Profile image
Daniel has a wide range of experience across private law, public law and human rights work.

His main areas of practice are housing, social welfare and community care. He also undertakes work in civil actions against the police and media law.

He is regularly instructed in cases in the County Court and High Court, and has been instructed as junior counsel in cases in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.

He is described in Chambers and Partners 2019 as “An up-and-coming junior with a growing reputation for his representation of tenants in possession proceedings and homelessness appeals” who “is particularly adroit at handling cases with elements of community care, and garners praise for his ability to engage with clients who lack capacity”. "He impresses with his thoroughness, attention to detail and drafting skills." "He is really thorough, very good at spotting technical points, and very good tactically."

Before coming to the Bar, Daniel worked at the Court of Appeal as a judicial assistant to Sir John Thomas. He worked on both criminal appeals and a range of civil and public law actions in the Queen’s Bench Division.

He also worked as a paralegal at a number of solicitors firms and other organisations, including Bindmans LLP, Hickman & Rose and the Public Law Project.

Administrative and Public Law

Daniel has a wide range of experience in public law, both within his specific practice areas (see below) and more generally. Examples include:

He has also provided advice to a national charity in relation to a strategic challenge to welfare benefits legislation.

Housing and Social Welfare

Daniel undertakes a wide range of housing work in the county courts and High Court, including advising, drafting and advocacy in homelessness appeals and possession claims. Examples include:

  • R (Harris) v Islington LBC, reported on Nearly Legal, 7 April 2019: Claim for judicial review relating to the application of the new provisions of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017.

  • Scarville v Lewisham LBC (2017) October Legal Action 33: Successful appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 against Lewisham's decision to discharge its duty to the appellant on the basis of his refusal of accommodation in Bedford.

  • R (Edwards & others) v Birmingham City Council [2016] EWHC 173: Junior counsel in a 5-day hearing of four, linked claims for judicial review relating to Birmingham’s treatment of homeless applications under Part 7 Housing Act 1996. Led by Zia Nabi.

  • Hosseini v Westminster CC (2015) October Legal Action 42: Successful appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996, on the basis that the local authority had not made sufficient enquiry as to the support that would be available to a vulnerable appellant when homeless.

His possession work includes defending tenants on a range of public and private law grounds, and has involved dealing with new or unusual points of law, as well as dealing with clients suffering from disabilities or who lack capacity to litigate. Examples include:

  • Hackney LBC v Henry (2017) June Legal Action 32: Successful defence to a possession claim against a potential successor to a secure tenancy, on the basis that, although the notice to quit was left at the property more than 28 days before it expired, it had not been sent to the Public Trustee until later.

  • Flagship Housing Group v McAllister (2017) April Legal Action 38: Successful defence under Article 8 ECHR to a claim for possession brought under a mandatory ground, on the basis of offences relating to cannabis, with the court holding that a discretionary claim would have been the proportionate course.

  • Jhawer v Vatts (2016) May Legal Action 40: Successful application to set aside a possession order, applying the principle in Superstrike Ltd v Rodrigues [2013] EWCA Civ 669 to a case where the deposit had been taken, and retained, by an agent who went out of business before the replacement tenancy was granted; the deposit was nonetheless held to have been “received” by the landlord in relation to the replacement tenancy.

Daniel also represents tenants in claims for injunctions and damages in relation to a range of issues including tenancy deposits, disrepair, harassment and unlawful eviction. Examples include:

  • Chaudry v Cooley (2016) November Legal Action 40: Claim for damages for disrepair and breach of tenancy deposit requirements, resulting in deposit compensation in relation to each of a series of 3 tenancies and damages in relation to disrepair equating to 70% of the monthly rent.

  • Tyto v Narang (2016) July/August Legal Action 47: Claim for damages for unlawful eviction and breach of tenancy deposit requirements, resulting in a judgment for over £29,000 in damages.

He has given seminars on various aspects of housing law, including at the Housing Law Practitioners’ Association annual conference.

Community Care and Health

Daniel has experience of a range of community care work, particularly in relation to securing accommodation outside the provisions of the Housing Act 1996.

He has conducted a number of judicial review claims against local authorities under the Children Act 1989, successfully securing urgent interim relief for vulnerable children and their families. Examples include:

  • R (MD) v LB Waltham Forest: Claim for judicial review of the local authority’s failure to provide accommodation to a homeless teenage girl and, once she turned 18, to support her as a care leaver. Secured interim relief, requiring the authority to provide accommodation; subsequently settled part-way through the final hearing, with the authority agreeing to support the client as a care leaver.

  • R (JP) v Hackney LBC & East London NHS Foundation Trust: Claim for judicial review of assessments under the Care Act 2014 and section 117 Mental Health Act 1983 in relation to a young adult with autism and gender identity disorder; settled following the defendants’ agreement to withdraw their decisions and conduct a fresh assessment.

  • R (LW) v Coventry CC: Claim for judicial review of a local authority’s refusal to failure to produce a pathway plan and provide accommodation to a 20-year-old care leaver with a history of non-engagement with social services; settled following the authority’s agreement to produce a care plan and provide accommodation.

  • R (DB & RD) v Lambeth LBC & Southwark LBC: Claim for judicial review of two authorities’ failure to conduct an assessment under section 17 Children Act 1989 and to provide interim accommodation to a homeless single mother and her young child, each instead blaming the failure of the other; settled following the authorities’ agreement to conduct an assessment and provide accommodation.

He has also provided advice to a national charity on health and social care provision for disabled children.

Media Law

Daniel developed an interest in media law before coming to the Bar. As a judicial assistant at the Court of Appeal, where he worked on cases relating to contempt of court for publication of information on social media (Attorney General v Harkins [2013] EWHC 1455 (Admin), Attorney General v Davey [2013] EWHC 2317 (Admin)). As a paralegal at Bindmans, where he worked on the case of R (Miranda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 255 (Admin), the judicial review challenge to the lawfulness of the detention of David Miranda under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in connection with the disclosure of documents to the Guardian newspaper by Edward Snowden.

In 2019, he was awarded the Times Newspapers Fellowship, spending 2 months working with The Times’ in-house legal team. He gained experience of the full range of work of the team, from advising journalists on a range of issues prior to publication through to dealing with post-publication complaints and litigation. A particular focus was work relating to court reporting restrictions.

This included being instructed to represent The Times in an application to vary a reporting restriction order at the Old Bailey and working with the CPS to improve the procedures for information-sharing in relation to reporting restrictions.

Daniel also regularly deals with anonymity issues arising in his housing, community care and police work, in relation to children and vulnerable adults.

Actions Against the Police

Before coming to the Bar, Daniel gained substantial experience in actions against the police and other authorities. As a paralegal at Bindmans LLP, Daniel worked on the case of R (Miranda) v SSHD [2014] EWHC 255 (Admin), the judicial review challenge to the lawfulness of the detention of David Miranda under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. At Hickman & Rose, Daniel worked on a wide range of other private and public law actions.

Since joining Doughty Street, he has continued to build this experience, providing advice, drafting and advocacy in a range of cases, including:

  • PR v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: Claim for damages for false imprisonment, assault, malicious prosecution and breach of Article 5 ECHR in relation to an arrest and prosecution for breach of a restraining order that had been revoked 6 months previously; settled with a substantial payment of compensation to the client.

  • GK v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: Claim for damages for false imprisonment, assault and malicious prosecution in relation to the arrest and prosecution of a protester; settled with a substantial payment of compensation to the client.

  • R (Y) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: Claim for judicial review of the decision to administer a simple caution; permission granted and case settled shortly before the final hearing, on the basis that the caution be quashed and deleted from the client’s PNC record.