[photo] Anna Watterson (2007)Anna Watterson (2007)

Teams

Education

  • BA (Hons) History - Clare College, University of Cambridge (2002)
  • Graduate Diploma in Law - City University (2006)

Practice

Anna has a busy common law practice and specialises in the following areas. She accepts instructions on a direct public access basis.

Housing, Landlord and Tenant and Property Litigation

Anna practises landlord and tenant law with a particular emphasis on representing residential tenants. She is instructed in cases involving defending possession proceedings on grounds of rent arrears and anti-social behaviour. She is also instructed on disrepair claims and those involving unlawful eviction and harassment. Her clients benefit from her sound knowledge of welfare benefits law; she also represents claimants in in the welfare benefits tribunal.

Anna also acts in homelessness matters, and because of her immigration law expertise, she is especially well-placed to advise on disputes concerning eligibility for homelessness or housing assistance.

Anna has wide experience of other landlord and tenant matters including disputes concerning leasehold property (especially forfeiture) and disputes over business leases governed by the 1954 Act.

Because of her experience of civil litigation, Anna is instructed in a variety of other civil claims including contractual disputes, debt claims and negligence claims.

Immigration

Anna acts for applicants, both private and publicly funded, in immigration and asylum matters. Having worked at a leading immigration solicitors firm, Wesley Gryk Solicitors, before coming to the Bar she is has experience of a wide variety of cases including asylum, deportation, EU cases, entry clearance and other immigration and nationality matters including applications under the points-based scheme. Anna has particular experience in cases involving unlawful immigration detention and volunteers as a pro bono advocate for Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID).

In addition, Anna is often able to use her knowledge of immigration law to enhance her practice in other areas for example when advising non-UK nationals about their entitlements under social security or housing law.

Reported Cases

Carclo Technical Plastics Ltd v Jeyanthikumar [2010] UKEAT0129_10_0308, [2010] All ER (D) 67 (Oct)

This case concerned the unfair selection of a long-serving employee for redundancy. Anna respresented Mrs Jeyanthikumar. The EAT discussed the requirements of the statutory scheme set out in schedule 2 of the Employment Act 2002. The EAT held that where the employee's assessment score in a redundancy selection exercise was handed to her during the meeting and where the decision to dismiss had already been taken, whatever she might have said, the Employment Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the meeting was not a "step 2" meeting. The EAT upheld the finding of the Employment Tribunal that the Appellant's dismissal had been "automatically" unfair under section 98A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and also that her dismissal had been unfair in all the circumstances because of double-counting in the selection assessment.

Philipson (ILR- not PBS: evidence) [2012] UKUT 00039

This case concerned a work-permit holder, working in the UK as a care worker. Anna represented Ms Philipson when the UKBA refused to grant her indefinite leave to remain. The Upper Tribunal allowed the Appellant's appeal and cast doubt on the fairness of the UKBA's decision. The Tribunal also gave guidance on how conisderations under Article 8 of the ECHR should be approached in such cases.

Ferrer (Limited appeal grounds; Alvi) [2012] UKUT 00304 (IAC)

Anna represnted Ms Ferrer in a second case involving a care worker and holder of a work-permit, to whom the UKBA refused to grant indefinite leave to remain. Allowing the appeal the Upper Tribunal considered the implications of the then newly decided Supreme Court case of R (on the application of Alvi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Upper Tribunal discussed the proper method for interpreting provisions in the immigration rules holding that where the provisions in question are ambiguous or obsucre than it is legitimate to interpret them by assuming that Parliament is unlikely to have sanctioned rules which treat a limited class of persons unfairly and disclose no policy reason for that unfariness. The Upper Tribunal also gave guidance on procedural matters.

Profile

Anna joined 1MCB as a tenant in 2009 after successfully completing her pupillage in chambers. Before coming to the Bar she gained experience both in a private solicitor's firm and by volunteering with Camden Community Law Centre, the Immigration Advisory Service and the Free Representation Unit.

She enjoys walking, cycling and travel, particularly to India where she has volunteered for a development charity based in Tamil Nadu. She is a member of a patient advocacy group for people affected by tuberculosis and in this capacity has addressed a number of conferences for health professionals including a World Health Organisation conference in Lithuania.