Highly regarded for his expertise in commercial and chancery litigation, in 2010 Shakil was appointed to the Treasury panel and since then has developed a strong reputation for his work in representing government departments in judicial review and other public law claims.
Shakil regularly represents the Secretary of State for the Home Office and the Secretary of State for Justice in human rights and asylum claims, claims for unlawful detention, claims involving the application and interpretation of EU directives in domestic law and challenges to primary legislation on human rights grounds.
Recently he was able to combine his expertise in commercial and chancery law and public law and represent a Gibraltar based company in a judicial review claim challenging the Secretary Of State for Business Innovation and Skills’ jurisdiction to commence an investigation into its affairs under section 447(3) of the Companies Act 1985.
He is a skilled advocate and is known for his approachable manner, pragmatic advice and his persuasive advocacy style.
Shakil has regularly been listed by Chambers and Partners as a leading junior (Band 1)
French, Urdu and Punjabi
“He offers detailed and focused explanations.”
Legal 500 2020
Ranked in 2020 Chambers.
Chambers UK 2020
“Very experienced in representing government departments in public law cases.”
Legal 500 2019
- Gu v SSHD  EWHC 1634 (Admin) (scope of the ‘Evidential Flexibility’ policy)
- Bailey v SSHD  EWHC 1078 (Admin) (scope of the ‘no ties’ rule)
- Askaravi v SSHD  EWHC 2023 (Admin) (whether policy to grant DLR unlawful)
- Vagh v SSHD  EWHC 1841 (Admin) (whether foreign passport prima facie evidence of nationality)
- TN v SSHD  EWHC 3296 (Admin) (whether Judicial Review is an adequate remedy for the purposes of EU law)
- James v Secretary of State for Justice (whether section 240ZA of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was compatible with Articles 5 and 14 of the ECHR)
- B (and 8 other conjoined appeals) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (whether the procedure under section 33 of the Child Support Act 1991 breached Article 6 of the ECHR)
- Samra v SSHD (whether a person who had absconded was liable to be removed as an ‘illegal entrant’ or rather as a person who was refused leave to enter under para 8 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971)
- Personal Travel Group Ltd v Secretary Of State For Business Innovation and Skills (whether the SSBIS had jurisdiction to commence an investigation into the affairs of a Gibraltar based company under section 447(3) of the Companies Act 1985)
Treasury Counsel (2010)
Recorder and a Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge
Chancery Bar Association
Commercial Bar Association
Midland Chancery and Commercial Bar Association
University of Birmingham LL.B (Hons)
The London School of Economics and Political Science
LL.M Corporate and Commercial Law – Awarded with Distinction