Intodroduction English
Intodroduction Arabic
Intodroduction Urdu
 
  • 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 Intermediate 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.

 

Prominent Litigation Cases:    In the last 16 years I have exercised rights of audience in English Courts and Tribunals in England & Wales. I have appeared at Magistrates’ Court, Crown Court, County Court, Employment and Immigration Tribunals, High Court (QB & Admin Court, Chancery & Family divisions), Court of Appeal Civil Division and Criminal Division and filing a claim in the European Court of Human Rights against the UK government. Here are few prominent case in which I have appeared:

European Court of Human Rights:

  • Yilmaz –v– United Kingdom: I presented 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).

Intellectual Property:

  • 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 …” .

Public Law

  • 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:  

“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.”

  • 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:

“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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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, …”

  • 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.

  • 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.

Judicial Review

 

  • 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.

Harassment Law / Defamation

  • M –v– TW [2008]: Claimant received numerous threatening letters from various debt recovering agencies who were attempting to collect money from the claimant which he disputed. A claim under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was filed. The defendant settled the claim, paid damages and legal costs of the claimant.

Family/Children proceedings

  • A – v – A [2009]: appeared in an appeal lodged in family division of the High Court against a final Order (Custody/Residence Order) of a District Judge sitting in Principal Registry of the Family Division. Mashood drafted grounds of appeal.

  • R – v – B [2009]: a successful application for Prohibited Steps Order which prevented removal of a minor child from the UK to the USA. The opposing solicitors were a renowned city firm and the opposing Counsel is a leading QC in Children proceedings.

Contract/Commercial

  •  R –v– W [2009]: The court granted a Prohibitory injunction in a claim which was filed under section 14 of the Trust of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. Mashood saved my client a sum of over £300,000/- and the case was settled shortly before trial.

 

  • M –v– HHA [2009]: The claimant owned a residential house which was leased to the Respondent who failed to handover possession to my client who had arranged sale of the house in April 2008. In the meantime the credit crunch hit the UK property market and the value of the house fell down by 30% causing losses to my client. A claim for breach of contract was filed and client’s losses were recovered when the case was settled shortly before trial.

  • TT v PPI [2008]: A claim for £1m for breach of contract which involved complex issues of forfeiture of lease by a landlord who was allegedly in breach of several covenants for quiet enjoyment.

 

Criminal Law

  • R –v– S [2007]: an appeal in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal against conviction u/s 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. I drafted grounds of appeal and appeared in oral hearing for permission to appeal and also appeared in sentencing hearing in Croydon Crown Court and my client was sentenced to only a supervision order for 6 months whereas usually such offences attract custodial sentences.

  • R –v–J [2007]: I represented the Defendant in a cracked trial in Lewes Crown Court and appeared in sentencing hearing wherein my client was only awarded 12 months imprisonment whereas usual sentencing falls in the region of 24 months.

  • R v S [2016]: I represented the Defendant at an appeal against sentence at Isleworth Crown Court. The Defendant was charged for 3 offences under s.179 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and was sentenced to a fine of a total of £27,000/-. At appeal the fine was reduced to a total of £9,000/-.

  • R v A [2017]: I represented the Defendant in a trial at Magistrates’ Court where he was charged for two offences under s.179 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

 

Copyrights 2021 @ London View Chambers