Legis Chambers

The Defendant has pleaded guilty after committing a road traffic offence contrary to section 170(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Because of the seriousness of the offence(s) and the number of penalty points on his driving record, the Court was considering whether to disqualify him from driving. Legis Chambers barrister has put forward a successful plea of mitigation which has resulted in reduced punishment, retaining the Defendant's driving licence.

The Defendant has pleaded guilty after committing a road traffic offence contrary to section 170(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Because of the seriousness of the offence(s) and the number of penalty points on his driving record, the Court was considering whether to disqualify him from driving. Legis Chambers barrister has put forward a successful plea of mitigation which has resulted in reduced punishment, retaining the Defendant's driving licence.

Going to get an urgent injunction to restrain bailiffs from enforcing a warrant after a business rates liability order ..County Court at Central London.

Crown Court at Bristol - 25th September 2015. My fraud/ theft charged client was required to appear in Court on 28th September 2015, at the Crown Court at Bristol, for a three trial. The client is in India on bail, in the interim the Home Office had curtailed his student visa, and he was not able to get a visa to enter the UK. He had up to then answered to his bail, when required. Now in this instance, neither the Crown nor Court was able to “order” a visa. So an application to “let the indictment lie on file” was accepted by the judge, and it turned out to be the best solution. Now my client has no conviction and the proceedings have been practically and effectively terminated, though it is still open the Crown to apply to reopen the case, but that looks a remote possibility in the circumstances.

Legis Chambers barrister represented a London Restaurant in an appeal against a decision by the Home Office to fine the restaurant £15,000, for employing an illegal immigrant. Mr Mohammad successfully persuaded the Court that inspite of this breach, the application of the fine in circumstances of the case was not correct and disproportionate. The judge exercised his discretion to remake the decision and allow the appeal against the £15,000 imposed under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. The appeal was allowed. The judge also found that the Home Office’s application of the policy was “too rigid” and made an order for cost against the Home Office.

Immigration bail hearing today at Hatton Cross

Consumer Protection & Goods and Services The County Court at Hammersmith. Legis Chambers' barrister succeeded in consumer protection case, achieving a success for his client in her counterclaim and even reducing, through an offset, the amount his client had admitted she owed in a dispute about provisions of goods and services. His client had hired a venue for a business event but was not satisfied with the services and equipment provided by the venue. She refused to pay for unsatisfactory service and goods.