Vinesh Mandalia - Court of Protection
Vinesh began his career in Law as a Legal Executive and was admitted as a Fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives in June 1996. As a Legal Executive, he handled a wide-ranging caseload of civil litigation. Since being called to the Bar, Vinesh has continued to practice in Civil, Public and Regulatory work. Vinesh has been a member of the Attorney General’s regional panel of counsel since 2003.
Vinesh is routinely instructed to advise and act on behalf of Claimants and Defendants in commercial matters ranging from debt and insolvency claims to Directors Disqualification and complex VAT and Duties litigation. He is a well respected and highly regarded advocate and is also regularly instructed to act on behalf of Local Authorities and Government Departments in a range of claims before the Courts and Tribunals. He is regularly instructed by Her Majesty’s Commissioners for Revenue and Customs in VAT, duties and Customs and Excise matters. Vinesh is regarded by those who instruct him as particular effective in fact heavy cases where attention to detail is crucial. He is adept at dealing with technical and increasingly challenging cases in a wide range of commercial and regulatory matters.
Vinesh has experience of handling Court of Protection proceedings, both in London and at the newly established hearing centres. Vinesh has conducted hearings concerning the registration of EPAs and the appointment of both Property & Affairs and Personal Welfare deputies. He has experience of financial arrangements for elderly adults without capacity, particularly where there are family disputes about such matters.
Acts predominantly for the government in public law and policy issues arising from taxation and immigration cases. He is particularly strong on judicial reviews of decisions on leave to remain.
Strengths: "He is the embodiment of calm; he is unfazed by last-minute instructions of attendance." "He is a very good public lawyer who does a lot of immigration judicial review work."
Recent work: Represented the defendant in Global Vision College Ltd v SSHD, where it was held that a decision to refuse entry clearance to overseas students was not unlawful, as they could not confirm how their English language skills were assessed at interview by the college.
An expert in human rights law who brings that knowledge to bear on a variety of asylum and nationality matters. He is regularly instructed to act in judicial reviews on behalf of the government.
Recent work: Instructed in Nzangane v SSHD, a case concerning discretionary leave to remain.
Chambers UK 2016
‘His oral submissions are incisive.’
Legal 500 2015
Well-respected junior with a strong practice in administrative and public law. He specialises in matters relating to immigration, as well as having an interest in taxation and healthcare issues
Expertise: "He has been a key player in public law in the Midlands for a number of years."
Recent work: Acted for the Home Secretary in a judicial review that established that decisions of the Secretary are construed on an objective basis, and clarifying the requirements for demonstrating a breach of legitimate expectation.
Has a broad practice covering a range of public law and immigration work. He is a member of the Attorney General's panel of regional counsel and is regularly instructed to act on behalf of local authorities and government departments.
Recent work: Acted for the defendant in Hassan v SSHD, a claim for judicial review which concerned how to interpret government immigration policy.
Chambers UK 2015
'His work is of a very high quality.'
Legal 500 2014
Vinesh Mandalia is ranked in Chambers UK 2014
Vinesh Mandalia is often instructed by the Treasury Solicitor in immigration appeals in the regional administrative courts. He also devotes a significant proportion of his time to private appellants. His peers praise him for offering advocacy of a superior kind.
Chambers UK 2013
R. (Cleary) v HMRC;  EWHC 1987; An individual had imported a large quantity of tobacco into the United Kingdom, and the evidence pointed strongly against it being for personal use. The failure of the Crown Court to give reasons for its decision to uphold Revenue and Customs' determination to condemn the tobacco as forfeit, however unsatisfactory, did not amount to a reason to set aside its ruling.
Keele University Students Union v Revenue and Customs Commissioners  S.T.I. 2866; The Students Union was not an eligible body in that it was not managed and administered on a voluntary basis by persons who have no direct or indirect financial interest in its activities. The Students Union was therefore, not eligible to treat as exempt, its supplies of a right of admission to entertainments which qualify as a performance of a cultural nature.
Manatlantic Ltd v HMRC  UKFTT 527 (TC); Finding by the Tribunal of fraudulent evasion of VAT connected with each of the transactions involving the purchase and sale of mobile phones and computer chips and that the Directors of the Appellant company had actual knowledge (despite their claim to the contrary) that the purchases were connected to the fraudulent evasion of VAT
Spearmint Blue Ltd v HMRC  UKFTT 103 (TC); Appeal against the Commissioners denial of input tax in respect of the purchase and onward sale of a range of goods. The transaction chains, were traced via ‘contra chains” to a fraudulent tax loss. The Tribunal considerd The English translation of the test in Kittel –v- Belgium for when repayments of VAT could be denied. The Tribunal held that the Company Director should have been well aware that the only explanation for the transactions was that they were connected to VAT fraud
Vantage Link Corporation Limited v HMRC  UKFTT 202 (TC); Vinesh represented the Commissioners in an appeal against decisions of HMRC to deny the appellant's claims for input tax in a total of £10,388,531.13. Finding by the Tribual that despite his claim to the contrary, the Appellants Director knew that the transactions giving rise to the claims for input tax were connected with fraud.
People's Dispensary for Sick Animals v HMRC  S.T.I. 2521; A charity was not entitled to recover the VAT incurred on fees for veterinary services provided through its scheme to provide free services for sick and injured animals. The operation of the scheme did not constitute economic activity as there was no direct link between the registration fee paid by the pet owners and the veterinary services provided.
SHS International Ltd v HMRC  UKFTT 134 (TC); Vinesh represented HMRC in this appeal concerning the classification under the Combined Nomenclature of amino acid pre-mixes, which were used in products which could only be obtained on prescription, as medicaments or as a dietary supplement.
Bio Power (UK) Ltd v HMRC  UKFTT 316 (TC); When finding that HMRC had been entitled to issue an excise duty assessment in relation to the production and sale of a liquid to be used as a fuel substitute, the court considered the meaning of "setting aside" for chargeable use under the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979.
Approved for Direct Public Access
Midlands Chancery and Commercial Bar Association