved a ‘flagrant breach’ of her human rights such as to engage the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to a decision to return her to the Lebanon. 
• AL(Serbia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] 1 WLR 1434
  Instructed on behalf of the Home Secretary in a claim alleging discrimination under Article 14 ECHR read together with Article 8 in relation to a discretionary leave policy.
• Chikwamba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] 1 WLR 1420
  Instructed on behalf of the Home Secretary in a claim by the wife of a refugee alleging a breach of Article 8 ECHR in being required to go to Zimbabwe to seek entry clearance to return to the UK.
• Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire Police [2008] 3 WLR 593
  Instructed on behalf of the claimants in a claim under the Human Rights Act in the House of Lords for a breach of the right to life by the defendant police service in failing to protect the claimants’ son, who was murdered.  The case is currently being considered by the ECtHR.  

Immigration & Nationality

• In ZH(Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] 2 WLR 148
  Instructed by the Secretary of State. The Supreme Court considered the interests of children in immigration decisions.  It held that the best interests of the child were a primary, although not the only or paramount, factor to be taken into account.  The fact that the child has British citizenship is also of importance, although not a "trump" card that will necessarily outweigh the public interest in immigration control.
• R(BN) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2367 (Admin)
  Instructed by the Secretary of State in challenge to removal decision involving the duties of the UKBA towards children under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.
• O’Donoghue v United Kingdom (2011) 53 EHRR 1
  Instructed by the United Kingdom Government in a case concerning the right to marry under Article 12 ECHR in relation to a legislative scheme to prevent an immigration advantage being gained by entering into a sham marriage.  

Public Law

• Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 AC 167
• Sivills v General Social Care Council [2007] EWHC 2576 (Admin); LTL 8/11/2007
• Brooke v Parole Board [2007] HRLR 46
• Girling v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 WLR 782
• Pritpal Singh v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [2006] 1 WLR 3374
• Gray v Marlborough College [2006] ELR 516
• Floe Telecommunications Limited v OFCOM [2006] 4 All ER 688
• In the matter of T&N Limited and Others [2006] 1 WLR 2831
• Tozlukaya v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 379; LTL 11/4/2006
• Office of Fair Trading v The Officers Club [2005] EWHC 1080 (Ch); LTL 2/6/2005
• Corner House v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2005] 1 WLR 2600
• Reverend Moon v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKIAT 00112
• R (Nurse Prescribers Limited) v Secretary of State for Health [2004] EWHC 403 (Admin);LTL 19/2/2004
Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] 3 WLR 568
R (L) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] 1 WLR 1230
• R (Rose and Another) v (1) Secretary of State for Health (2) Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2002] 2 FLR 962
• R (Farrakhan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] 3 WLR 481
• R (Interbrew SA) v Competition Commission and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Moses J) 23 May 2001; LTR 12/11/2001
• JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2001] 2 WLR 1293
• R (Matthias Rath BV) v The Advertising Standards Authority Ltd (judgment of 6 December 2000; Newlawonline no. 201010601) 
• Legal & General Assurance Society v Pensions Ombudsman [2000] 1 WLR 1524
• R v ITC, ex parte Flextech plc and Others [1999] EMLR 880
• Moore v Piretta – PTA Ltd [1999] 1 All ER 174
• R v FHSAA, ex parte Tesco Stores Ltd [1999] Lloyd's Rep Med 377
• National Provincial Building Society v United Kingdom (1998) 25 EHRR 127
• St. George’s Healthcare NHS Trust v S [1998] 3 AER 673
• R v Arts Council, ex p. Women's Playhouse Trust [1998] COD 175
• R v Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, ex parte Andreou [1998] 1 All ER 14; [1996] 8 Admin. LR 557
• R v Institute of Chartered Accountants, ex parte Nawaz [1997] COD 111 and [1997] 7 CL1
• Attorney-General v MGN Limited & Others [1997] 1 AER 456
• R v ITC, ex parte TVNi Ltd [1996] JR 60
• R v Securities Investment Board, ex parte Sun Life (1995) 8 Admin LR 297
• R v S.O.S. for Employment, ex p. EOC [1995] 1 AC 1
• R v Southampton Employment Tribunal, ex parte INS News Group Ltd [1995] IRLR 247
• R v Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, ex parte Brindle [1993]
• R v London Borough of Greenwich, ex p. Lovelace [1991] 1 WLR 506

Human Rights / Civil Liberties

• Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 AC 167
• Sivills v General Social Care Council [2007] EWHC 2576 (Admin); LTL 8/11/2007
• Brooke v Parole Board [2007] HRLR 46
• Girling v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] 2 WLR 782
• Pritpal Singh v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [2006] 1 WLR 3374
• In the matter of T&N Limited and Others [2006] 1 WLR 2831
• Tozlukaya v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 379; LTL 11/4/2006
• R(Lin) v Secretary of State for Transport [2006] EWHC 2575 (Admin)
• R (N) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 2 AC 296
• R (Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 2 WLR 1359
• R (Hoxha and Brahimi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 1 WLR 1063
• R (Gezer) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] HRLR 7
• Reverend Moon v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKIAT 00112
• Adali v Turkey (judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 31 March 2005)
• R (Khadir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] 4 All ER 114
• R (Amicus) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2004] IRLR 430
• Ghaidan v Mendoza [2004] 3 WLR 113
• R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator; R(Do) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 2 AC 323
• Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2003] 3 WLR 568
• R (Rose and Another) v (1) Secretary of State for Health (2) Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2002] 2 FLR 962
• R (Farrakhan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] 3 WLR 481
• JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2001] 2 WLR 1293
• Former King of Greece and Others v Greece (2001) 33 EHRR 21
• Pezold v Czech Republic
• R (Interbrew SA) v Competition Commission and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Moses J) 23 May 2001; LTR 12/11/2001
• R (Matthias Rath BV) v The Advertising Standards Authority Ltd (judgment of 6 December 2000; Newlawonline no. 201010601)

EU law forms a significant part of Monica’s practice, particularly involving competition law, as well as the right to free movement and the control of misleading advertising. She was instructed by Ofgem in the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal in an appeal brought by National Grid plc in respect of a decision as to abuse of a dominant position (National Grid plc v Gas & Electricity Markets Authority).  She obtained an interim injunction to restrain a breach of competition law in Software Cellular Network Ltd v T-Mobile.  She was recently instructed on behalf of H3G ("Three") in the Competition Appeal Tribunal on an appeal brought by Telefonica O2 UK Limited against Ofcom concerning the implementation of the Amended GSM Directive. 

• Chemistree Homecare Ltd & Another v Teva Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2011] EWHC 1877 (Ch)
  Represented the Claimants on application for injunctive relief concerning an alleged abuse of dominance by failure to supply.
• Telefonica O2 UK Limited v Ofcom [2010] CAT 25
  Represented H3G (“Three”) in an appeal concerning the implementation of the Amended GSM Directive in relation to spectrum for 3G use. 
• National Grid plc v Gas & Electricity Markets Authority [2009] CAT 14; [2010] UKCLR 386
  Successfully represented Ofgem in the Competition Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal in a challenge to its decision that National Grid had abused its dominant position. 
• Ofcom and T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v Floe Telecommunications Limited [2009] EWCA Civ 47; [2009] Eu. L.R. 709
  Represented Floe in the Court of Appeal concerning GSM gateways.
• I-Cable Webserve Ltd v The Telecommunications Authority, CACV 329/2008, 11 June 2009
  Represented the Telecommunications Authority in Hong Kong in the Hong Kong Court of Appeal concerning competition law provisions contained in the Telecommunications Ordinance.

• Software Cellular Network Ltd v T-Mobile (Robin Knowles QC, 17 July 2007) LTL 23/7/2007
• Floe Telecommunications Limited v OFCOM [2006] 4 All ER 688
• Baiai and Trzcinska v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] 3 All ER 608 and [2006] 4 All ER 555
• OFT v The Officers Club [2005] EWHC 1080 (Ch); LTL 2/6/2005
• R (Amicus) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2004] IRLR 430
• R (Interbrew SA) v Competition Commission and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Moses J) 23 May 2001; LTR 12/11/2001

Telecoms are also a significant part of Monica’s practice. She was recently instructed on behalf of H3G ("Three") in the Competition Appeal Tribunal on an appeal brought by Telefonica O2 UK Limited against Ofcom concerning the implementation of the Amended GSM Directive.  Other telecoms work includes appearing for Floe Telecommunications Limited in the Court of Appeal in an appeal by the OFT against a decision of the Competition Appeal Tribunal concerning GSM gateways, and advising on the Universal Service Directive 2002/22/EC, as well as in relation to the powers of ICSTIS (now PhonepayPlus).

• Telefonica O2 UK Limited v Ofcom [2010] CAT 25
  Represented H3G ("Three") in an appeal concerning the implementation of the Amended GSM Directive in relation to spectrum for 3G use. 
• Ofcom and T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v Floe Telecommunications Limited [2009] EWCA Civ 47; LTL10/2/2009; [2009] Eu. L.R. 709
  Represented Floe in the Court of Appeal concerning GSM gateways.
• I-Cable Webserve Ltd v The Telecommunications Authority, unreported, 11 June 2009
  Represented the Telecommunications Authority in Hong Kong in the Hong Kong Court of Appeal concerning competition law provisions contained in the Telecommunications Ordinance.

• Software Cellular Network Ltd v T-Mobile (Robin Knowles QC, 17 July 2007) LTL 23/7/2007
• Floe Telecommunications Limited v OFCOM [2006] 4 All ER 688

Employment law forms a significant part of Monica’s practice.  She has advised and represented claimants and defendants in a wide range of employment cases, including race, sex, age and disability discrimination matters, cases concerning the Working Time Regulations, as well as applications for injunctive relief in the High Court.

• Gillian Switalski v F&C Asset Management PLC
  Instructed on behalf of the respondents in ongoing sex discrimination litigation, which has twice been the subject of an appeal to the EAT (UKEAT/0423 and 24/08 and UKEAT/0080/08) 
• Ministry of Defence v Fletcher [2010] IRLR 25
  Instructed on behalf of the Ministry of Defence concerning the power of the Employment Tribunal to award exemplary damages in a discrimination case.
• Shymanski v Calyon
  Instructed in relation to disclosure issues in a high value sex discrimination case.
• Oti-Obihara v Dresdner Kleinwort Limited
  Represented the respondent in the Employment Tribunal and EAT in a claim for race discrimination and victimisation by a City trader whose offer of employment had been withdrawn following the discovery of discrepancies in the details provided in his application form.
• Chaudhary v Secretary of State for Health
  Instructed on behalf of the Secretary of State in a long-running claim by a doctor for direct and indirect race discrimination in relation to NHS arrangements for training. The case came to an end when Mr Chaudhary’s application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed after an oral hearing. The proposed appeal raised issues as to, among other things, the burden of proof in direct and indirect discrimination.

• R (Amicus) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2004] IRLR 430
• Obonio v Wandsworth Primary Care Trust
• Bewley v Prison Service [2004] ICR 422
• Sibbick v Prison Service
• Chaudhary v Department of Health [2003] ICR 1510
• Gerrard Ltd v Reed (judgment of 21 December 2001; Newlawonline no. 2011224302)
• Hall v Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd [2001] ICR 99
• Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v A [2001] ICR 128 
• Waters v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1997] IRLR 589
• R v S.O.S. for Employment, ex p. EOC [1995] 1 AC 1
• Bullock v Alice Ottley School [1993] ICR 138
• Universal Thermosensors Ltd v Hibben [1992] 1 WLR 840

Contributor to:

• Halsbury's Laws, Volume 8(2): Constitutional Law and Human Rights (1996)
• European Employment Law in the UK (2001)
• Butterworths Human Rights Law and Practice (1999, 2004 and 2009)

Lecturing:

Frequent participant in conferences on public law, regulatory/competition law, human rights and employment law. 

Other Information:

VAT registration number:  447008068