Respected, experienced and creative – Al has a proven track record for fearlessly fighting cases that have impacted genuine social change, and raised points of law that has arisen the public glare.
He was widely acclaimed for his successful landmark Supreme Court challenge to the Government’s policy against under 21 marriages, which lead to the Supreme Court holding that the policy was contrary to a couple’s right to respect for family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
In his unnerving pursuit to prevent the Government’s attempt to dilute the protection stemming from the 1951 Refugee Convention, Al successfully challenged the Government’s failure to recognise the human rights abuses in Bangladesh and their unlawful designation of the country as a “safe” country. This challenge went to the systemic root of government foreign policy.
Al has also successfully argued cases ranging from the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court to the European Court of Human Rights. Al also has a diverse practise spanning the legal spectrum, from judicial review, human rights and employment, to regulatory law as well as general common law.
In the area of professional conduct, Al provides representation to a wide range of professionals, including doctors, nurses, dentists and accountants at all levels of proceedings.
Al’s resume speaks volumes regarding his continued technical excellence, commitment and enthusiasm.
Al is a graduate of Jesus College, Oxford University.
When is it appropriate to raise the issue of jurisdiction clause?
Whether the retention and disclosure of criminal records is contrary to the right to private life).
Whether the rule prohibiting a director from representing a company in court is compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights).
Concerning conduct committed by a doctor outside the course of professional practice.
Challenge to the Council’s decision to build a waste station within a residential area. The case is pending in the European Court of Human Rights.
Concerning the requirement to undertake statutory induction by teachers.
Regarding the time limit for making a claim in relation to public interest disclosure.
The requirement for a university to act fairly and to hear representation.
A challenge to the Secretary of State’s refusal to consider the exercise of discretion.
Solicitor’s liability for wasted costs in bankruptcy proceedings.
The right to an oral review under Civil Procedure Rule 52.16(6)).
Judicial review challenging the power to re-refuse entry clearance following a successful appeal.
A challenge to the lawfulness of the Government’s designation of the State of Bangladesh.
Regarding the relevance of medical and psychiatric evidence in assessing credibility.