Employment Judge Snelson
Daniel joined Chambers as a tenant in 2016 after successful completion of pupillage. He accepts instructions in all of Chambers’ practice areas. Daniel has appeared in County Courts, Magistrates’ Courts, Crown Courts, Employment Tribunals, Immigration Tribunals, the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
Prior to pupillage, Daniel worked as a Legal Advisor to barristers, including research and advice for Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights cases.
Email address: email@example.com
As well as the more commercial aspects of employment, Daniel has represented clients in cases of unfair and wrongful dismissal, various forms of discrimination under the Equality Act (including disability discrimination) and holiday pay disputes. He regularly attends cases in the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal and has assisted in cases in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
Notably, he has acted as a representative in a four-day Employment Tribunal hearing where he cross-examined partners of an international law firm and witnesses from abroad via video-link. He has also acted as representation in an Employment Tribunal hearing listed for eight days, which included claims of unfair dismissal, race discrimination and harassment and obtained a desirable outcome for the client. Daniel has a particular interest in Disability Discrimination and has recently acted in a matter listed for 5 days in the Employment Tribunal and an appeal in the Employment Appeal Tribunal concerning whether, by refusing to engage and correspond with an employee’s solicitors, the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments.
PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINARY & REGULATORY
Daniel is happy to accept instructions in all areas of regulatory law and has been involved in a number of successful cases, including revoking a doctor’s suspension from practice and defending an interpreter from disciplinary sanctions.
COMPANY & COMMERCIAL
Daniel accepts instructions in company and commercial disputes and has provided advice to clients regarding Directors’ Duties, Conflicts of Interest, Restrictive Covenants and Unfair Prejudice petitions. He has also assisted in a claim in the European Court of Human Rights brought by a company against the United Kingdom. Daniel recently acted as representation as junior counsel in the Court of Appeal in a matter regarding a major shareholder dispute between overseas companies concerning ownership and management of an English telecommunications company which involved a claim for $9.1 million.
PUBLIC LAW, JUDICIAL REVIEW AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Daniel has assisted in several high-profile cases in the Administrative Court and Court of Appeal, including challenges against Government decisions brought by both individuals and groups. These cases have exposed him to a full range of duties on public bodies under statute, the Human Rights Act and principles of administrative law. Daniel has assisted in a successful claim against a University’s decision to revoke immigration sponsorship, which involved over ninety claimants.
Notably, Daniel has twice acted as representation in the High Court in successful cases seeking to prevent a funeral on Human Rights grounds. Daniel has also recently acted as junior counsel in the matter of R (on the application of P, G, W and Krol) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & ors  EWCA Civ 321, which was an appeal concerning the legality of the current police disclosure regime and its compliance with the Human Rights Act, specifically with regards to the right to privacy.
IMMIGRATION & ASYLUM
In addition to Judicial Review immigration cases, Daniel has represented clients in both First-Tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal hearings and has had involvement with appeals brought both within and outside the Immigration Rules and on Human Rights grounds, with a particular emphasis on asylum and refugee protection.
Daniel tackles immigration matters in innovative ways, not merely by challenging individual decisions based on the specific facts of the case but by challenging the Immigration Rules themselves by way of Judicial Review. For example, in Syed and Ahmed v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 196, Daniel assisted in a claim brought against the refusal of the Immigration Rules to recognise the ACCA qualification as equivalent to degree status.
Daniel has also represented clients in Asylum Screening Interviews and full Asylum interviews.
Daniel is instructed on both commercial and residential property matters. Daniel regularly attends possession hearings and has also acted as representation in cases involving disrepair. He has assisted in the appeal of a declaration under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (“TOLATA”) which involved complex loan arrangements and oral agreements. He has also assisted in a case of a property transfer involving a “sale and rent back” scheme, with the sellers attempting to reclaim an interest in their home to prevent eviction.
GENERAL CIVIL LAW
Daniel is happy to accept instructions in all areas of General Civil Law disputes, including Road Traffic Accidents, Breach of Contract and Negligence. He regularly appears and has successfully represented both Claimants and Defendants at trial with regards to Road Traffic Accidents. Daniel has represented clients in applications to set aside bankruptcy orders and statutory demands. Daniel has also successfully represented clients in Infant Approval Hearings.
Daniel has recently acted as representation in a multi-track hearing listed for two days, which concerned a claim made in restitution against the Defendant (the Claimant’s brother) that he was making substantial withdrawals from his elderly and allegedly infirm mother’s bank accounts by using undue influence.
Daniel is happy to accept instructions with regards to criminal law matters. He has represented clients in first hearings in the Magistrates’ Court for drink driving offences and in the Crown Court for a possession with intent to supply drugs, combined with proceeds of crime case.
Daniel has been heavily involved with the Innocence Project, culminating in his drafting of a report on the effectiveness of the CCRC for a leading academic and has also spoken in conferences held on the topic.
Daniel is happy to accept instructions in Family Law related cases. He has appeared as representation for parents in an appeal against a decision to refuse leave to oppose an adoption order and as representation in child contact orders.
Before coming to the Bar, Daniel attended City Law School and Cardiff University, winning his University mock trial competition held in the Supreme Court before Lord Justice Lloyd-Jones and was awarded the “Best Advocate” award by Lyons Davidson solicitors. Daniel also represented his University on a national level in the ICLR moot.
Bar Professional Training Course, City Law School (“Very Competent”)
Law LLB, Cardiff University (2:1)
R (on the application of P, G, W and Krol) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & ors  EWCA Civ 321
Acted as junior counsel in the above Court of Appeal matter which concerned a challenge to the police regime of disclosure of previous convictions and other relevant information. The challenge to the disclosure regime was made out on the ground of non-compliance with the Human Rights Act, in particular the right to privacy. Lord Justice Leveson (of the Leveson Inquiry) presided and found that the disclosure regime was contrary to the right to privacy.
(1) Apex Global Management Limited; (2) Faisal Abdul Hafiz Almhairat v Global Torch Limited
Acted as junior counsel in the Court of Appeal in a matter between shareholders of a telecommunications company concerning the payment of $9.1 million. Points of law raised concerned the effectiveness of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and the time when an application for a stay of proceedings ought to be made. The case concerned long-standing litigation between the parties, which included two Saudi Arabian Princes and allegations of terrorist funding.
Gombera & Anor v Brookes-Nandara
Acted as representation in successful cases seeking to prevent a funeral on Human Rights Grounds, inherent jurisdiction of the Court and under section 116 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
Apollo Engineering Limited v The United Kingdom
Assisted in representing the above named in its claim against the United Kingdom for a breach of Human Rights. The case concerned whether, by preventing a director from representing the company, the United Kingdom was in breach of its duties under the European Convention on Human Rights to ensure fair trials.