Notable work

• Advised an SME on matters of defending a proposed claim for breach of Copyright and Design / IP Law advanced by a multinational IT / military industrial complex conglomerate

• Successfully represented a tenant of a residential property in Court proceedings as part of a Counterclaim, where the Court dismissed the main claim advanced by the Landlord, with the Court proceeding to award damages to the Tenant in the sum of approximately GBP 12,000 on account of various breaches committed by the landlord (including the property being an unlicensed HMO, serious violations of the Health & Safety legislation / Defective Premises Act)

• Comprehensively advised an individual on matters of contractual interpretation (with respect to a loan agreement drafted without the input of a lawyer) and the inability to prematurely call in a loan where there is no contractual stipulation permitting such a course of action

• Comprehensively advised an individual about the prospects of a potential damages claim against a university, where the individual was proposing to predicate his “loss-of-future earnings” claim on a “loss-of-chance” claim with respect to admission to a PhD program, bearing a number of hallmarks similar to those of the unsuccessful claim pursued by the plaintiff in the case of Faiz Siddiqui v University of Oxford [2018] EWHC 184 (QB)

• Comprehensively advising the plaintiff individual with regards to the importance of ADR / evaluation of an offer of settlement as part of an ongoing “breach of contract” claim against one of the constituent colleges of the University of Cambridge premised on “specific performance”, with the claim premise advancing a point distinguishing its position from that of “academic judgment” that was canvassed at length by the High Court in the case of Maria Abramova v Oxford Institute of Legal Practice [2011] EWHC 613 (QB)

• Successfully obtained settlement (around a fortnight before Trial) in a claim for damages being pursued by a former PhD student against a London non-Russell Group University for systematic failings by the defendant University that resulted in an unlawful expulsion of the plaintiff student from his PhD course (a matter admitted by the defendant University following proceedings before the OIA (Office of the Independent Adjudicator) and the inadequate remedial proposals put forward by the defendant University following the OIA determination, which forced the plaintiff student to have to enroll at a different University at an additional cost. Matter resolved by way of a confidential settlement agreement covered by a Tomlin Order.

• Comprehensively advising an individual with regards to implications of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 with respect to a warranty claim arising out of the purchase of a used motor vehicle

• Comprehensively advising a young aspiring actor regarding a potential claim against a film studio with respect to being passed over for a role

• Currently advising a construction SME (as the proposed defendant) in a proposed damages claim being put forward by prospective claimant, where the prospective claimant alleges that there was defective workmanship / installation as part of the construction works undertaken that caused subsequent damage to the residential property averred by the prospective claimant to be in the neighbourhood of around GBP 100,000 + VAT.

• Provided initial advice to commercial tenants of non-domestic (commercial) premises in London where the commercial landlord was seeking “peaceable re-entry”(forfeiture of the lease by a peaceable re-entry on account of the arrears) in line with the terms of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954

• Acted as the instructing solicitor for the defendant father in the case of AB -vs- EM (Jurisdiction Foreign Custody Order) [2020] EWHC 549 (Fam) – the case involved multiple issues of domestic and international children’s law, including whether the child has habitual residence in the UK and whether the existence of a foreign Court Order ought to act as a precluding factor for the English courts to assume jurisdiction. Judgment cited as an authoritative statement of law by multiple subsequent judgments of the Family Division of the High Court.

• Acted as the instructing solicitor for the appellant registrant in the case of Lateef -vs- General Medical Council [2022] EWHC 2743 (Admin) in the High Court (on appeal from the MPTS) – the case involved multiple procedural issues, including the question of how far does failure to obtain permission to advance live witness evidence (as per Agbabiaka (evidence from abroad; Nare guidance) [2021] UKUT 00286 (IAC)) impact the soundness of such witness testimony and who bears the duty to take the appropriate steps in (Regulatory) Tribunal proceedings; does a failure to provide an interpreter (with ‘allowances’ being made for the witness’s poor command of English) materially impact the reliability of such evidence;

• Appearing as co-counsel (pro bono via Advocate) for the appellant mother in the Court of Appeal (LiveStream here – https://www.judiciary.uk/live-hearings/re-p-children) in an appeal against the decision of Recorder Hopkins KC sitting in the High Court in the case of Re R & Y (Children) [2024] EWCA Civ 131, where Recorder Hopkins KC directed that the children live with / be returned to their father and ordered their return to the UAE. Various directions in relation to contact were also made alongside a Prohibited Steps Order against the mother to not remove the children from England and Wales until 1 November 2024. Recorder Hopkins KC also refused the mother’s application to adduce further evidence and for a legal funding order. Permission to appeal was granted by Moylan LJ, holding that: “the appeal [has] a real prospect of success in particular in respect of the judge’s approach and his substantive decision. It is arguable that the judge adopted the wrong legal approach, having regard to the fact that his decision was, in its effect, a long-term welfare decision and not simply a decision on whether to make a summary return order. It is also arguable that the judge’s welfare analysis was flawed and his decision wrong.”. The Court of Appeal (in a unanimous judgment delivered by Baker LJ) allowed the mother’s appeal, holding that Recorder Hopkins KC “went astray in two crucial respects – first, in treating the application as one for the “summary return” of the children and, secondly, his treatment of serious findings of abuse which he made against the father.”, thereby requiring the matter to be dealt with afresh by way of a “remitt[al] to Keehan J, the Senior Family Presiding Judge, to be allocated to a judge of the Family Division able to accommodate a hearing which will involve this difficult and finely-balanced welfare decision.” (https://12oldsquare.com/press-release-for-the-judgment-in-re-r-y-children-2024-ewca-civ-131/)