Who? Norna Hughes, 43-year-old head of planning at City firm Nabarro Nathanson.

Why is she in the news? Represents the National Anti-Vivisection Society and Animal Aid in their legal battle to prevent the construction of a controversial primate research laboratory by Cambridge University.

Ms Hughes is spearheading a High Court challenge against John Prescott's decision to allow the laboratory to go ahead, even though a public inquiry found no special circumstances to justify its construction in the Cambridgeshire green belt.

Last week, the university was reported to have scrapped the plans for the lab because of the cost of security against animal rights activists.

Ms Hughes is waiting for Mr Prescott to make his position clear before dropping the action.

Background: LLB at Manchester Polytechnic 1978-81, then bar school and pupillage.

Joined City firm Herbert Oppenheimer Nathan & Van Dyck as a planning assistant, leaving for Nabarro Nathanson in 1987.

Qualified as a solicitor and made partner in 1989, becoming head of planning in the early 1990s.

Route to the case: A referral from a barrister involved at an early stage in the action.

Thoughts on the case: 'In 20 years of practice, I have never encountered a case where government policy emerges in such a way during the course of the inquiry - with both the minister for the Department for Trade & Industry and the prime minister making very public statements of support for the project while the application is being considered.

Our clients felt their contribution to the public inquiry was valueless, because the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

If the public inquiry system loses its credibility, then that has wider ramifications than for just one case.'

Dealing with the media: 'I have dealt a lot with the broadsheet newspapers, and I have been glad for my clients that the media has seen this as a story worth detailed scrutiny.

On the whole, the coverage has been balanced and fair - but recently reports that Cambridge has pulled out of the project were all claiming that the university's decision was based on the cost of security at the lab, because of unlawful intimidation.

In fact, the university said that was only one aspect of the grounds for its decision.

My clients are frustrated that their legitimate and lawful lobbying position tends not to have adequate weight, because the government wants to be seen to take a public stand against animal rights activists.'

Rachel Rothwell