Ivan Hare KC

Ivan has advised Ofwat on a series of questions relating to its Price Review process for the next five years. He has also advised on issues relating to the Reservoirs Act.

Ivan appeared before the Supreme Court of the Turks and Caicos Islands to defend this judicial review brought by multiple applicants who had been refused Islander status. Judgment is awaited.

Ivan appeared successfully for the Cabinet Office in their appeal against the First-tier Tribunal's decision to uphold the Freedom of Information request made by Tommy Sheppard MP for Government polling data relating to the Union between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In the decision, UTJ Wright accepted the Cabinet Office's submission that the formulation and development of policy exemption under s. 35(1)(a) of FOIA may be engaged even where the high-level policy direction remains unchanged.

Ivan appeared successfully for the Secretary of State (with Sir James Eadie KC, David Lowe and Daniel Cashman) in this case concerning the lawfulness of test-case enfranchisement notices issued by the MoD in relation to the Married Quarters Estate of properties previously sold to Annington and leased back.

Ivan acted successfully for the Claimant in this case which was compromised on the basis that CICAIR would withdraw its current Sanctions Guidance and replace it with fresh guidance which contained a broader range of sanctions.

Ivan appeared successfully for the Secretary of State (with Sir James Eadie KC, David Lowe and Daniel Cashman) in this case concerning the lawfulness of test-case enfranchisement notices issued by the MoD in relation to the Married Quarters Estate of properties previously sold to Annington and leased back.

Successfully defended this second appeal (which was joined with the case of Dr Okpara) against the Medical Practitioners Tribunal’s decision to erase Dr Sastry in relation to his treatment of a patient while practicing in India.  This was an unusual case in that not only had the misconduct taken place overseas, but the patient also had no link with the United Kingdom.  The Court of Appeal provided general guidance for courts considering appeals against sanction.

Appeared successfully in this important Divisional Court case on contempt of court by expert witnesses and on the admissibility of fresh evidence on appeals against sanction by the GMC. The Divisional Court substituted erasure for the sanction of suspension.

Acted as Legal Adviser to the Expert Panel consisting of the Chief Scientific Advisers from the Home Office, the Health and Safety Executive and the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy leading to the product recall issued by Whirlpool UK Appliances Ltd in July 2019.

Appeared successfully in this long-running Freedom of Information case (which had previously been to the Upper Tribunal) on the meaning of a “vexatious” information request.

Appeared successfully in the Court of Appeal in defence of the Secretary of State’s policy which requires those with no legal right to remain in the country to be placed on a separate list for allocating transplant organs, irrespective of clinical need. Appeared successfully in the Divisional Court below ([2018] EWHC 2815 (admin); [2018] 4 WLR 2).

Successfully defended this appeal in relation to the scope of the GMC’s right of appeal against sanctions which are insufficient to protect the public.  The Court of Appeal reinstated the MPT’s decision on the substance.

Successfully defended the appeal in this challenge to the GMC’s new statutory Rules on when a legally qualified chair of a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (formerly Fitness to Practise Panel) must offer legal advice in the presence of the parties.

Appeared (with John Bowers QC) in this Supreme Court appeal which determined whether or not the availability of judicial review (as well as statutory appeals) fell within the ouster of the Employment Tribunal’s jurisdiction in relation to Qualifications bodies in proceedings under the Equality Act 2010. The Supreme Court also set out the common law basis of judicial review.

Appeared for the Secretary of State in this appeal about returning individuals to Sri Lanka after the end of the Civil War and since a number of terrorist organisations were proscribed.  The case addresses the Secretary of State's duties to draw the Tribunal's decision to relevant country guidance.

Appeared successfully for the Secretary of State in this appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal relating to the complex area of the right of abode in nationality law.

Appeared successfully before the Divisional Court in this challenge to the Secretary of State’s policy on reviewing the tariff of prisoners detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure.  The case concerned one of the defendants convicted of the murder of Garry Newlove.

Appeared successfully for the GMC in these two appeals which set out general guidance on when fitness to practise tribunals can proceed in the absence of the registrant (in compliance with Article 6 of the ECHR) and on the admissibility of fresh evidence on statutory appeals.

Appeared successfully on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health in this appeal which establishes that NHS bodies are entitled to take account of the fact that accommodation may be provided from other sources (such as local authorities) in cases where accommodation may form part of a patient’s continuing health needs.  

Appeared in this substantive judicial review concerning the interpretation of the GMC’s Registrar’s powers to review decisions of the Investigation Committee.  Permission has been granted to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Appeared for the IPCC in the Court of Appeal in this important appeal about the scope of the IPCC’s powers, in particular, whether it is entitled to arrive at a conclusion on the legality of the use of force or of an arrest in investigating a complaint against the police.

Acted successfully (with Clive Sheldon QC) for the Secretary of State in this judicial review of the decision to implement the recommendations of the Trust Special Administrators at Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust.

Appeared successfully for the Secretary of State in this appeal to the Upper Tribunal concerning the legality of the 2011 Regulations which restricted the availability of the Sure Start Maternity Grant to the claimant’s first child in a challenge based on the public sector equality duty.  The 2011 Regulations were part of the Coalition Government’s austerity measures and designed to save several million pounds. The Upper Tribunal granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Appeared successfully (with John Bowers QC) in this challenge to the RCGP’s and GMC’s compliance with their public sector equality duties in relation to the examinations required to proceed with training as a General Practitioner (which were alleged to be racially discriminatory).

Appeared (with Rory Phillips QC) for the Appellants in this challenge to the first use of the Secretary of State’s powers under the National Health Service Act 2006 to appoint a Trust Special Administrator to take over a failing NHS Trust and make recommendations for its services and those of neighbouring Trusts.

Successfully defended this challenge to the application of the regime for confiscation orders relating to criminal assets.  The Divisional Court provided general guidance on the scope of the court’s powers in such cases to issue warrants for arrest, carry out a means inquiry and impose payment terms.

Advised the Home Office (with Michael Beloff QC) on improvements which could be made to UK asset recovery provisions in relation to the assets of former heads of state and their families from the Arab Spring countries.

Advised (with James Eadie QC) on this legislation which retrospectively validated the appointment of certain approved medical practitioners for the purposes of authorizing compulsory detention.

Ivan appeared successfully for the Cabinet Office in their appeal against the First-tier Tribunal's decision to uphold the Freedom of Information request made by Tommy Sheppard MP for Government polling data relating to the Union between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In the decision, UTJ Wright accepted the Cabinet Office's submission that the formulation and development of policy exemption under s. 35(1)(a) of FOIA may be engaged even where the high-level policy direction remains unchanged.

Ivan appeared before the Supreme Court of the Turks and Caicos Islands to defend this judicial review brought by multiple applicants who had been refused Islander status. Judgment is awaited.

Appeared successfully in the Court of Appeal in defence of the Secretary of State’s policy which requires those with no legal right to remain in the country to be placed on a separate list for allocating transplant organs, irrespective of clinical need. Appeared successfully in the Divisional Court below ([2018] EWHC 2815 (admin); [2018] 4 WLR 2).

Appeared for the Secretary of State in this appeal about returning individuals to Sri Lanka after the end of the Civil War and since a number of terrorist organisations were proscribed.  The case addresses the Secretary of State's duties to draw the Tribunal's decision to relevant country guidance.

Appeared successfully for the GMC in these two appeals which set out general guidance on when fitness to practise tribunals can proceed in the absence of the registrant (in compliance with Article 6 of the ECHR) and on the admissibility of fresh evidence on statutory appeals.

Appeared successfully before the Divisional Court in this challenge to the Secretary of State’s policy on reviewing the tariff of prisoners detained during Her Majesty’s Pleasure.  The case concerned one of the defendants convicted of the murder of Garry Newlove.

Appeared successfully for the Secretary of State in this appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal relating to the complex area of the right of abode in nationality law.

Appeared (with Julie Anderson) in this appeal against the High Court’s decision that Mr Fardous had been unlawfully detained pending his removal to Morocco for eight out of the total period of twenty two months detention. The case involved a high risk of absconding, but no risk of harm to the public. Judgment is awaited.

Appeared successfully in these cases challenging the Secretary of State’s policy on release of prisoners with a whole life tariff or (as in Du’s case) a tariff which is likely to extend beyond their lifetime on the basis of Article 5 of the ECHR.  The cases follow the ECtHR’s decision in Vinter v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 34.

Appeared successfully before the Divisional Court on behalf of the Commissioner in this judicial review of the policing of the student protests which took place in London on 24 November 2010 and the use of containment as a method of crowd control. The judgment provides guidance on the extent of the Police’s duties to take account of the welfare of children in dealing with public order situations. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal after an oral hearing.

Ivan represented the GMC at all stages of this discrimination case. He successfully overturned the Employment Tribunal's finding that the GMC had committed race discrimination in relation to four of the twenty particulars alleged by Dr Karim in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and then successfully defended Dr Karim's appeal against that decision in the Court of Appeal. The judgment contains important guidance on the Tribunal's duty to give reasons and to engage with the Respondent's case.

Ivan obtained permission from the Court of Appeal to appeal against this decision of Ritchie J which treated an immediate order for suspension and the substantive suspension imposed on the dentist after a fitness to practise hearing as one period which is limited by the statutory maximum for a substantive suspension of twelve months. The decision would apply to most other health care regulators. The appeal will be heard in January 2025.

Ivan successfully defended this appeal brought by Dr Roy against his erasure from the Medical Register for pursuing a sexual relationship with an under-age girl. The appeal was based on fresh evidence which emerged after the MPT hearing and was said to cast doubt on the victim's account of her relationship with Dr Roy. Calver J accepted the GMC's submission that the fresh evidence was not likely to have an important effect on the outcome of the case.

Ivan represented the GMC at all stages of this discrimination case. He successfully overturned the Employment Tribunal's finding that the GMC had committed race discrimination in relation to four of the twenty particulars alleged by Dr Karim in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and then successfully defended Dr Karim's appeal against that decision in the Court of Appeal. The judgment contains important guidance on the Tribunal's duty to give reasons and to engage with the Respondent's case.

Ivan acted successfully for the Claimant in this case which was compromised on the basis that CICAIR would withdraw its current Sanctions Guidance and replace it with fresh guidance which contained a broader range of sanctions.

Successfully defended this second appeal (which was joined with the case of Dr Okpara) against the Medical Practitioners Tribunal’s decision to erase Dr Sastry in relation to his treatment of a patient while practicing in India.  This was an unusual case in that not only had the misconduct taken place overseas, but the patient also had no link with the United Kingdom.  The Court of Appeal provided general guidance for courts considering appeals against sanction.

Appeared successfully in this important Divisional Court case on contempt of court by expert witnesses and on the admissibility of fresh evidence on appeals against sanction by the GMC. The Divisional Court substituted erasure for the sanction of suspension.

Successfully defended this appeal in relation to the scope of the GMC’s right of appeal against sanctions which are insufficient to protect the public.  The Court of Appeal reinstated the MPT’s decision on the substance.

Successfully defended the appeal in this challenge to the GMC’s new statutory Rules on when a legally qualified chair of a Medical Practitioners Tribunal (formerly Fitness to Practise Panel) must offer legal advice in the presence of the parties.

Appeared successfully for the GMC in these two appeals which set out general guidance on when fitness to practise tribunals can proceed in the absence of the registrant (in compliance with Article 6 of the ECHR) and on the admissibility of fresh evidence on statutory appeals.

Appeared (with John Bowers QC) in this Supreme Court appeal which determined whether or not the availability of judicial review (as well as statutory appeals) fell within the ouster of the Employment Tribunal’s jurisdiction in relation to Qualifications bodies in proceedings under the Equality Act 2010. The Supreme Court also set out the common law basis of judicial review.

Appeared in this substantive judicial review concerning the interpretation of the GMC’s Registrar’s powers to review decisions of the Investigation Committee.  Permission has been granted to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Appeared in this important appeal about the scope of statutory appeals to the High Court and whether a doctor can challenge findings of misconduct which did not lead to a determination of impairment of fitness to practise. Subsequently successfully resisted an application for an injunction to restrain the GMC from convening a Fitness to Practise Panel.

Appeared successfully in this appeal in which the Appellant sought to rely on the negligent representation he had received from his then Counsel as the main ground for overturning the Panel’s determination.

Appeared successfully in this appeal which upholds the Fitness to Practise Panel’s powers upon a review to reconsider impairment and impose a further sanction of 12 months suspension.

Appeared in this case which lays down guidance about the scope of allegations in disciplinary proceedings.

Appeared successfully in this important case which established the limits of the medical activities which may be performed by a registered doctor while suspended by the GMC.

Appeared in this case on the scope for imposing interim orders of suspension in cases involving non-clinical allegations of dishonesty.

Appeared for the GMC in this 3-day High Court appeal which laid down general guidance for cases involving dishonesty.

Successfully obtained a General Civil Restraint Order against a doctor who had issued numerous sets of proceedings against the GMC and others since his erasure from the medical register.  Successfully had the Order renewed for a further period of two years in 2012 and 2014 and in 2016 had it extended to proceedings before the Employment Tribunal.

Appeared successfully for the Police and Crime Commissioner in resisting permission to challenge the PCC’s consultation before seeking approval from the Secretary of State that the PCC should also become the Fire Authority and Rescue Authority.

Acted initially in this judicial review of the IPCC’s investigation into police misconduct relating to the death of Sean Rigby at Brixton police station.

Appeared for the IPCC in the Court of Appeal in this important appeal about the scope of the IPCC’s powers, in particular, whether it is entitled to arrive at a conclusion on the legality of the use of force or of an arrest in investigating a complaint against the police.

Acted successfully (with Sam Grodzinski QC) for the Commissioner in this judicial review of the decision to roll-out Tasers beyond Tactical Support Groups.

Appeared successfully before the Divisional Court on behalf of the Commissioner in this judicial review of the policing of the student protests which took place in London on 24 November 2010 and the use of containment as a method of crowd control. The judgment provides guidance on the extent of the Police’s duties to take account of the welfare of children in dealing with public order situations. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal after an oral hearing.

Ivan represented the GMC at all stages of this discrimination case. He successfully overturned the Employment Tribunal's finding that the GMC had committed race discrimination in relation to four of the twenty particulars alleged by Dr Karim in the Employment Appeal Tribunal and then successfully defended Dr Karim's appeal against that decision in the Court of Appeal. The judgment contains important guidance on the Tribunal's duty to give reasons and to engage with the Respondent's case.

Successfully defended an appeal against the Tribunal's decision that the claim by a member of the Medical Practitioners Committee that he was an employee and/or a worker was time-barred. 

Successfully obtained orders that substantial parts of this race discrimination claim should be struck out and that Deposit Orders should be made in relation to other aspects of it.  This is a particularly unusual outcome in discrimination proceedings.

Appeared (with John Bowers QC) in this Supreme Court appeal which determined whether or not the availability of judicial review (as well as statutory appeals) fell within the ouster of the Employment Tribunal’s jurisdiction in relation to Qualifications bodies in proceedings under the Equality Act 2010. The Supreme Court also set out the common law basis of judicial review.

Appeared pro bono for the former employee at the permission and substantive hearings in this appeal in the EAT concerning the appearance of bias where the Employment Judge failed to disclose to the parties that he was a Governor of a school linked to the Respondent.

Appeared successfully for the Respondent in the Employment Tribunal and the EAT in striking out a number of statutory claims and establishing that the Claimant’s contractual claims are to be decided according to the law of Dubai under the Rome Convention.  

Appeared for the Claimant in this claim for substantial compensation under Rule 12 of the TUPE Regulations which was heard over six days.

Appeared for the GMC in this 3-day High Court appeal which laid down general guidance for cases involving dishonesty.

Successfully defended this appeal which has laid down important guidance on the scope of sexual harassment.