The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

Work 020 7353 8415
Fax 020 7353 7622
Francis Taylor Building, Daisy Noble, London, ENGLAND

Daisy Noble

Work 020 7353 8415
Francis Taylor Building (Francis Taylor Building)

Work Department

  • Planning and Environment
  • Public Law, Human Rights and EU
  • Local Government
  • Rating/Council Tax
  • Village Greens and Commons
  • Compulsory Purchase and Compensation
  • Licensing
  • Education
  • Anti-social behaviour law


Planning and Environmental Law

During her pupillage, Daisy gained experience in a wide variety of planning issues.  She has attended and assisted in relation to planning inquiries, enforcement inquiries and local plan examinations.  She has also represented clients in the High Court in statutory and judicial review permission hearings, both in her own right and as a junior. 

Recent work includes Arrowsmith v Fareham Borough Council, Lidl UK ltd and Rookery Estates Ltd, acting as junior on behalf of a claimant in a judicial review claim regarding the development of a Lidl store to replace business units within an employment park. 

Daisy has experience in providing advice on a range of matters, including:

  • Certificates of Lawful Use or Development;
  • Material change of use;
  • Development in the Green Belt;
  • Section 106 obligations;
  • Planning conditions and conditions precedent;
  • Procedural defects in enforcement notices;
  • Injunctions;
  • Heritage assets and listed buildings;
  • Screening and assessments under the Habitats Regulations;
  • Private and statutory nuisance;
  • Tree protection orders;
  • Other development related issues such as covenants, easements and proprietary estoppel.

Daisy is currently instructed in relation to a judicial review of a grant of outline planning permission for residential development on safeguarded employment land. 

Plan Making

During pupillage, Daisy also had the opportunity to gain experience in Local Plan making processes whilst under the supervision of Suzanne Ornsby QC.  This experience includes advising in relation to the preparation of Local Plans, attending examinations and drafting notes for the Inspector on legal issues that arose.

Compulsory Purchase and Compensation

Daisy has assisted in advising clients in relation to a range of compulsory purchase and compensation issues, including:

  • CPO powers under the Education Act 1996;
  • Research into the rights of mortgagees to claim compensation under the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965; and
  • Valuation of ransom strips.

Local Government

During her pupillage, Daisy gained experience across a range of local government issues, such as:

  • The conduct of public meetings under the Local Government Act 1972 as junior to Douglas Edwards QC in Forbes v Wokingham Borough Council;
  • The acquisition of surplus public authority land;  and
  • Advising a local authority as to the compliance of their procedures for handling representations from the public with the GDPR.

Rating and Income Tax

Daisy assisted Cain Ormondroyd advise both ratepayers and the Valuation Office in relation to non-domestic rates matters, including on issues such as identifying hereditaments, list alterations, assessing rateable value, the application of transitional provisions, and exemptions and rates relief. 

During her pupillage Daisy also assisted Cain in preparing for hearings in the Valuation Tribunal for England and the High Court.

Village Greens and Commons

Daisy acted as junior to Douglas Edwards QC on behalf of the interested party in judicial review proceedings in respect of Wokingham Borough Council’s refusal of an application to register land as a village green (Forbes v Wokingham Borough Council). 

Daisy has also provided written advice to a local group in relation to a potential challenge to the lawfulness of enclosing common land.

Equality Law

Daisy has previously assisted in the pre-action stages of a successful judicial review of a decision by a hospital to introduce parking charges for blue badge holders on the basis of a breach of the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010.  


During pupillage, Daisy assisted in advising a parish council in relation to a judicial review challenge to the re-routing of a highway, and an individual in relation to the merits of a potential judicial review challenge to a traffic regulation order. 

Rights to Light

Daisy has assisted in advising a number of clients in relation to rights to light issues, such as whether such rights exist, the subsistence of such rights on demolition of a building and the merits of a claim in nuisance to protect such rights.


Daisy assisted Leo Charalambides in judicial review proceedings brought by Uber and Delta against a policy of Knowsley Borough Council, relating to the grant of private hire vehicle licenses (R (Uber Britannia Ltd & Delta Merseyside Ltd) v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2018] EWHC 757 (Admin)).

She has also conducted research on other licensing issues, such as in relation to compliance with provisions of the Gambling Act 2005, as well as the implications of Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on taxi licensing policies.


Daisy has had experience in assisting with a judicial review claim relating to a Council’s redetermination of an application for advertising consent. 

Police and anti-social behaviour law

Daisy frequently appears before the magistrates’ court in relation to applications under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and the Sexual Offences Act 2003, including closure orders, sexual risk orders and sexual harm prevention orders.

Ecclesiastical and Religious Liberty

During her pupillage, Daisy assisted Cain Ormondroyd in Consistory Court proceedings concerning a faculty for the alteration of Bath Abbey. 

Daisy also assisted Mark Hill QC, who represented interveners (Christian Action and Research in Education, ADF International (UK) and Professional Patricia Casey) in the Supreme Court case, In Re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission’s Application for Judicial Review [2018] UKSC 27.

Other work

Daisy has experience in assisting a member of chambers defend judicial review proceedings against the Parole Board. 


  • Brasenose College, Oxford University, BCL (Distinction) (2015-2016)
  • City Law School, BPTC (Very Competent) (2014-2015)
  • Corpus Christi College, University of Cambridge, BA (Hons) Law (First Class) (2011-2014)

Back to index

Legal Developments worldwide

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • CommuniquĂ© on Equity Crowdfunding Is Officially Published

    By way of background, in January 2019, the Capital Markets Board (“ CMB ”) had issued an announcement on its website on the Draft CommuniquĂ© on Equity Crowdfunding [1] . The CMB has now officially published the CommuniquĂ© on Crowdfunding No. III-35/A (“ CommuniquĂ© ”), on October 3, 2019. The CommuniquĂ© entered into force as of October 3, 2019.
  • Beneficial Ownership Concept new interpretation from the Russian federal tax service

    The recent interpretative letter issued by the Russian Federal Tax Services (“FTS”) on 08th August 2019, has provided further guidance as to the application of the Beneficial Ownership Concept, further to the letter initially provided on the 12th of April 2018 which adopted a strict approach of the concept. 
  • Cyprus and Netherlands Double Tax Treaty Update

    Cyprus has concluded the negotiations for the avoidance of double taxation with the Netherlands. The double tax treaty was agreed at technocratic level in Hague. It is expected to be signed by the end of 2019 or early in 2020.
  • Vacancy - Senior Corporate Lawyer

    The Senior Corporate Lawyer, who will be reporting to Partners, will be working with both the firm’s legal team as well as the financial services team. The successful candidate will be requested to show initiative, take on certain responsibilities within the firm, work in a multinational environment and will immediately be given the opportunity to further advance their career within the law firm.

    The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on February 26, 2019, in the “Danish Beneficial Ownership Cases”, can be perceived as a landmark on the interpretation of the Beneficial Ownership concept under the Interest and Royalties Directive (IRD) and the Parent-Subsidiary Directive (PSD).
  • Court of Justice rules on source of income for Derivative Residence applications

    On 2 October 2019, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in Bajratari v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Directive 2004/38/EC) Case C-93/18 which concerns Chen applications and the source of funds for self-sufficiency. 
  • End of the ‘centre of life test’ in Surinder Singh cases?

    In the recent case of  ZA (Reg 9. EEA Regs; abuse of rights) Afghanistan   [2019] UKUT 281 (IAC ), the Upper Tribunal found that there is no basis in EU law for the centre of life test, as set out in Regulation 9(3)(a) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (the “Regulations”). It further found that it is not to be applied when Judges assess  Surinder Singh  cases that appear before them.

    Italian rules on jointventures concerning public procurement and concession contracts are set out inlight of the European legal framework provided for in Directive 2014/23/EU and 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council. The European rules aim to ensurethe best use of public money so that EU citizens benefit from strategicinvestments and services at fair prices. In this context, public procurementand concessions represent key instruments that need to be regulated and standardisedin order to ensure free movement of goods, freedom of establishment and freedomto provide services.
  • Terms of employment as a sole representative

    In this article we examine the working arrangements of sole representatives, looking at the terms and conditions of employment that the Home Office will expect a sole representative to have in order to qualify as a representative of an overseas business.  
  • Can Sole Representatives Be Shareholders?

    The Immigration Rules require that an applicant for a  sole representative visa  is not “a  majority shareholder in the overseas business”.