- List by Barristers Seniority
- List A-Z
Areas of Practice
Two-tier criminal legal aid contracting abandonedRead More
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal concerning local authority's cuts to youth services budget: refusal of reliefRead More
11KBW acting in challenges to criminal legal aid tender processRead More
11KBW's response to the legal aid consultationRead More
Jane Oldham specialises in public, local government, public procurement, information, and education law at 11KBW.
Jane has been ranked consistently in Chambers and Legal 500 Directories as a leading junior in Administrative and Public law, Local Government and Education. She has appeared at all appellate levels.
Directories’ comments include:
“She puts up a good fight”;
“Very proactive in giving advice” ;
“She handles everything from pre-dispute advisory work to judicial review, and has experience of the Supreme Court disputes” ;
“A popular choice of barrister for the provision of advice to local government and other public bodies on vires matters” ;
“ Her experience includes disputes relating to probity and decision-making processes”;
“She is meticulous to the nth degree, and really very sympathetic with clients”;
“A strong local government practitioner who does well in education law”.
“She remains a popular choice of counsel for local authorities across the country”;
“A high-profile senior junior who advises in substantial local government matters, including funding challenges and issues relating to council tax benefit arrangements”;
“Frequently handles cases involving academy, further and higher education issues”.
“She is knowledgeable, practical and forthright and very good at picking up the salient points quickly”;
“An approachable, proactive barrister who is at pains to be accessible to clients”;
“Jane’s advice and submissions benefit from her meticulous analysis of the law and are accordingly logical, concise and persuasive”;
“Absolutely meticulous, with a great eye for detail in both procedure and substantive law”;
“Of late her practice has focused heavily on the effect of central government spending cuts on local authorities, and she has become a recognised specialist in this area. She is also regularly instructed in relation to powers, vires and governance matters” ;
“Highly experienced and well-regarded in education law, particularly in areas where social services are intertwined with education law matters.”
“Very impressive” ;
“Noted for her ability to ‘reduce complex legal arguments to the relevant bare bones’”.
“Another highly thought of junior is Jane Oldham who is praised for her "commercial sense and judgment"”;
“A lawyer who "puts clients at ease"”;
"graciously determined advocate” ;
“Jane Oldham is "a wise choice for local government matters at the intersection of commercial and public law" ;
“Sources note her thorough reliability and also the fact that she advises local authorities extensively in relation to their freedom of information duties.”
Previous four years
“Fluent, punchy and approachable”;
"eagle eye for detail";
"she is enormously thorough and never misses a thing" ;
"A hard worker who is extremely good";
"barrister of choice in commercial matters";
“immensely sensible, thorough and driven”;
“With bucket loads of experience and calm approach to advocacy that never fails to impress”;
“Interviewees praised Jane Oldham for her “genius and sheer hard work”.
Her client care is also highlighted as a particular strength”;
“Oldham continues to be a notable force in work relating to the interface between local government and the private sector”;
“Jane Oldham is “on the ball straight away” and handles complex cases well. She is further considered an advocate who “understands the law, works well with clients, and possesses intellectual weight””;
“Jane Oldham is perceived as “a feisty lawyer who goes from strength to strength””;
“Jane Oldham also covers a wide canvas but is particularly known for the work she does relating to local authorities and their business relations with the private sector”.
Jane practises principally in public and administrative law; she has practised also in commercial law and has particular experience in cases at the intersection of these areas, such as the Interest Rate Swap litigation between banks and local authorities, public procurement, European Regional Development Fund disputes, information law disputes concerning commercial matters, litigation about wrongful trading through companies in which local authorities have interests. Other public law expertise includes judicial review concerning utilities, civil aviation, higher and further education (including funding), broadcasting, health service (health authorities’ proposed financial arrangements, hospital closures, pharmacies, dentists’ and GPs’ contracts with health bodies), museums galleries and film bodies, bodies regulating professions including the legal profession, police bodies.
Recent public law cases include procurement challenges in 2016 to the Lord Chancellor’s procurement of two-tier criminal legal aid contracting; a 2015 Supreme Court decision about declaratory relief in judicial review and costs where error of law found but no relief given; a 2015 decision about delegation of power, the scope of DPP v Haw and the Carltona principle; and judicial reviews of Council Tax Support Schemes and of the 2012 English GCSE Awards.
Jane advises and appears regularly in cases concerning local government.
Examples of areas covered include:
Related contract and restitution claims.
Data protection (including sensitive data sharing protocols and agreements with other agencies), subject access requests, release of reports on social care matters and serious case reviews.
FOIA and Environmental Information Regulations.
Community care judicial reviews, including age assessments, ordinary residence.
Public sector equality duty (particularly in the context of spending cuts).
Governance (including changing from one form to another).
Local authority interaction with commercial and third sector bodies.
Testing the scope of the Localism Act general power of competence.
Issues arising from large capital projects undertaken by public bodies.
District auditor investigations and public interest reports (one involving proceedings about £120 million of challenged expenditure of public funds) for both local authority and auditing body.
Advising the local authority interest in funding disputes with health bodies including resisting NHS claims for restitution of continuing health funding payments.
Council tax (including council tax reduction schemes), budget setting.
Disputes about exemptions and discounts from business rates, BID levies.
Disputes with central government about grants eg Sure Start.
Applications to list assets of community value - including listing, for the first time, an entire mountain, Blencathra, (2014).
Waste issues between constituent councils and Joint Waste Authorities.
Disputes with transport bodies eg TfL.
Advising on private landlord licensing schemes, social impact bonds.
Successfully resisting DCLG attempts to claw back ERDF funding.
Service-sharing agreements with other councils.
Provision of services to non-council entities.
Jane has also represented local authorities in mediations.
Information and Media Law
Jane has been instructed extensively for and against public authorities and for the Information Commissioner on Freedom of Information Act, EIR, DPA and ECHR Art 8 issues and has acted in both Information Tribunal (over 30 cases, see selection below) and High Court matters. Frequently instructed in relation to data sharing (including data sharing protocols and agreements), subject access requests, DPA duties in the context of disciplinary action by professional regulatory bodies, commercial interests in the FOIA and EIR fields, participating in or responding to ICO investigations effectively, and disputes about release of reports in the regulatory sphere.
She has been on the Information Commissioner’s List of Counsel and has been a contributor to the Information Law Reports since their inception.
Jane has also advised and appeared in collateral interventions in proceedings in which disclosure issues have been raised. For example the challenge to the lawfulness of the government’s policy concerning the detention of children of unsuccessful asylum-seekers pending their deportation, in which she intervened successfully for a Local Children’s Safeguarding Board concerning the disclosure of a Serious Case Review (Suppiah v Sec State for Home Dept and Others  EWHC 2 (Admin)).
Jane regularly advises and represents both public authorities and tenderers on a wide range of procurement problems at all stages of tender processes. She has frequently enabled them, respectively, to deter proposed challenges, and to persuade public authorities to recommence tendering procedures. Examples of subject matter include: scoring of tenders, duties of equal and non-discriminatory treatment and transparency, whether a tender process is necessary at all, frameworks, use of negotiated procedure, PQQ requirements about financial standing, changes in corporate structure of preferred bidder.
Proceedings include: acting in 2015-2016 for the solicitor claimants in four of the many High Court procurement challenges seeking to set aside the government’s procurement of two-tier criminal legal aid contracting (the procurement, said to be among the largest and most complex tender processes undertaken by central government, was abandoned by the Lord Chancellor in January 2016); acting for a trade union in its judicial review challenge to NHS PCTs’ proposed outsourcing of their family health services.
Acted successfully on each occasion in 2015 and 2016 for grant recipients resisting government attempts, on procurement grounds, to claw back European Regional Development Fund funding.
Jane’s recent education work has included acting for the council in a Supreme Court hearing in 2015 in a matter originating from an Education Act 1996 challenge to funding cuts in youth services, advising in disputes about liabilities for school deficits and transfers of property (including special needs facilities used by several schools) on conversion to academy status, and further and higher education.
Other work includes the judicial review of the 2012 English GCSEs, academies’ admissions arrangements and admissions appeals, funding disputes between universities and affiliated bodies, a challenge to a decision to fund closure of a college and transfer its courses to a different institution, appropriate remedy for use of incorrect assessment criteria in student examination, freedom of information, exclusion appeals (in the latter area Jane has also previously appeared with James Goudie QC in one of the leading cases in the House of Lords R(L) v Governors of J School  AC 633), school reorganisation, disputes about content and publication of reports about educational bodies.
Jane was called to the Bar in 1985 and was awarded prizes and scholarships by Trinity College, Cambridge, where she read law, and Middle Temple. She is a member of the Administrative Law Bar Association, the Commercial Bar Association, the Procurement Lawyers’ Association and (in relation to her local government practice) the Planning and Environmental Law Bar Association. Jane practised part-time between 1992 and 2010, plus various periods of family leave during that time, and returned to full-time practice at the end of 2010.
R (Hunt) v North Somerset Council
 UKSC 51,  1 WLR 3575 (judicial review remedies, costs);  EWCA Civ 1320,  BLGR 1 (budget-setting, PSED, consultation, remedy),  16 CCL Rep 530 (costs) ;  EWHC 1928 (Admin) (18 July 2012);  EqLR 951
SC: Refusal of judicial review remedy where breach of statutory duty found, no order made quashing decision and claim for declaration not pursued or formulated. Claimant’s costs recoverable, but in reduced proportion. CA and HC: Public sector equality duty and consultation challenge to Council’s budget-setting decision to reduce funding for, and review methods of provision of, youth services.
R (Hamill) v Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court
 1 WLR 1798
Delegation of power: whether lawful. Scope of DPP v Haw, Carltona principle considered.
R (Branwell) v Rochdale MBC
 EWHC 1024
Consultation and equalities challenge to local authority’s council tax support scheme for 2013-2014.
R (Lewisham London Borough Council and Others) v AQA and Ofqual
 EWHC 211
Judicial review challenge to the 2012 English GCSE awards
R (UNISON) v NHS Wiltshire Primary Care Trust and Others
 EWHC 624 (Admin) (15 March 2012)  ACD 84
Trade union’s judicial review challenge to ten PCTs’ proposed outsourcing of their family health services in alleged breach of procurement requirements, and Wednesbury rationality. Framework agreements, variation of contracts, time limits, standing.
R (Omotosho) v The Governing body of Harris Academy Crystal Palace
 EWHC 3350 (Admin) (18 November 2011)
Judicial review of Academy school’s admission arrangements and admissions appeals process.
Davis v Information Commissioner and Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery
EA/2010/0185 (16 September 2011)
Legal professional privilege exemption in FOIA, representing the public authority.
Sikka v Information Commissioner and HM Treasury
EA/2010 0054 (12 July 2011)
Disclosure of report into collapse of BCCI; representing the Information Commissioner;
Suppiah v Sec State for Home Dept and Others
 EWHC 2 (Admin) (2011) 108(4) LSG 18
Unlawful detention of failed asylum seekers and their children pending removal - intervention on behalf of Local Children’s Safeguarding Board about the disclosure of a Serious Case Review.
Ministry of Justice v Information Commissioner
EA/2010/0181 (10 March 2011)
Ministry of Justice’s appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision, based on the MoJ’s evidence then supplied, that a letter from the then Prime Minister to the Secretary of State for Justice relating to the End of Custody Licence Scheme, should be disclosed. Acted for the Information Commissioner.
R (M) v Oxfordshire County Council and SSHD
(June 2010): CO/133379/2009 and CO/12546/2009
Age assessment of asylum-seeker. This was one of the first judicial reviews of age assessment of asylum seeking children post- the decision of the Supreme Court in R (A) v LB Croydon  UKSC 8. Jane argued successfully that another local authority - and not her local authority client - should be the substantive defendant.
Youth Justice Board v Information Commissioner and Children’s Rights Alliance for England
Disclosure of training manual re restraint techniques used on children in custody, representing the Information Commissioner resisting the appeal against his decision that it should be disclosed, resulting in the YJB withdrawing its appeal and disclosing the information.
Dun v Information Commissioner and National Audit Office
Representing the National Audit Office.
East Riding of Yorkshire Council v Information Commissioner
UKIT  EA/2009/ 0069
Disclosure under Environmental Information Regulations of property search information for HIPs, and whether power to charge for disclosure, representing the Council.
Financial Services Authority v Information Commissioner
 EWHC 1548 and 1784 (Admin)
Degree to which context of request for information to be taken into account in considering exemption under Freedom of Information Act 2000; whether certain information about financial services providers is confidential information under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 so that disclosure is prohibited under that act and so exempt under section 44 FOIA. Munby J also made observations about the role of both the IC and the public authority in appeals from the Tribunal, for the purposes of costs orders. Costs:  EWHC 1784 (Admin).
Department of Transport v Information Commissioner
Whether procurement information about train company franchises should be disclosed; appeal to Information Tribunal. After a partial hearing, the appeal was withdrawn. Jane appeared for the Information Commissioner resisting the appeal.
RMGL v Information Commissioner
Whether information about Royal Mail Group Limited’s spending should be disclosed. Appeal to Information Tribunal, Jane appeared for the Information Commissioner defending his decision. After a partial hearing, the appeal was withdrawn.
Financial Services Authority v Information Commissioner
 UKIT EA/2008/0061
Representing the Information Commissioner.
Secretary of State for Health v Crouch and (1) South Birmingham Primary Care Trust (2) British Dental Association
 ICR 461,  EWCA Civ 1365
Acted for the British Dental Association. Construction of the principal contract for orthodontists and whether Primary Care Trusts had a unilateral right of termination.
R (Swords) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
 EWCA Civ 795
Housing transfers by local authority to housing association under government’s “decent homes” policy; lawfulness of Secretary of State’s consent. Appeared for the housing association.
R (Save Dartington College Limited) v South West Regional Development Agency and University College Falmouth
Representing University College Falmouth– closure of Dartington College and transfer of its courses to university; security for costs in judicial review where claimant formed company.
Lawton v Information Commissioner and NHS Direct
 UKIT EA/2007/0081
Representing the Information Commissioner.
Tuckley v Information Commissioner
 UKIT EA/2006/0077
Representing the Information Commissioner.
Financial Services Authority v Information Commissioner and Riverstone Management Agency Ltd
 UKIT EA/2008/0047
Disclosure by Financial Services Authority. Representing the Information Commissioner.
Boddy v (1) Information Commissioner and (2) North Norfolk County Council
 UKIT EA/2007/0074
Legal professional privilege; representing the Information Commissioner.
Brook Area Residents and Shopkeepers Group v Information Commissioner and Birmingham City Council
 UKIT EA/2006/0077
Whether a body is a “publicly owned company” within FOIA (relationship of local authority with a company): representing the Information Commissioner.
North Western and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee v Information Commissioner
 UKIT EA/2007/0133
Whether information is environmental information; commercially confidential information; representing the Information Commissioner.
Welsh v Information Commissioner
 UKIT EA/2007/0088
Whether a request for information is vexatious (in the medical context); representing the Information Commissioner.
McBride v Information Commissioner and Ministry of Justice (formerly Privy Council)
 UKIT EA/2007/0105
Whether information is “held” for the purposes of FOIA; representing the Information Commissioner.
Craven v Information Commissioner
 UKIT EA/2008/0002
Disclosure by Financial Services Authority.
Salmon v Information Commissioner
 UKIT EA/2007/0135
Application of FOIA to college within a collegiate university, and whether information held is confidential information; representing the Information Commissioner.
Hargrave v Information Commissioner
 UKIT EA/2007/0041
Law enforcement (detection of crime, administration of justice, in the context of an unsolved murder case)); representing the Information Commissioner.
All members of Chambers are registered with the Bar Standards Board of England and Wales. For general terms and conditions on which services are provides - click here
Professional title: Barrister
Full name (as registered with Bar Standards Board of England and Wales):
VAT Number: GB 440589932
Legal Status: Sole Practitioner
Professional Insurance: All members of Chambers have professional liability insurance provided by the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund Ltd - click here for details
Territorial coverage is world-wide, subject to the terms of the Bar Mutual, which may be found here
Should you wish to make a complaint - click here