• Barrister-at-Law (England & Wales) (Call: 2011)

  • Former Solicitor – Advocate (All Higher Courts in England & Wales) (2006 – 2011)

  • Advocate (All High Courts of Pakistan) (Admitted to the Roll: 2004)

  • Dubai International Financial Centre Courts (Par II Registration: 2020)

  • Abu Dhabi Global Markets Courts (Registered: 2020)

  • Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre (2020)

  • Singapore International Commercial Court (Registration: 2020)

  • Astana International Financial Court (Registration: 2020)

  • LLM (Financial Regulation & Compliance) (Distinction) BPP University, London

  • MA (Political Science) (First Class) Punjab University, Lahore

  • GDL (Graduate Diploma in Law) BPP University, Leeds

  • LLB (Bachelor of Laws) Punjab University, Lahore

  • BA (Political Science) (First Class) Punjab University, Lahore

  • FSc (Maths, Economics, Stats) (First Class) PAF Inter College, Islamabad

Academic
  • Diploma in Investments & Compliance

      Chartered Institute of Securities & Investments, London 

  • FSA Financial Regulation Exam

      Chartered Institute of Securities & Investments, London

  • Integrity Matters (Grade A)

      Chartered Institute of Securities & Investments, London     

  • Higher Rights of Audience (Civil & Criminal), Altior, Cardiff        

  • Qualified Lawyers' Transfer Test (QLTT), The College of Law, London

  • Masterclass in Financial Markets, London Stock Exchange, London

Vocational 
 
  • 10 Kings Bench Walk – In 2020 I joined 10 KBW as a tenant where I am part of a very strong team of Barristers. I am assisted by a very efficient Clerking and Admin team that enables me to maintain my practice in London and internationally. 

  • London View Chambers – In 2011 I established my own chambers as a sole-practitioner and ever since it has been flourishing. I am authorized by the Bar Council to provide direct public access services and conduct litigation. 

  • Ahmads' Solicitors – In 2006 I set up this practice after being admitted to the Roll of Solicitors in England & Wales. I specialise in Financial Regulation & Compliance, Banking & Securities, Competition Law and Intellectual Property law. I have successfully handled complex claims in Company & Commercial and Public Law matters both on behalf of and against business giants such as Wachovia Bank, Macquarie Bank, Nationwide Building Society, National Express, Virgin Media, Hyde Housing Association, Momentum Group, Tulip Group and a charity, AMJ International. I advise on all aspects of financial regulation and compliance, corporate finance and business mergers & acquisitions process such as from negotiating heads of terms, drafting contracts, developing integration plans i.e. transfer of employees, acquisition/transfer of equity, investigation into actual & potential liabilities, sale and purchase of share capital, finalizing the deals, collaborative agreements, demergers and re-organization. I closed this practice in 2011 upon being Called to the Bar of England & Wales.

 

  • (1999 – 2004) Mobashir Law Company – I worked as a part-time ‘Trainee Advocate’ in Corporate Finance & Commercial Litigation team.

 
England
Abu Dhabi
Qatar
Pakistan
Singapore
Kazakhstan

Prominent Litigation Cases in England; UAE, Singapore and Pakistan:        

 

In my 21 years of advocacy career, during the last 17 years, in England & Wales, I have exercised rights of audience before mainstream courts and tribunals in variety of disputes ranging from breach of contract in commercial agreements, application of cross default clauses in debt finance agreements & commercial contracts between financial institutions and private consumers, emergency freezing injunctions, civil contempt of court for breaching terms of injunctions, non-solicitation & confidentiality clauses in contracts of employment, anti-competition clauses, bankruptcy & insolvency, commercial immigration, high net worth contentious ancillary relief claims in divorce proceedings, international child abduction, etc.

In DIFC Courts, Dubai I appear before the Court of Appeal as well as the Court of First Instance in Case Management Hearing, trials and appeals. At present I am instructed in commercial disputes for resolution (adjudication & arbitration) at Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) and Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), ADGM Courts in Abu Dhabi and before the High Courts in Pakistan. I am hopeful to appear before Qatar International Court (QIC) and AIFC in Kazakhstan in near future.

European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg):

 

  • Yilmaz –v– United Kingdom: I advocated my client’s claims for private and family life under Article 8 of ECHR 1950 and represented him in the Asylum & Immigration Tribunal, in the High Court, in the Court of Appeal and also lodged his claim in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

 

Court of Appeal (England):

 

  • Awan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1988: A challenge to the Secretary of State’s refusal to grant leave to remain as Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant. An appeal involving interpretation of paragraph 41 – SD of the Immigration Rules wherein Lord Justice Underhill said:

“Mr Iqbal has put the arguments attractively this morning.”

  • SI (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 737: A challenge to the Secretary of State’s refusal to grant leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant and interpretation of paragraph 41 – SD of Appendix A of the Immigration Rules.

  • Iqbal and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Tank and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 169: An appeal in relation to interpretation of paragraph 41 – SD [Tier 1 (Entrepreneur)] of Appendix A of the Immigration Rules.

  • Rasheed v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Mughal v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Bashir v Secretary of State for the Home Department; and other applications [2014] EWCA Civ 1493: A challenge against the Secretary of State’s refusal to grant leave to remain as Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Migrant.

  • R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p MC [2014] EWCA Civ 466: A challenge in the Court of Appeal against the Admin Court’s refusal to grant permission for judicial review in relation to an application for leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant.

  • AI (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 173: Interpretation of paragraph 41 – SD [Tier (1 Entrepreneur)] of Appendix A of the Immigration Rules.

  • Iqbal v Solicitors Regulation Authority & Others [2014] EWCA Civ 673: A claim for damages for tort of misfeasance in public office and Article 1 Protocol 1 of the EU Convention on Human Rights. It involved a question of burden of proof.

  • Corpuz v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2013] EWCA Civ 1355: Interpretation of paragraph 297 of the Immigration Rules wherein Lady Justice Gloster said:

“…Mr Iqbal has submitted helpfully and persuasively in support of the appellant, …”

  • R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p QN [2013] EWCA Civ 1551: A challenge in the Court of Appeal against the Admin Court’s refusal to grant permission for judicial review in relation to an application for leave to remain on the basis of Article 8 (private and family life).

  • Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors & Others (No 2) [2013] EWCA Civ 149: A defamation action involving question of absolute privilege in relation to libelous pleadings that have no connection with the underlying dispute. Lord Justice Rix said:

“Mr Iqbal has addressed the court with restraint and ability.”

  • Ghias T/A Griller v Ikram T/A The Griller Original [2013] EWCA Civ 219:
    An action in relation of infringement of trademark registered u/s 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 wherein Lord Justice Kitchin said:

“…persuasive submissions advanced by Mr Iqbal both in his skeleton argument and in his oral submissions …” .

  • Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors [2011] EWCA Civ 123: An action under the s3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and a landmark judgment in tort of harassment.

  • R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Iqbal [2010] EWCA Civ 505: This judicial review claim was against the decision of the Secretary of State to introduce changes to the immigration rules without undertaking an impact assessment as required u/s 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. Lord Justice Keene said:

“I would pay tribute to the concise and skilled way in which Mr Iqbal has presented his arguments this morning, and I wish him every success in his future career as a lawyer.”

  • WR (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 1546: A challenge to the Secretary of State’s decision to grant asylum.

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) (England):

  • Sandhu UK Scaffolding & Construction Ltd & Others v Rupvinder Bhupinder Singh & Others [2017] EWHC 1343 (QB): A commercial claim in which Mr Iqbal, while representing the Claimants under direct access, obtained freezing injunction and thereafter successfully prosecuted the Defendants in a civil claim for contempt of court. Mr Justice Spencer said:

“The Claimants were represented by their direct access barrister, Mr Iqbal.” And, “Mr Iqbal in his submissions yesterday very properly conceded this point.” And “Again, Mr Iqbal very properly accepted that proposition in the course of argument yesterday.”

 

“I have been much assisted by clear and focused submissions on paper and orally by Mr Mashood Iqbal” and “I repeat my gratitude to counsel for their careful submissions in an area where the requirements of the rules are not as clear as anyone would wish”.

  • KM (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 437: A challenge to the Upper Tribunal’s refusal to accept an out of time appeal. An appeal involving complex questions of interpretation of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act 2007 wherein Lord Justice Ryder said:

“In oral argument both Mr Iqbal for the appellant … very helpfully took the court to the relevant tribunal and court rules.”

  • R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Khan [2017] EWCA Civ 221: In an application to the Court of Appeal whereby the Claimant was seeking to challenge the Upper Tribunal’s refusal to grant permission for judicial review, Lady Justice Rafferty said:

“Mr Iqbal who has latterly and generously provided in written form his distillation of how matters might best be advanced for the assistance of the court, and I am grateful.”

  • HK (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 737: A statutory appeal involving issues of proper interpretation of Immigration Rules relating to Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) applications for leave to remain.

  • Shahbaz v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 576: A challenge to the Secretary of State’s refusal to grant leave to remain under Article 8 private life wherein Lord Justice Elias said:

  • Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors [2014] EWHC 2418 (QB): An action under the s3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 involving question of absolute privilege in relation to harassing statements within pleadings that have no connection with underlying dispute.

  • Iqbal v Solicitors Regulation Authority & Others [2012] EWHC 4097 (QB): A claim for damages for tort of misfeasance in public office and Article 1 Protocol 1 of the EU Convention on Human Rights.

High Court (Administrative Court) (England):

 

  • R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Arifin [2015] EWHC 637 (Admin): A judicial review challenge against the Secretary of State’s decision refusing to grant leave to remain on the basis of Article 8 (family life):

“Mr Iqbal has rightly noted that potentially a significant factor in the case is that … no few than six family members have some form of leave to remain.”

  • R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Butt [2013] EWHC 3216 (Admin): A judicial review challenge against the Secretary of State’s decision refusing to grant leave to remain under legacy scheme:

“The basis upon which Mr Iqbal now advances his case is that the Secretary of State in applying her current guidance in Chapter 53 of the Enforcement Instructions Guidance either misinterpreted that guidance in relation to this case, or misunderstood or misapplied the facts in the context of that guidance and so the judgment on legacy and the application of Chapter 53 was wrong in law for that reason.”

  • R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Muzaffar [2013] EWHC 3222 (Admin): A judicial review challenge regarding proper interpretation of Immigration Rules regarding Tier 4 (General) Students.

  • R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Raza [2013] EWHC 984 (Admin): A judicial review challenge regarding proper interpretation of Immigration Rules regarding Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Migrants.

  • R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Nawaz [2013] EWHC 984 (Admin): A judicial review challenge against the Secretary of State’s decision to certify an asylum and human rights claims under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Human Rights Act 2002.

  • R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Iqbal [2010] EWCA Civ 505: This judicial review claim was against the decision of the Secretary of State to introduce changes to the immigration rules without undertaking an impact assessment as required u/s 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. Lord Justice Keene said:

“I would pay tribute to the concise and skilled way in which Mr Iqbal has presented his arguments this morning, and I wish him every success in his future career as a lawyer.”

  • R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Malik [2008] EWHC 1151 (Admin): The Administrative Court granted mandatory injunction to and ordered the Secretary of State to take immediate steps to enforce the decision of the then Asylum & Immigration Tribunal.

  • R v Immigration & Asylum Tribunal and Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Yilmaz [2007] EWHC (Admin) Unreported: a JR claim against the Asylum & Immigration Tribunal that refused Claimant’s bail application on four different occasions.

  • R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Rasheed [2007] EWHC (Admin) Unreported: a JR claim against a delay of nearly 3 years by the Secretary of State in deciding the Claimant’s visa application for permanent settlement on the basis of 14 years unlawful residence. Permission for judicial review was granted and later the Secretary of State conceded the claim before full hearing.

  • R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Azeem & Kesharpu [2010] EWHC (Admin) Unreported: This claim involved a challenge to the changes made by the Secretary of State in the immigration rules without securing approval from the Parliament. Shortly before the trial of this claim, the Court of Appeal decided another case i.e., Pankina & Others -v- SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 719 and in its judgment the Court had incidentally upheld the legal arguments which I raised in this claim. The Secretary of State conceded and settled the claim before trial.

Upper Tribunal (Immigration) (England):

  • R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Saha [2017] All ER (D) 111 (Jan): A judicial review to the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse the application for leave to remain on the basis of TOEIC/ETS deception. Mr Justice McCloskey said:

“The centerpiece of the clear and economic argument developed by Mr Iqbal focused on the Secretary of State’s evidence …”.

  • Nasim and others (Raju: reasons not to follow?)[2013] UKUT 00610 (IAC): Interpretation of s85A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and also Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) category.

 

  • Akhter and another (paragraph 245AA: wrong format) [2014] UKUT 297 (IAC): A bank letter, which does not specify the postal address, landline telephone number and email address of the account holders is not thereby “in the wrong format” for the purposes of paragraph 245AA of the immigration rules (documents not submitted with applications).

 

  • Durrani (Entrepreneurs: bank letters; evidential flexibility) [2014] UKUT 295 (IAC): Appeal in relation to proper interpretation of paragraph 41 – SD [Tier 1 (Entrepreneur)] of Appendix A of the Immigration Rules.

 

  • Fayyaz (Entrepreneurs: paragraph 41-SD(a)(i) - “provided to”)[2014] UKUT 296 (IAC): The words “provided to” in paragraph 41-SD(a)(i) (9) of Appendix A (Attributes for Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrants) have the same meaning as “available to.” Whilst the Rule has now been amended to this effect, the previous wording of the Rule did not give rise to any absurdity or doubt in construction.