In immigration and asylum he regularly appears before both the First Tier and Upper Tribunal's as well as the Court of Appeal, which recently described his oral advocacy as displaying "great skill but also economy." David also has extensive experience in the Administrative Court, primarily through judicial review challenges to fresh claim applications and unlawful detention.

As well as lecturing extensively on new developments in this rapidly changing field, David is also approved by the Law Society and acts as an assessor on the Immigration and Asylum Accreditation Scheme, for solicitors and legal representatives.

David recently represented eight claimants in their claims for damages arising from the Home Office's delay in granting them settled status. The Court of Appeal, in Home Office v Mohammed and others[2011] EWCA Civ 351 rejected the Home Office's long held reliance upon Anufrijeva v Southwark LBC[2003] EWCA Civ 1406 and potentially opened the door for an increase in loss of earnings claims by those who have been subject to unlawful delays in the grant of settled status. The case is of particular importance to the many individuals who suffered losses arising from the Home Office's policy as described in R(oao S) v SSHD [2007] EWCA 546. The Court of Appeal, in one of Sedley LJ's last judgments, also took the opportunity to confirm that, in general, negligence claims could not be sustained against public authorities where the proximity between the parties was solely created by a statutory relationship.

David's recent case load has seen his extensive involvement in a string of public law challenges to the UKBA's removal of a number of Educational institutions from the Tier 4 sponsorship register. Having achieved successful outcomes, he is currently involved in a number of planned damages claims arising from the procedures operated by the Home Office’s to suspension and revocation license holders.

David also has extensive experience in advising and lecturing to corporate, including multinational, clients as to their obligations when employing foreign workers, and regularly represents in civil penalty appeals.  He has also recently represented a number of very high profile sportspeople, in relation to their immigration affairs.

He is the current author of the Lexis Nexis Practice Notes on the Tier 4 Sponsorship regime.

In employment David works in the fields of racial and sexual discrimination, unfair dismissal, working time regulations and unlawful deduction of wages, both for Claimants and Respondents. As well as appearing at Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal levels, David also works in an advisory capacity, for private clients, local authorities, trade unions, and through his connections with Camden Community Law Centre. He has a particular interest in the increasingly complex interrelationship between immigration and employment law.

David has long standing experience in pursuing civil actions against the police for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and assault.  His immigration and public law practice have seen him increasingly involved in civil actions against the Home Office, in unlawful detention claims, but also in a string of claims seeking damages under the Human Rights Act 1998.  David remains instructed in an on-going multiparty civil claim arising from the Home Office’s delay in granting settled status to Iraqi asylum seekers.  This resulted in the recent Court of Appeal case of Home Office v Mohammed and others [2011] EWCA Civ 351 where the Court of Appeal rejected the Home Office's long held reliance upon Anufrijeva v Southwark LBC [2003] EWCA Civ 1406 and potentially opened the door for an increase in loss of earnings claims by those who have been subject to unlawful delays in the grant of settled status.

David appears on a regular basis in the Administrative Court, pursuing public law challenges to decision both of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and other public bodies.

His work has recently focussed on procurement issues, as well as actions for and against Educational institutions. David has both lectured and written about the new Procurement Directives and provides both prompt and realistic advise to clients in an area where time will very often be of the essence.

David’s human rights background, and experience in regulatory work have also seen him instructed in a significant challenge to the Welsh Standards regime.  In the case of Heesom v Public Services Ombudsman for Wales (PSOW), Welsh Ministers intervening [2014] EWHC 1504 (Admin) the Administrative Court gave detailed consideration to the relationship between the right to political expression under Article 10 ECHR and a representative’s obligations under their Code of Conduct. 

David has extensive experience in pursuing civil actions against the police for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and assault.  His immigration and public law practice have seen him increasingly involved in civil actions against the Home Office, in unlawful detention claims, but also in a string of claims seeking damages under the Human Rights Act 1998. 

David was led by Nichols Bowen QC in the landmark Supreme Court case of Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2018] UKSC 4 where they successfully argued that the police owe a duty of care to avoid causing foreseeable personal injury to another person in accordance with the general law of tort, and that this extends to a duty to protect an individual from a danger of injury which they have themselves created. Mrs. Robinson was an innocent bystander when a pre-planned arrest operation of a suspected drug dealer went badly wrong, resulting in personal injury to Mrs Robinson. 

David represents parents, students and schools in public law education appeals to the First-Tier Tribunal (SENDIST), disability discrimination cases in the SENDIST, race and disability discrimination claims in the County Court, breach of contract claims and in related judicial review proceedings. He and has appeared in cases involving maintained and independent schools, academies and colleges, and in matters involving school transport, statementing / EHC Plans, and discrimination. David also has significant experience in matters with an immigration cross over, and particularly in relation to the UKBA’s sponsor licensing system.

Cases include:

• TTM Services Limited v Secretary of State to the Home Department [2016] EWHC 646 (QB) – Damages claim arising from SSHD’s decision to suspend the sponsor licence of a Further Education College

• R (on the application of Goldsmith International Business School) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 1232 (Admin) – Judicial review challenge to decision to remove School from register of licensed sponsors

• Lords College of Higher Education v Home Office – Damages claim arising from SSHD’s decision to remove the College from the register of licensed sponsors

• R (oao Evans) V Powys County Council – Challenge to local authority’s failed consultation concerning the closure of Gwernyfed High School

• Assad v Stockport Metropolitan Council – Damages claim for Race Discrimination arising from failure to provide a school place to an asylum seeker

David is highly experienced both in defamation and data protection litigation. His thriving defamation practice is particularly focussed on controversial cases with a political or religious dimension. Recent cases have included actions involving high profile political figures both in the United Kingdom and abroad. David’s data protection expertise compliments his defamation practice as well as being integrated into his public law workload. His breadth of experience across a number of fields adds significant value to litigation since David is able to identify and pursue novel applications of heads of claim at an early stage.