Gary Oliver
Senior Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7325
Monica’s practice spans public and regulatory law, civil liberties and human rights (including immigration), EU and competition law, commercial law, telecoms and employment law. She has appeared in a large number of leading cases in the Court of Appeal, House of Lords and the Supreme Court, as well as in the High Court, and other Courts and Tribunals.
Monica is one of the UK’s most highly rated King's Counsel and was co-Head of Blackstone Chambers from January 2012 to October 2022. Prior to taking silk, Monica was Junior Counsel to the Crown (A Panel).
She has been called to the Bar of Hong Kong, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands to enable her to represent clients in those jurisdictions.
Monica is recognised by latest editions of both the leading independent legal directories for her expertise in administrative & public law, financial services regulation, EU law and civil liberties & human rights. Key recent quotes include:
Monica deals with a wide range of public law cases, including regulatory work and judicial review with a commercial aspect. She frequently advises and acts for regulators and other public authorities, as well as claimants in relation to regulatory proceedings and judicial review.
Prior to taking silk, Monica was Junior Counsel to the Crown (A Panel).
Key cases in her career include:
“Monica draws upon her extensive litigation experience to deliver clear and direct strategic and legal advice in a palatable manner.”
Chambers & Partners, 2024
“She produces work of an unmatched quality, coupled with fantastic client service. It is clear how much she is respected by clients and the court alike.”
Chambers & Partners, 2024
“Monica takes on difficult cases and makes them less difficult.”
Chambers & Partners, 2024
“Monica is very calm and measured in her advocacy, she is engaged and puts clients at ease and she gets it absolutely right.”
Chambers & Partners, 2024
“She is very approachable and provides great advice in conference; she is very good at dealing with complex client questions.”
Chambers and Partners, 2023
“Her advice on complex public law and regulatory matters is invaluable; she really appreciates the aims and practical challenges faced by regulators."”
Chambers and Partners, 2023
“She is all over the strategic matters and utterly unflappable. She is a refined presence in court and knows exactly what she is doing.”
Chambers and Partners, 2023
“Monica is absolutely incredible on her feet and has a meticulous eye for detail. She is a real silent assassin in her cross-examination.”
Chambers and Partners, 2023
“Monica provides astute, considered and practical advice throughout the course of the instruction. She is client friendly and has no weaknesses.”
Legal 500, 2023
“She's super prepared, with extremely polished delivery in court.”
Chambers and Partners, 2022
“Very, very clever – she is always able to sharpen a point.”
Legal 500, 2022
“A calm and measured advocate, and genuine expert in the field who commands respect from tribunals at all levels.”
Legal 500, 2022
“Extremely intelligent with real gravitas with clients and in court.”
Legal 500, 2021
“Her delivery of legal advice and advocacy is exceptional - almost hypnotic. She casts a spell on the court.”
Chambers and Partners, 2021
“Her irresistible style of advocacy is extremely effective.”
Legal 500, 2020
“First-rate on public law matters spanning a wide variety of sectors.”
Chambers and Partners, 2020
“She's strategically insightful and quick to see the arguments. She also has real gravitas and good judgement.”
Chambers and Partners, 2020
“Excellent with clients and a very calm and authoritative presence in the courtroom. She has a great skill for presenting technical matters clearly along robust public law principles.”
Chambers and Partners, 2020
“A highly experienced regulatory barrister.”
Legal 500, 2019
“Her irresistible style of advocacy is extremely effective.”
Legal 500, 2019
“A very calming influence and a pleasure to work with.”
Chambers and Partners, 2019
“She gets the full attention of any judge she appears before through her careful, clear and well-constructed arguments and analysis.”
Chambers and Partners, 2019
“She has real gravitas and gives clients the comfort that they are in safe hands.”
Chambers and Partners, 2019
“Offers punchy, clear and direct advice on tough points at the intersection of regulatory and planning law.”
Chambers and Partners, 2019
“Her legal analysis is second to none.”
Chambers and Partners, 2018
“A brilliant public law and immigration silk.”
Chambers and Partners, 2018
“Wonderfully clear and engaging, and has excellent judgement.”
Legal 500, 2018
“Outstanding judgement and ability to think on her feet, with an excellent grasp of detail”
Chambers and Partners, 2017
“She's been very impressive all around, as you would expect from such an experienced QC”
Chambers and Partners, 2017
“The perfect silk for the hardest cases.”
Legal 500, 2017
Acted for the Interested Party in a judicial review challenge to the regulation of the launch of BBC Radio 1 Dance (R1D).
Represented the claimant in the Divisional Court on a judicial review concerning a search and seizure warrant and the circumstances in which it is appropriate to appoint a special advocate in relation to a closed hearing.
Acted for the Financial Conduct Authority on an application to stay disciplinary proceedings before the their Regulatory Decisions Committee pending the outcome of Commercial Court proceedings where the issues to be considered were held to be the same.
Instructed by the Office for Students on an application for interim relief to prevent the new higher education regulator from publishing its decision not to register the Claimant as a higher education provider.
Represented the intervener, Human Rights Watch, in an appeal brought by a non-gendered person challenging the Government’s policy not to issue non gender-specific “X” passports to non-gendered, non-binary and other trans persons who do not identify as, or exclusively as, male or female.
Represented the higher education regulator, the OfS, in a judicial review challenge to its decision not to register the Claimant higher education provider.
Advising the German Swiss International School Association Limited (“GSISAL”) in a case concerning discriminatory language restrictions imposed by the German Swiss International School in Hong Kong. The Hon Mr Justice Harris upheld the application by GSISAL for a declaration that the German language restrictions contained in its Articles of Association infringed the Race Discrimination Ordinance (Cap. 602).
Acted for a regulator in a judicial review chalenge to a regulatory judgement assessing the Claimant as non-compliant with regulatory standards.
Instructed to act for the former Prime Minister of Qatar. The claim is for damages, including aggravated damages for assault and false imprisonment out of his detention in Qatar between October 2009 to January 2011.
Acted for Ofgem Authority in a judicial review of a decision concerning regulated revenue made pursuant to the Offshore Transmission Licence.
Acting for the Director of Immigration in a Landmark Hong Kong Court of Appeal ruling in a discrimination case regarding excluding a same-sex couple from a policy of granting dependant visas to the spouses of employment visa holders.
Acted for one of the Claimants in judicial review proceedings relating to the regulator's failure to repay them sums paid by way of penalties in circumstances where the regulator had made such a repayment to another company.
Judicial review in the British Virgin Islands. The ground-breaking case concerns the central question of what information someone has to be given when providing information to an authority.
Acting for the Financial Conduct Authority. Due in the Court of Appeal in December. The case deals with the question of who is amenable to judicial review.
Payment protection insurance advice and consultation for the Financial Conduct Authority.
Acted for pension trustees in a case upholding the principle that where there is an alternative remedy available to the Claimants judicial review will only be granted in exceptional circumstances.
JR in BVI on behalf of the claimants magnum & Nightaroy against the AG of BVI. The case concerned public law issues of fairness and the setting aside of a search warrant and the legal principles applicable to applications for search warrants at the request of foreign authorities. Awaiting judgment.
Acted for the Claimant in a challenge to the Secretary of State’s decision as to the train service specification included in his Invitation to Tender for the East Anglia Rail Franchise.
Acted for the Financial Conduct Authority concerning the amenability to judicial review of a firm appointed as independent reviewer in relation to a voluntary redress scheme.
Representing the defendant, a former high-ranking member of the Qatari Government, in a significant case concerning state and diplomatic immunity.
Acted for Uber London Limited (“ULL”) in a test case as to whether private hire vehicles registered with ULL are equipped with a “taximeter” for the purposes of section 11 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998.
Acted for Somerfield in its judicial review challenge to the CMA alleging a failure to accord it equal treatment with another retailer as regards the repayment of a penalty paid pursuant to an Early Resolution Agreement in connection with the OFT’s Tobacco Decision. Pending in the Court of Appeal.
Represented the Information Commissioner in the second of two test cases concerning a report into alleged misconduct by the judiciary and the scope of freedom of information legislation in the Caymans and the powers of the Caymans Information Commissioner.
Acted for metal producer Rusal in its judicial review challenge to a consultation conducted by the LME into a proposed new warehousing rule.
Acted for the Defendant University Health Board in a judicial review raising issues about duties of consultation and legitimate expectation in the context of proposals for major re-organisation of health services in West Wales.
Represented the claimants in the Supreme Court in a case concerning the interplay between EU law and the ECHR in the context of removals of asylum seekers and refugees.
Acted for the FSCS in the Court of Appeal in a test case concerning its powers to award compensation in connection with mortgage advice.
Acted for First Group in a judicial review brought by Virgin against the Secretary of State for Transport in respect of the decision to award the West Coast Main Line rail franchise to First Group. (The case has not proceeded to a substantive hearing in the light of the Secretary of State’s decision not to proceed with the franchise award.)
Represented the NHS Trust in a case in the Supreme Court concerning the right to life of a voluntary mental health patient.
Instructed by the BBC in the Supreme Court in litigation concerning the Freedom of Information Act.
Instructed on behalf of Ofwat in a test case involving Ofwat’s powers to make new appointments of water and sewerage undertakers and the proper interpretation of the Water Industry Act 1991.
Acted for the MPS in a challenge to the application to protestors of the tactic of containment.
Instructed by the Department of Justice in Hong Kong concerning the right of transsexuals to marry. Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal heard in 2013.
Civil liberties and human rights (including immigration) form a large part of Monica’s practice and she frequently acts in these areas both for claimants and public authorities.
Highlight cases include:
“She is incredibly inspiring to work with. Very calm and effective in the way she presents. She is all over the detail and handles complex issues with ease and compassion.”
Chambers & Partners, 2024
“Monica is a serene presence in court and always commands the attention of her tribunal.”
Legal 500, 2024
“The type of work she covers needs her level of intelligence. She is a powerhouse of intelligence, who provides such clear advice that leaves no room for doubt.”
Chambers and Partners, 2023
“Monica is absolutely incredible on her feet and has a meticulous eye for detail. She is a real silent assassin in her cross-examination.”
Chambers and Partners, 2023
“The way she formulates an argument is incredible. She is robust but in a very gentle way. She commands the court and she charms juries.”
Chambers and Partners, 2022
“Gets to grips quickly with the details of a case.”
Legal 500, 2022
“She's very competent and effective.”
Chambers and Partners, 2020
“A very good, understated advocate in a way that courts trust. She makes everything she says seem incredibly reasonable.”
Chambers and Partners, 2020
“Stands out for her ability to master complex detail quickly.”
Legal 500, 2019
“Down-to-earth, diligent and responsive.”
Chambers and Partners, 2019
“An incredibly good advocate. Nothing catches her off guard.”
Chambers and Partners, 2018
“Fantastic advocate with impeccable judgement and a true team player.”
Legal 500, 2018
“Her advocacy is amazing, she is fantastic with clients and is exceptionally positive in looking to find a solution.”
Chambers and Partners, 2016
“Her submissions are very smooth, and she is a calming influence for both the client and the court”
Chambers and Partners, 2017
“She is always totally focused on the best interests of her client and shows great strategic thinking”
Chambers and Partners, 2017
“Fantastic advocate with impeccable judgement.”
Legal 500, 2017
Representing the Metropolitan Police on a judicial review raising issues concerning the lawfulness of decisions of the police in relation to an intended vigil for Sarah Everard on Clapham Common in March 2021 in the light of Articles 10 and 11 ECHR.
Represented the claimant in the Divisional Court on a judicial review concerning a search and seizure warrant and the circumstances in which it is appropriate to appoint a special advocate in relation to a closed hearing.
Acting for a former Tchenguiz brothers investee in a complex and long –running multi-jurisdictional matter due before the Privy Council in November.
Represented the intervener, Human Rights Watch, in an appeal brought by a non-gendered person challenging the Government’s policy not to issue non gender-specific “X” passports to non-gendered, non-binary and other trans persons who do not identify as, or exclusively as, male or female.
Advising the German Swiss International School Association Limited (“GSISAL”) in a case concerning discriminatory language restrictions imposed by the German Swiss International School in Hong Kong. The Hon Mr Justice Harris upheld the application by GSISAL for a declaration that the German language restrictions contained in its Articles of Association infringed the Race Discrimination Ordinance (Cap. 602).
Judicial review in the British Virgin Islands. The ground-breaking case concerns the central question of what information someone has to be given when providing information to an authority.
Instructed to act for the former Prime Minister of Qatar. The claim is for damages, including aggravated damages for assault and false imprisonment out of his detention in Qatar between October 2009 to January 2011.
JR in BVI on behalf of the claimants magnum & Nightaroy against the AG of BVI. The case concerned public law issues of fairness and the setting aside of a search warrant and the legal principles applicable to applications for search warrants at the request of foreign authorities. Awaiting judgment.
Acting for the Director of Immigration in a Landmark Hong Kong Court of Appeal ruling in a discrimination case regarding excluding a same-sex couple from a policy of granting dependant visas to the spouses of employment visa holders.
Represented the EHRC in the Supreme Court in a case concerning the approach to disability discrimination raised as a defence in possession proceedings brought by a social landlord.
Represented the Government of Bermuda in a constitutional case concerning the right to property.
Represented the claimants in the Supreme Court in a case concerning the interplay between EU law and the ECHR in the context of removals of asylum seekers and refugees.
Instructed for the Metropolitan Police in claims by women arising out of sexual relationships with men who were alleged to have been undercover police officers, raising the issue of the extent to which the police are able to rely on a policy of "neither confirm nor deny" in relation to allegations concerning the use of undercover police officers.
Represented the Metropolitan Police Service on questions of jurisdiction to hear human rights claims brought by women who alleged breach of their rights in respect of relationships with alleged undercover police officers.
Acted for the applicants in a case concerning the right to life in the context of police failure to protect the life of the applicants’ son.
Acted for the appellant charity concerning the correct application of the Equality Act 2010 in respect of adoption services being offered by the charity.
Instructed by the Department of Justice in Hong Kong concerning the right of transsexuals to marry. Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal heard in 2013.
Represented the NHS Trust in a case in the Supreme Court concerning the right to life of a voluntary mental health patient.
Acted for the MPS in a challenge to the application to protestors of the tactic of containment.
Acted for the Claimants in the Court of Appeal in test cases concerning the correct approach to certifying asylum claims as clearly unfounded under section 94(3) of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
Acted for the Secretary of State in the Supreme Court in a test case about the best interests of children in the context of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Acted for the Secretary of State in a case concerning the best interests of children and fresh claims in the context of Article 8 ECHR.
Instructed for the United Kingdom Government in the ECtHR in a case concerning legislation to prevent individuals from gaining an immigration advantage through sham marriages.
EU law forms a significant part of Monica’s practice, particularly involving competition law.
“Monica is one of the very best, combining a superb approach to advocacy with a brilliant eye for strategy.”
Legal 500, 2023
“A compelling advocate both at first instance and appeal level.”
Legal 500, 2021
“A leading lawyer in the practice area.”
Legal 500, 2020
“She looks for practical solutions to the most intractable of problems.”
Legal 500, 2020
“She looks for practical solutions to the most intractable of problems.”
Legal 500, 2020
“A leading lawyer in the practice area.”
Legal 500, 2019
“She looks for practical solutions to the most intractable of problems.”
Legal 500, 2019
“She is very easy to work with and grasps the strategic issues very quickly.”
Chambers and Partners, 2018
“A go-to and persuasive silk.”
Legal 500, 2018
“First rate; clear, concise and persuasive submissions; probably the most user-friendly silk in the market.”
Legal 500, 2018
“She is very easy to work with and provides clear advice”
Chambers and Partners, 2017
“Unafraid to argue some difficult points and doing so with great force”
Legal 500, 2017
Represented Iveco in the Court of Appeal concerning the application of the doctrine of abuse of process in follow-on claims brought in the domestic Court following a cartel decision of the European Commission.
Represented the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry in the Court of Appeal in a challenge to the lawfulness under EU law of a policy of offering a particular drug (Avastin) as the preferred treatment option for certain patients.
Acted for Vodafone in the Court of Appeal in relation to a claim for restitution of sums paid pursuant to an ultra vires demand.
Representing a co-Claimant in a case concerning duties of equal treatment and substantive fairness. The claim concerned whether the CMA acted unlawfully , and in breach of the principle of equal treatment, in failing to make repayment to Gallaher of a fine of more than £50 million imposed for alleged breaches of competition law arising from a tobacco cartel, as well as interest. The Supreme Court held that domestic administrative law did not recognise distinct duties of equal treatment or substantive fairness.
Acted for Somerfield in both the Administrative Court and Court of Appeal in a challenge to the CMA arising out of its repayment of a penalty paid under an Early Resolution Agreement by one of Somerfield’s competitors in connection with the OFT’s tobacco cartel decision.
Represented the Claimants in large “Francovich” claim in the High Court and the Court of Appeal in respect of alleged failure to implement the RTTE and Authorisation Directives.
Represented H3G (“Three”) in an appeal concerning the relevance of ex ante regulation to Ofcom’s dispute resolution powers in the light of the common EU regulatory framework.
Monica is an expert in the field of financial services regulation, having advised and acted for institutions and the regulators in regulatory proceedings and investigations and judicial review.
Her work includes advising regulators, regulated bodies, banks and individuals across a broad spectrum of financial services matters, including collective investment schemes and tax avoidance, the failure of financial institutions, PPI, Libor, mis-selling of various financial products and redress schemes.
“She is just pin sharp all of the time and has really good judgement also. Monica is a go-to for financial services regulatory matters.”
Chambers & Partners, 2024
“She is very good with clients and her advice is very clear.”
Chambers & Partners, 2024
“Monica is a standout silk who Judges respect and listen to. She has a very persuasive style of advocacy, excellent judgement and is a brilliant team player.”
Chambers & Partners, 2024
“Monica Carss-Frisk is truly excellent with huge knowledge and experience, excellent judgement and is great with clients. She is adept at settling nervous clients.”
Chambers and Partners, 2023
“Monica provides precise, focused and clear advice to clients.”
Chambers and Partners, 2023
“She is a very effective and strong advocate.”
Chambers and Partners, 2022
“Monica can always be counted on to provide outstanding and insightful legal advice. She provides a calming presence, regardless of the difficulties involved.”
Legal 500, 2022
“A leader in her field and impresses with the clarity of her advice, she is very thorough, careful and precise and instills confidence in her clients.”
Legal 500, 2021
“She navigates complex material extremely well and is very well regarded.”
Chambers and Partners, 2021
“She is fantastic, super knowledgeable, massively experienced, pragmatic, and good with clients.”
Chambers and Partners, 2020
“Her virtues are that she is greatly trusted by the FCA, has a very persuasive advocacy style in court, and is clear and succinct.”
Chambers and Partners, 2020
“A gifted advocate and extremely bright.”
Legal 500, 2018
“She is simply faultless”
Legal 500, 2016
Acted for the Financial Conduct Authority on an application to stay disciplinary proceedings before the their Regulatory Decisions Committee pending the outcome of Commercial Court proceedings where the issues to be considered were held to be the same.
Advised and represented ICAEW in professional disciplinary proceedings brought against Deloitte LLP, Mr Neville Kahn, Mr Christopher Farrington and Mr Nicholas Edwards, arising out of their roles as Joint Administrators (and subsequently, Joint Liquidators) of Comet Group Ltd, the high street retailer which went into administration in 2012. The Consent Order may be found here.
Represented the Financial Services Authority in the BBA's challenge to the FSA's policy concerning the mis-selling of payment protection insurance.
Acting for the Financial Conduct Authority. Due in the Court of Appeal in December. The case deals with the question of who is amenable to judicial review.
Acted for the LSE’s AIM Disciplinary Committee in the High Court and in the Court of Appeal in challenge to alleged bias of panel members and decision to hold hearing in private. Leading case on bias in financial services tribunals and private hearings.
Payment protection insurance advice and consultation for the Financial Conduct Authority.
Acted for the Financial Conduct Authority concerning the amenability to judicial review of a firm appointed as independent reviewer in relation to a voluntary redress scheme.
Acted for the FCA in 2014 in the Upper Tribunal in an appeal arising out of the collapse of Arch Cru, raising significant issues as to the circumstances in which individuals may be said to have acted without integrity.
Acted for the FSCS in the Court of Appeal in a test case concerning its powers to award compensation in connection with mortgage advice.
Acted for the FCA in a judicial review challenge to the exercise by the FSA/FCA of powers to establish a redress scheme for customers who have been mis-sold interest rate hedging products.
Acted for the FSA in a judicial review challenge to the exercise by the FSA of powers to vary a firm’s permission so as to require a payment scheme to compensate investors in the Arch Cru failed investment funds. Permission for judicial review refused in February 2012.
Telecoms are also a significant part of Monica’s practice and representations include:
“A really high-quality barrister who approaches things in a calm, matter-of-fact fashion - nothing flusters her. Her advocacy style is clear, and she puts the case across in a way that helps judges comprehend the situation.”
Chambers & Partners, 2024
“Monica Carss-Frisk KC is perfect to work with. She is very organised, a clear communicator, efficient and friendly.”
Chambers and Partners, 2023
“She is very incisive; she gets the job done.”
Chambers and Partners, 2023
“Incredibly effective and brilliant with clients, she is particularly good at putting forward difficult propositions in a way that is palatable to them.”
Chambers and Partners, 2021
“She has fantastic leadership and very measured, sound judgement. You never feel that the case is out of control.”
Chambers and Partners, 2020
“Very calm and very reflective in her approach.”
Chambers and Partners, 2020
“Cool, calm and collected.”
Chambers and Partners, 2019
“She has a very strong reputation in public law matters.”
Chambers and Partners, 2019
“She is responsive and quick-thinking.”
Chambers and Partners, 2018
“Has a superb reputation and impresses with her calm and composed manner in court.”
Chambers and Partners, 2018
“She is extremely capable and very good at dealing with difficult clients”
Chambers and Partners, 2017
Acted for Vodafone in the Court of Appeal in relation to a claim for restitution of sums paid pursuant to an ultra vires demand.
Represented the Claimants in large “Francovich” claim in the High Court and the Court of Appeal in respect of alleged failure to implement the RTTE and Authorisation Directives.
Represented H3G (“Three”) in an appeal concerning the relevance of ex ante regulation to Ofcom’s dispute resolution powers in the light of the common EU regulatory framework.
Monica has advised and represented claimants and defendants in a wide range of employment cases, including sex, race, age and disability discrimination matters, cases concerning the Working Time Regulations and applications for injunctive relief in the High Court.
“Monica is a ruthless cross-examiner with meticulous attention to detail. She is serene in the face of hostility and dominates the courtroom.”
Chambers & Partners, 2024
“Clients adore her and she captures the hearts and minds of everybody when she speaks, even those on the other side.”
Chambers and Partners, 2022
“She's extremely user-friendly, accessible and brilliantly incisive.”
Chambers and Partners, 2021
“Extremely intelligent and knowledgeable.”
Chambers and Partners, 2020
“Absolutely formidable in her cross-examination and incredibly methodical.”
Chambers and Partners, 2020
“She delivers submissions to the court in a very persuasive manner.”
Chambers and Partners, 2019
“Devastating in cross-examination.”
Chambers and Partners, 2018
“Exceptionally calm and persuasive”
Chambers and Partners, 2017
“Hugely impressive and knowledgeable”
Chambers and Partners, 2017
“She is absolutely brilliant; she has a very quiet and effective style of advocacy.”
Chambers and Partners, 2016
Acted for the Secretary of State in a landmark case in the Hong Kong Court of Appeal concerning the entitlement of same sex spouses of civil servants who had married abroad to dependant’s benefits (instructed by the Hong Kong Department of Justice).
Representing Mr Caudwell of phones4U and his fund Signia Wealth in a high profile case concerning a share transaction dispute and wrongful dismissal by a former employee.
Instructed by Liberty on behalf of the Claimant in a challenge before the High Court to the Secretary of State’s employment policy on members of the armed services who are HIV positive.
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).
Instructed in relation to disclosure issues in a high value sex discrimination case.
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.
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.
Monica is recognised as a leading expert on immigration matters by both the independent legal directories, having appeared in a number of the leading cases in this field.
“She is really clear and articulate. She absorbs everything and is completely unflustered.”
Chambers & Partners, 2024
“A highly respected and authoritative respondent counsel.”
Chambers and Partners, 2023
“She produces very high-quality work.”
Chambers and Partners, 2023
“Monica is absolutely incredible on her feet and has a meticulous eye for detail. She is a real silent assassin in her cross-examination.”
Chambers and Partners, 2023
“She is highly thought of for being very thorough and detailed; a high-quality leader.”
Chambers and Partners, 2022
“A very able QC who has frequently appeared on both sides of significant cases.”
Chambers and Partners, 2021
“Greatly respected within the court.”
Chambers and Partners, 2020
“A brilliant public law and immigration silk.”
Chambers and Partners, 2018
“She has such poise and presence that she commands authority in any of the courts.”
Chambers and Partners, 2016
Acted for the Claimants in the Court of Appeal in test cases concerning the correct approach to certifying asylum claims as clearly unfounded under section 94(3) of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
Acting for the Director of Immigration in a Landmark Hong Kong Court of Appeal ruling in a discrimination case regarding excluding a same-sex couple from a policy of granting dependant visas to the spouses of employment visa holders.
Represented the claimants in the Supreme Court in a case concerning the interplay between EU law and the ECHR in the context of removals of asylum seekers and refugees.
Acted for the Secretary of State in the Supreme Court in a test case about the best interests of children in the context of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Acted for the Secretary of State in a case concerning the best interests of children and fresh claims in the context of Article 8 ECHR.
Instructed for the United Kingdom Government in the ECtHR in a case concerning legislation to prevent individuals from gaining an immigration advantage through sham marriages.
Monica’s practice also includes commercial cases, ranging from judicial reviews with a commercial or regulatory basis to commercial litigation raising issues of conflicts of laws.
Recent notable cases include:
An ongoing multi-million pound High Court claim in restitution by personal search companies alleging breach of the Environmental Information Regulations.
Acted for Vodafone in the Court of Appeal in relation to a claim for restitution of sums paid pursuant to an ultra vires demand.
Acted for the Claimant in the Court of Appeal concerning a wide-ranging anti-enforcement injunction in respect of enforcement of a foreign judgement
Represented various Defendants in 2019 on applications for summary judgment, to strike out, and for a stay, raising issues concerning the principle of forum non conveniens.
Acted for the Financial Conduct Authority concerning the amenability to judicial review of a firm appointed as independent reviewer in relation to a voluntary redress scheme.
Acted for Somerfield in both the Administrative Court and Court of Appeal in a challenge to the CMA arising out of its repayment of a penalty paid under an Early Resolution Agreement by one of Somerfield’s competitors in connection with the OFT’s tobacco cartel decision.
Acted for the FCA in 2014 in the Upper Tribunal in an appeal arising out of the collapse of Arch Cru, raising significant issues as to the circumstances in which individuals may be said to have acted without integrity.
Represented the Financial Services Authority in the BBA's challenge to the FSA's policy concerning the mis-selling of payment protection insurance.
Contributor to:
Lecturing:
Monica is a frequent participant in conferences on her practice areas. She has provided human rights training under the auspices of the Council of Europe, including in the Russian Federation and Montenegro.
Monica was a part-time tutor in law at UCL (English legal system and civil liberties) from 1984 to 1987.
VAT registration number: 447008068
Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board
Gary Oliver
Senior Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7325
Derek Sutton
Deputy Senior Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7327
Adam Sloane
Deputy Senior Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7326
Dean Tolman
Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7331
Billy Brian
Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7339
Marc Armstrong
Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7330
Adam Fuschillo
Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7329
Danny Compton
Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7338
Sophie Reeve
Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7324
Rio Sully
Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7299