Viewing: Public Law for Vinesh Mandalia

Vinesh is recognised as a leading junior. His practice focuses on areas of public law, human rights (domestic and international), immigration and asylum, inquests, and inquiries, particularly concerning claims against public bodies.
He has particular expertise in Judicial Reviews and Appellate work and has dealt with numerous landmark cases in his specialist areas, with a number of cases that have been reported concerning high profile, and complex issues of law. He often leads legal teams in complex cases before higher courts.
Vinesh has been recommended, since 2011, by Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners as an expert in the field of immigration and public law. He has advised and represented the government in many key cases concerning the immigration rules and Article 8. He is now also routinely instructed by Local Authorities and government departments in cases before the Family Court with an international element, including the immigration status of children and their primary carers. Vinesh has provided numerous opinions, as an expert, for use in proceedings before the Family Court.
Vinesh acts for variety of clients including local authorities and government departments. He routinely appears in the Upper Tribunal, High Court and the Court of Appeal.
Vinesh is also regularly instructed in commercial cases, particularly involving VAT, and Duties. He has appeared on behalf of HMRC in a number of high value, fact, and document heavy appeals, arising from missing trader fraud. He has established a reputation as a practitioner with a careful eye for detail.
Vinesh is Junior Counsel to The Crown Panel of Counsel for Government work – B Panel.
Ranked in Immigration Law and described as having impressive experience before the Administrative Court and the Upper Tribunal with respect to immigration law cases. He is knowledgeable across the full spectrum of immigration, including country guidance, immigration detention and claims involving extended family members. "He is a very experienced barrister. His advocacy is very effective and his paperwork is meticulous."
Chambers and Partners 2019
Ranked as a leading Junior in Public Law and described as ‘Thorough and pragmatic.’
Legal 500 2019
Ranked as a leading junior in Administrative and Public Law. "He made a complex process very straightforward and simple. He is able to grasp points at issue and deliver advice promptly. He has a broad knowledge of his topic”; "His advocacy is of the highest order”.
Chambers and Partners 2018
Notable Cases
Aziz v SSHD [2019] 1 WLR 266
Appeals arising from decisions to deprive British Citizens of nationality following their convictions for child grooming in Rochdale. The Court of Appeal held that in determining an appeal against deprivation of British citizenship, a tribunal only had to examine the reasonably foreseeable consequences of such deprivation, including the likelihood of deportation, insofar as it was necessary to assess those consequences in order to determine whether the making of the deprivation order itself was lawful and compatible with Convention rights.
Parveen -v- SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 932
The secretary of state had been entitled to refuse an application for leave to remain in the UK made after the expiry of a spouse visa. The applicant had failed to explain why she had not applied during the currency of her visa, nor had she provided the secretary of state with sufficient information to enable her to make an informed decision as to whether there were "very significant obstacles" to her re-integration in Pakistan, pursuant to para.276ADE of the Immigration Rules, and as to whether there were any exceptional circumstances warranting a grant of leave to remain outside the Rules on the basis of ECHR art.8.
Re M (Children) (suspected trafficking: Competent Authority) [2017] EWHC
The court considered interim care arrangements for two Namibian children who were suspected to have been trafficked to the UK from Namibia and, following a conclusive grounds decision that they had not been trafficked, made arrangements for their return to Namibia so that the Namibian courts could consider their future welfare.
Rasul -v- SSHD [2017] EWHC 1306 (Admin)
An application for judicial review of a decision not to grant the applicant indefinite leave to remain was refused where the issue had been resolved by the secretary of state in deciding to give her leave to remain outside the Rules. The endorsement on the applicant's passport of a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode could not confer the right of abode.
Newcastle Upon Tyne University -v- HMRC [2017] S.T.I. 307
The appellant university appealed against decisions of HMRC concerning the VAT payable on commission payable by it to overseas agents. Commission payable by a university to overseas agents for recruiting students from outside the EU was subject to VAT under the reverse charge procedure. However, VAT was not payable in the period up to 1 January 2010, when the place-of-supply rule in Directive 2006/112 art.43 was available to the university.
HMRC -v- GB Housley Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1299
Where a taxpayer appealed against a flawed HMRC decision, the tribunal should have followed the approach in John Dee Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1995] S.T.C. 941, [1995] 7 WLUK 149 by allowing the appeal, quashing the assessment and leaving it to HMRC whether to issue a fresh one. It had erred in requiring the flawed assessment to be re-made.
RK (s.117b(6): Parental relationship) -v- SSHD [2016] Imm. A.R. 527
Although it was possible for a "parental relationship" within the meaning of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 s.117B(6) to exist between a child and someone who was not legally a parent, and for more than two persons to be in a parental relationship with a child, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to say that a third party had stepped into the role of a parent where the parents were living with the children as a family and had not relinquished responsibility for them.
Global Vision College Ltd -v- SSHD [2014] EWCA Civ 659
Refusals of entry clearance for overseas students who had been unable to confirm to an entry clearance officer at interview how a further education college had assessed their English language ability, were not unlawful. It was not a requirement for them to confirm such information, but a discrepancy between what was stated on the Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies issued by the college and what the applicant stated at interview undermined the veracity of the CAS such that its evidential weight was significantly reduced.
March 2015; Deputy Judge of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)
1996; Birmingham Law Society, Barrister of the Year
1996; Society of Asian Lawyers, Civil and Commercial Lawyer of the Year
Immigration Law Practitioners Association
Administrative Law Bar Association
Midlands Chancery and Commercial Bar Association