Viewing: Public Law for Nabila Mallick

Nabila undertakes a broad range of Public Law (including Immigration, community care, housing mental health and Education) and Human Rights challenges.
She has represented at all levels; ECHR, Supreme Court Petitions, Court of Appeal, High Court and the FTT.
She has represented claimants in a number of test cases. In particular she represented one of the five test cases on unlawful detention and the use of ‘secret’ Government policy in ‘Abdi and others’. She has brought challenges against Local Government Authorities, NHS Trust and Regulatory Bodies of Health Care professionals. Nabila is passionate in representing her clients against public bodies and has been involved in a number of publicised cases.
She has notably a high success rate in the obtaining interim relief in community care and children act challenges.
She has a special interest in challenges involving mental health issues, recently obtained concession after the grant of permission to unlawful detention challenges by foreign nationals who suffered from mental health impairments and therefore ‘adults at risk’.
She delivers seminars to other lawyers on various public law issues and has devised judicial review training for solicitors.
Further information
Appears regularly as a guest lawyer on Venus TV to provide commentary on immigration matters.
Participates from time to time on radio/TV broadcast on contemporary issues.
Recommendations
“Very experienced in cases involving unlawful detention matters.”
Legal 500 2019
“Well versed in EU freedom of movement law.”
Legal 500 2017
“Very experienced in cases involving unlawful detention matters”
Legal 500 2016
Notable Cases
R (on the application of Kara) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2008] EWHC 2772 (Admin), [2008] All ER (D) 71 (Oct)
Permission was granted to challenge the application of family amnesty policy.
R (on the application of Ali Said Abdul) v SSHD CO/4577/10 AND CO/6469/10 (15th June 2012)
Kenneth Parker J granted release of FNP at an oral hearing after HH Thornton J granted permission observing that a detention of over 40 months without any prospect of deportation has succeeded what is permissible or acceptable.
R (on the application of City Banking College) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2012] EWCH 4336 (Admin) (interim relief)
This is a challenge to the SSHD’s application of policy and guidance to matters that regulate entry into the UK. The Claimant has been granted interim relief so that 200 foreign students could complete their studies.
R (on the application of Shukri Gjorgi) v SSHD (10th February 2010)
obtained interim relief against the removal of an unaccompanied minor- Birth certificate contradicted LA report. Removal challenged on the basis that SSHD had not obtained information on reception facilities in Albania, Also challenged lawfulness of detention of minor. SSHD settled JR proceedings.
R (on the application of Nasire) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 3359 (Admin) (21 December 2010)
The main issue was entitlement of right of appeal for further representations. A sub –issue was the legal effect of further representations that invoke Article 15c of the Qualitative Directive.
R (on the application of Brown) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2010] Unreported)
Granted permission to move Judicial Review after lengthy oral hearing HH J Pearle to an application seeking to revoke the Deportation Order for drugs offence that carried a 14 year sentence on the grounds that he had a 13 children residing in the UK.
R (on the application of Whyte) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2010] EWHC 1818
The issue was whether there was a discretion to consider an extant application made one day out of time and validity of the application, if in there was such a discretion under the prescribed forms and procedures regulations.
R (on the application of Tor Halimi and Khalil Kandarhai) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2009] EWHC (13th Oct 2009)(Trancript available) relying on observation of HH Blake Jin Soorgul Ahmadzai, R (on the application of ) v Secretary of State for Home Department (CO/105522/2009) –
‘it would appear to be unfair for some Afghans who claim Article 15 protection to be removed whilst others who have legal representations and obtain judicial orders, are not.)’ Interim relief granted by Andrew Nicols J with observations on inconsistency of treatment of Afghans awaiting Country Guidance.
R (on the application of Rhoulia) v Secretary of State for Home Department (C/5008/2009)
The SSHD was challenged on the grounds of maladministration and a claim of damages was made for unnecessary wasted costs incurred by the Claimant in adjournments obtained by SSHD during the Tribunal appeal process. The SSHD settled for 3450.00 (The case was relied upon on other such challenges by Counsel).
R (on the application of Abdi and others ) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2008] EWHC 3166
Represented one of the five test cases- Malik Madani appealed to the Court of Appeal. The issue was the validity of a Government policy relating to the detention of FNPs pending their deportation from the United Kingdom. Whether a ‘Secret Policy’ was lawful.
R (on the application of Korkmaz) v Secretary of State for Home Department [2008] EWHC 950
The issue concerned the lawfulness of the detention of the claimant with a view to his removal as a failed asylum seeker in circumstances where, as of that date, there was in being an outstanding application.
R (on the application of Facraden, Abdallah, Fakish Nasih) v SSHD [2006] Unreported
Each of the Claimants had signed voluntary return papers . The purposes of the detention is removal from the UK. The SSHD could not return the Claimants and could not say when it would be possible. HH Justice Collins declared that the detention was unlawful and ordered release of the Claimants.
R (on the application of Locke) v Secretary of State For HD [2005] EWHC 2127 (Admin)
The issue was whether the SSHD acted unlawfully in certifying the claim as clearly unfounded for a claim of family life between extended family members. The Claimant challenged removal on the grounds that he was dependent on extended family members.
R (on the application of Maimunatu King) v SSHD [2005](CO/2243/05)
Argued right to Private Life; Burnton J refused the application to remain in the UK to have IVF Treatment. Refused on the grounds that IVF is medical treatment
R (on the application of Alrick Glanville) v SSHD [2005] Unreported
Moses J stated that a deportation trick was unlawful ie The Claimant was invited for an interview at HO and detained for removal without prior notice
R (on the Application of S) v SSHD [2005] EWHC 1957 (Admin), [2005] All ER (D)204
Anonymity Order in Asylum Cases - Fresh Evidence- requirements of entry
R v London Borough of Hackney, ex parte Akbas (1999) unreported
The issue was whether the Claimant had been made an offer of suitable accommodation under the Housing Act.
Awards
Nominated Legal Aid lawyer in 2009
Shortlisted Sydney Elland Pro Bono Award 2013
Shortlisted WMLS Corporate social Responsibility and pro bono Barrister 2014 and 2015 (highly commended)
Shortlisted Leicestershire Law society Bariister of the year 2015
Memberships
Immigration Lawyers Practitioners Association
Qualifications
LLB (HONS) highest first in final year paper
LLM in commercial and corporate law

Latest News & Publications

Law students at Wolverhampton University will have the chance to learn from an expert during a seminar next month (December) which is being led by a leading Birmingham barrister....

Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018
The implications of the ECJ Hijab decision in the UK Workplace...

Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017
By Nabila Mallick Dress codes in the workplace are not uncommon[1]. Most Employers have a certain s...

Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013