Mashood Iqbal

DIFC Courts, Dubai (Court of Appeal):

• Hana Habib Mansoor Habib Al Herz v Sunset Hospitality Holdings Ltd & Peatura FZ LLC[2020] DIFC CA …: An application to the DIFC Court of Appeal to reopen a concluded appeal on a question of costs. The Court was invited to rule on legal arguments relating to the stringent test of reopening final appeals, court’s discretion in awarding costs and the appellate court’s power & practice to interfere with costs order.

• Hana Habib Mansoor Habib Al Herz v Sunset Hospitality Holdings Ltd & Peatura FZ LLC[2020] DIFC CA 011: An appeal to the Court of Appeal involving issues relating to conversion of Part 8 claim into Part 7 and a discretion of the Judge in deciding interlocutory procedural applications.

 DIFC Courts, Dubai (Court of First Instance):

• Muna Al Musleh v Capital Club Ltd Dubai[2021] DIFC CFI …: An appeal involving questions of validity and enforceability of an arbitration clause, analysis of DIFC Court’s statutory powers to either stay or dismiss a claim where there is a binding and enforceable arbitration clause in comparison with other common law jurisdictions e.g., England (s9 of the Arbitration Act 1996), Scotland (s10 of Arbitration Act 2010), Australia (s7(2) of the International Arbitration Act 1974), Hong Kong (s20(5) of the Arbitration Ordinance Cap. 609) and Singapore (s6(2) International Arbitration Act Cap 143A).​

• Fix Sense Management LLC v Sunset Hospitality Holding Limited & Sunset Hospitality Group Holding Limited[2002] DIFC CFI 059: A claim involving challenge to validity of nominee share agreements; validity of cross-default clauses in commercial contracts and public policy of the UAE with regards of Commercial Companies Law of the UAE.

Court of Appeal (England):

• Awan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1988: A challenge to the Secretary of State’s refusal to grant leave to remain as Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant. An appeal involving interpretation of paragraph 41 – SD of the Immigration Rules wherein Lord Justice Underhill said: “I have been much assisted by clear and focused submissions on paper and orally by Mr Mashood Iqbal” and “I repeat my gratitude to counsel for their careful submissions in an area where the requirements of the rules are not as clear as anyone would wish.”

• KM (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWCA Civ 437: A challenge to the Upper Tribunal’s refusal to accept an out of time appeal. An appeal involving complex questions of interpretation of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcements Act 2007 wherein Lord Justice Ryder said: “In oral argument both Mr Iqbal for the appellant … very helpfully took the court to the relevant tribunal and court rules.”

• R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Khan [2017] EWCA Civ 221: In an application to the Court of Appeal whereby the Claimant was seeking to challenge the Upper Tribunal’s refusal to grant permission for judicial review, Lady Justice Rafferty said: “Mr Iqbal who has latterly and generously provided in written form his distillation of how matters might best be advanced for the assistance of the court, and I am grateful.”

 HK (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 737: A statutory appeal involving issues of proper interpretation of Immigration Rules relating to Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) applications for leave to remain.

• Shahzad v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 576: A challenge to the Secretary of State’s refusal to grant leave to remain under Article 8 private life wherein Lord Justice Elias said: “Mr Iqbal has put the arguments attractively this morning.”

• SI (Bangladesh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 737: A challenge to the Secretary of State’s refusal to grant leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) migrant and interpretation of paragraph 41 – SD of Appendix A of the Immigration Rules.

• Iqbal and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Tank and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 169: An appeal in relation to interpretation of paragraph 41 – SD [Tier 1 (Entrepreneur)] of Appendix A of the Immigration Rules.

• Rasheed v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Mughal v Secretary of State for the Home Department; Bashir v Secretary of State for the Home Department; and other applications [2014] EWCA Civ 1493: A challenge against the Secretary of State’s refusal to grant leave to remain as Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Migrant.

• R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p MC [2014] EWCA Civ 466: A challenge in the Court of Appeal against the Admin Court’s refusal to grant permission for judicial review in relation to an application for leave to remain as a Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrant.

AI (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 173: Interpretation of paragraph 41 – SD [Tier (1 Entrepreneur)] of Appendix A of the Immigration Rules.

• Ghias T/A Griller v Ikram T/A The Griller Original [2013] EWCA Civ 219: An action in relation of infringement of trademark registered u/s 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 wherein Lord Justice Kitchin said: “…persuasive submissions advanced by Mr Iqbal both in his skeleton argument and in his oral submissions …” .

• Corpuz v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1355: Interpretation of paragraph 297 of the Immigration Rules wherein Lady Justice Gloster said: ““…Mr Iqbal has submitted helpfully and persuasively in support of the appellant, …”.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p QN [2013] EWCA Civ 1551: A challenge in the Court of Appeal against the Admin Court’s refusal to grant permission for judicial review in relation to an application for leave to remain on the basis of Article 8 (private and family life). 

• R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Iqbal [2010] EWCA Civ 505: This judicial review claim was against the decision of the Secretary of State to introduce changes to the immigration rules without undertaking an impact assessment as required u/s 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. Lord Justice Keene said: “I would pay tribute to the concise and skilled way in which Mr Iqbal has presented his arguments this morning, and I wish him every success in his future career as a lawyer.” 

• WR (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 1546: A challenge to the Secretary of State’s decision to grant asylum.

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) (England):

• Sandhu UK Scaffolding & Construction Ltd & Others v Rupvinder Bhupinder Singh & Others [2017] EWHC 1343 (QB): A commercial claim in which Mr Iqbal, while representing the Claimants under direct access, obtained freezing injunction and thereafter successfully prosecuted the Defendants in a civil claim for contempt of court. Mr Justice Spencer said: “The Claimant’s were represented by their direct access barrister, Mr Iqbal.” And, “Mr Iqbal in his submissions yesterday very property conceded this point.” And “Again, Mr Iqbal very properly accepted that proposition in the course of argument yesterday.”

• Iqbal v Dean Manson Solicitors [2014] EWHC 2418 (QB): An action under the s3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 involving question of absolute privilege in relation to harassing statements within pleadings that have no connection with underlying dispute.​

• Iqbal v Solicitors Regulation Authority & Others [2012] EWHC 4097 (QB): A claim for damages for tort of misfeasance in public office and Article 1 Protocol 1 of the EU Convention on Human Rights

High Court (Administrative Court) (England):

• R –v– Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Arifin [2015] EWHC 637 (Admin): A judicial review challenge against the Secretary of State’s decision refusing to grant leave to remain on the basis of Article 8 (family life): “Mr Iqbal has rightly noted that potentially a significant factor in the case is that … no few than six family members have some form of leave to remain.”

• R –v– Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Butt [2013] EWHC 3216 (Admin): A judicial review challenge against the Secretary of State’s decision refusing to grant leave to remain under legacy scheme: “The basis upon which Mr Iqbal now advances his case is that the Secretary of State in applying her current guidance in Chapter 53 of the Enforcement Instructions Guidance either misinterpreted that guidance in relation to this case, or misunderstood or misapplied the facts in the context of that guidance and so the judgment on legacy and the application of Chapter 53 was wrong in law for that reason.” 

• R –v– Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Muzaffar [2013] EWHC 3222 (Admin): A judicial review challenge regarding proper interpretation of Immigration Rules regarding Tier 4 (General) Students. 

• R –v– Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Raza [2013] EWHC 984 (Admin): A judicial review challenge regarding proper interpretation of Immigration Rules regarding Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) Migrants. 

• R –v– Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Nawaz [2013] EWHC 984 (Admin): A judicial review challenge against the Secretary of State’s decision to certify an asylum and human rights claims under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Human Rights Act 2002. 

• R –v– Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Malik [2008] EWHC 1151 (Admin): The Administrative Court granted mandatory injunction to and ordered the Secretary of State to take immediate steps to enforce the decision of the then Asylum & Immigration Tribunal.

• R –v– Immigration & Asylum Tribunal and Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Yilmaz [2007] EWHC (Admin) Unreported: a JR claim against the Asylum & Immigration Tribunal that refused Claimant’s bail application on four different occasions.

• R –v– Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Rasheed [2007] EWHC (Admin) Unreported: a JR claim against a delay of nearly 3 years by the Secretary of State in deciding the Claimant’s visa application for permanent settlement on the basis of 14 years unlawful residence. Permission for judicial review was granted and later the Secretary of State conceded the claim before full hearing.

• R –v– Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Azeem & Kesharpu [2010] EWHC (Admin) Unreported: This claim involved a challenge to the changes made by the Secretary of State in the immigration rules without securing approval from the Parliament. Shortly before the trial of this claim, the Court of Appeal decided another case i.e., Pankina & Others -v- SSHD [2010] EWCA Civ 719 and in its judgment the Court had incidentally upheld the legal arguments which I raised in this claim. The Secretary of State conceded and settled the claim before trial.

Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber)

• R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Saha [2017] All ER (D) 111 (Jan): A judicial review to the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse the application for leave to remain on the basis of TOEIC/ETS deception. Mr Justice McCloskey said: “The centrepiece of the clear and economic argument developed by Mr Iqbal focused on the Secretary of State’s evidence …”.

• Akhter and another (paragraph 245AA: wrong format) [2014] UKUT 297 (IAC): A bank letter, which does not specify the postal address, landline telephone number and email address of the account holders is not thereby “in the wrong format” for the purposes of paragraph 245AA of the immigration rules (documents not submitted with applications).

• Durrani (Entrepreneurs: bank letters; evidential flexibility) [2014] UKUT 295 (IAC): Appeal in relation to proper interpretation of paragraph 41 – SD [Tier 1 (Entrepreneur)] of Appendix A of the Immigration Rules.

• Fayyaz (Entrepreneurs: paragraph 41-SD(a)(i) – “provided to”)[2014] UKUT 296 (IAC): The words “provided to” in paragraph 41-SD(a)(i) (9) of Appendix A (Attributes for Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) Migrants) have the same meaning as “available to.” Whilst the Rule has now been amended to this effect, the previous wording of the Rule did not give rise to any absurdity or doubt in construction. 

• Nasim and others (Raju: reasons not to follow?) [2013] UKUT 00610 (IAC): Interpretation of s85A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and also Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) category.

• Barrister-at-Law (England & Wales) (Call: 2011)
• Former Solicitor – Advocate (All Higher Courts in England & Wales) (2006 – 2011)
• Advocate (All High Courts of Pakistan) (Admitted to the Roll: 2004)
• Dubai International Financial Centre Courts (Par II Registration: 2020)
• Abu Dhabi Global Markets Courts (Registration: 2020)
• Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre (2020)
• Singapore International Commercial Court (Registration: 2020)
• Astana International Financial Court (Registration: 2020)

Urdu, Arabic, Hindi, Punjabi