Alex Rook

Alex Rook is highly esteemed for his health and welfare practice. – Chambers & Partners, 2023

He is a pleasure to work with. He constantly achieves the best outcome for clients. – Chambers & Partners, 2023

He is thoughtful, smart, and does an excellent job for clients. – Chambers & Partners, 2023

Alex has a strategic head and is really thoughtful in how he litigates. – Chambers & Partners, 2023

Alex provides excellent support all round I could not ask for better. – Chambers & Partners, 2023

Alex Rook is outstanding, with fantastic knowledge. – Chambers & Partners, 2022

Alex Rook is second to none in his field. Knowledgeable, enthusiastic and very hardworking. Has a superb tactical sense. – Legal 500, 2022

Alex’s work has always focused on achieving social justice. He acts for individuals, charities and companies in the full range of judicial review cases, with particular specialisms in health and social care, procurement, mental capacity and human rights law.

Judicial Review

Alex has successfully won judicial review cases at every level within the British court system, including winning the first Supreme Court case in relation to the law on consultation (Moseley v London Borough of Haringey [2014] UKSC 56).

He has been instructed to intervene on behalf of national charities (Age UK, SENSE, RNIB, Guide Dogs for the Blind and the National Children’s Bureau) in three separate Supreme Court cases in recent years.

Over the last few years he has been instructed by non-profit organisation Good Law Project in a number of high profile cases challenging the lawfulness of Government decisions during the Covid-19 Pandemic.

Case highlights include:

• Blake & Ors v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2014] EWHC 1027 (Admin) – a successful challenge to the council’s decision to revoke the licence of a soup kitchen for vulnerable people in Walthamstow. The High Court concluded that the council’s decision was unlawful as it was taken without due regard to the Equality Act.
• Moseley v London Borough of Haringey [2014] UKSC 56 – a successful appeal to the Supreme Court, setting the parameters of the information which a public authority is now obliged to provide to the public when consulting with them.
• R (LH) v Shropshire Council [2014] EWCA Civ 404, [2014] MHLO 18 – a successful appeal in the Court of Appeal about the extent of consultation required when a local authority closes day care services for adults with a learning disability.
• R (Good Law Project and EveryDoctor) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWHC 46 (TCC) – Judicial review regarding Government procurement of PPE using the infamous ‘VIP lane’
• R (Good Law Project and The Runnymede Trust) v The Prime Minister and Anor [2022] EWHC 298 (Admin) – partially successful judicial review of the government’s practice of appointing people to positions critical to the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic without open competition
• Brim v London Borough of Hackney [2022] EWHC 2270 (Admin) – successful judicial review of the local authority’s failure to provide full time accommodation for the claimant, a young adult with a severe learning disability

Court of Protection and Mental Capacity

Alex is also well known for the welfare work he undertakes in the Court of Protection, acting for the Official Solicitor as well as for families and advocates.

Alex was one of only two private practice solicitors invited to give evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee when it reviewed the Mental Capacity Act in 2014, and is an Accredited Legal Representative under the Law Society’s Mental Capacity (Welfare) Scheme.

Alex has acted in many reported cases; a few highlights include:

• London Borough of Ealing v KS & Ors [2008] EWHC 636 (Fam) – one of a number of cases Alex has been instructed on in relation to capacity to litigate; marry; consent to the carrying out a required medical treatment; consent to sexual relations; and consider the issue of contraception.
• Re F [2009] EWHC B30 (Fam) – regarding the test for the engagement of the court of protection’s powers under s48 of the MCA (Interim orders and directions)
• Re Lawson, Mottram and Hopton [2019] EWCOP 22 – a test case before the Vice-President of the Court of Protection, clarifying the law in relation to the appointment of welfare deputies (a role which allows another person, often a family member, to make welfare decisions on behalf of an adult who lacks the capacity to make those decisions themselves).