Al Mustakim

Al Mustakim

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.

Qualifications

Al is a graduate of Jesus College, Oxford University.

 

REPORTED CASES

  • Apex Global Management Ltd v Global Torch Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ. 315

      When is it appropriate to raise the issue of jurisdiction clause?

  • Krol v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2017] EWCA Civ. 321

      Whether the retention and disclosure of criminal records is contrary to the right to private life). 

  • Apollo Engineering Ltd v UK (application no.22061/15)

      Whether the rule prohibiting a director from representing a company in court is compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights). 

  • Gosalakkal v General Medical Council [2015] EWHC 2445

      Concerning conduct committed by a doctor outside the course of professional practice. 

  • Fordson Ltd v Essex County Council [2014] EWCA Civ. 1259

      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. 

  • Mosekari v The London Borough of Lewisham [2014] EWHC 3617

      Concerning the requirement to undertake statutory induction by teachers. 

  • Flynn v Warrior Square Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ. 68

      Regarding the time limit for making a claim in relation to public interest disclosure. 

  • Hanth Phuong v Glendwr University [2014] EWHC 908

      The requirement for a university to act fairly and to hear representation. 

  • Solaja v Secretary of State for Home Department [2013] EWHC 3431

      A challenge to the Secretary of State’s refusal to consider the exercise of discretion. 

  • Syed and Ahmed v Secretary of State for Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ. 196 Whether the ACCA qualification is a recognised “degree”. 
  • Thames Chambers Solicitors v Miah [2013] EWHC 1245 (QB)

      Solicitor’s liability for wasted costs in bankruptcy proceedings. 

  • Quila and Bibi v Secretary of State for Home Department [2011] UKSC 45 Challenge to the government’s policy against under 21 marriages and whether it was    contrary to the right to family life. 
  • Darboe v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ. 121 Judicial review challenge to the government’s policy to designate the State of Gambia as a “safe” country.
  • RS v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ. 114

      The right to an oral review under Civil Procedure Rule 52.16(6)). 

  • Azazur Rahman v ECO [2006] EWHC 1755

      Judicial review challenging the power to re-refuse entry clearance following a successful appeal. 

  • Zakir Husan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWHC 189

      A challenge to the lawfulness of the Government’s designation of the State of Bangladesh. 

  • Diaby v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ. 651

      Regarding the relevance of medical and psychiatric evidence in assessing credibility.

Reported Cases
  • Gosalakkal v General Medical Council [2015]EWHC 2445 (conduct committed outside the course of professional practice).

  • Fordson Ltd v Essex County Council [2014]EWCA Civ. 1259 (challenge to the council’s decision to build a waste salon within a residential area. The case is pending in the European Court of Human Rights).

  • Krol v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2014] EWHC 4552 (disclosure of police cautions and right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case is pending the Court of Appeal).

  • Mosekari v The London Borough of Lewisham [2014]EWHC 3617 (requirement to undertake statutory induction)

  • Flynn v Warrior Square Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 68 (time limit for making a claim in relation to public interest disclosure).

  • Solaja v Secretary of State for Home Department [2013] EWHC 3431 (successful challenge to the Secretary of State’s refusal to consider the exercise of discretion)

  • Syed and Ahmed v Secretary of State for Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 196 and in the High Court [2013] EWHC 984 (whether the ACCA qualification is a recognised “degree”).

  • Thames Chambers Solicitors v Miah [2013] EWHC 1245 (QB) (solicitor’s liability for wasted costs in bankruptcy proceedings).

  • Quila and Bibi v Secretary of State for Home Department [2011] UKSC 45 and in the Court of Appeal [2010] EWCA Civ 1482 (successful challenge to the government’s policy against under 21 marriages. Supreme Court ruling that the policy was a disproportionate interference with the right to family life of young couples).

  • Darboe v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 121 and [2010] EWHC 880 (judicial review challenge to the government’s policy to designate the State of Gambia as a “safe” country).

  • RS v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 114 (the right to an oral review under Civil Procedure Rule 52.16(6)).

  • Azazur Rahman v ECO [2006] EWHC 1755 (judicial review challenging the power to re-refuse entry clearance following a successful appeal).

  • Zakir Husan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWHC 189 (successful challenge against the Government’s policy to designate the State of Bangladesh as a “safe” country).

  • Diaby v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] EWCA Civ 651 (the relevance of medical and psychiatric evidence in assessing credibility).

  • Appollo Engineering Ltd v UK (application no.22061/15): whether the rule prohibiting a director from representing a company in court is is compatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  • Vu Hanth Phuong v Glendwr University [2014] EWHC 908 (Admin): Whether the university acted fairly or heard representation. Permission for judicial review was granted for some students. The university subsequently conceded the case in relation to those students.