Call us on
0370 1500 100
I joined Irwin Mitchell’s Public Law & Human Rights department in 2006 and was made a Partner in 2013. I act for individuals, charities and companies in the full range of judicial review cases, with particular specialisms in the law on consultation, in health and social care, mental capacity and human rights law.
In October 2014, I won the first Supreme Court case in relation to the law on consultation (Moseley) which ruled that all public authorities need to improve how they consult with local people. I was also instructed to intervene on behalf of national charities (Age UK, SENSE, RNIB and Guide Dogs for the Blind) in two of the leading Supreme Court community care cases in recent years as well as having successfully brought judicial review proceedings in a number of High Court and Court of Appeal cases.
I have acted in numerous commercial judicial review cases, protecting the rights of companies that are affected by decisions made by public authorities.
I am also regularly instructed by the Official Solicitor as well as families and advocates to act on behalf of vulnerable adults who lack capacity to make decisions regarding their health and welfare in proceedings in the Court of Protection, and was invited to give evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to help consider the effectiveness and adequacy of the law as well as access to justice for vulnerable individuals.
Notable cases include:
Has a "really wide range of expertise" - Chambers & Partners, 2018
Alex is a "sharp operator" with "huge amount of expertise"; "a really strong and well-respected lawyer." "His advice was very practical" and he is "good at spotting interesting new areas and pushing the boundaries of public law in the right way". "Completely unflappable and incredibly efficient."
– Chambers & Partners, 2017
"'First rate' for community care, mental capacity and human rights law" - Legal 500, 2017
"A very classy litigator, who is strategic and understated in a way which is effective" and according to sources is "Brilliant, connected superbly and hugely respected" - Chambers & Partners 2016
Combines a "brilliant strategic legal mind with the ability to relate to clients from all walks of life" - Legal 500 2016
My inspiration to become a lawyer, and in particular a public law solicitor, came from the combination of the academic challenge it presents and the high level of client contact. I have not been disappointed. (In truth, I was also told from a young age that I was so argumentative that I should be a lawyer!)
Working with disadvantaged people to ensure that their rights are protected.
The quality of work in the Public Law & Human Rights department is pretty much unrivalled nationwide. Every day brings new challenges and keeps me passionate about my work and the changes we can make to people's lives through enforcing their legal rights.
Spend time with my wife and two children. I am a passionate Spurs fan and try to get to watch them as often as possible, and am just about managing to keep my own amateur football career going!
The proposed cuts would impact on some of society’s most vulnerable people, with the county council itself recognising that there are now 7,700 children needing education, health and care plans in Surrey, an increase of 44 per cent over the last eight years.
“Whilst we appreciate the very severe budget pressures local authorities face, councils still have a duty to ensure spending decisions affecting frontline services are lawful.
“It is our view that the county council’s proposals are unlawful, including as a result of the failure to undertake any kind of consultation on its 2018/19 budget cuts. It is manifestly unfair for the council to set its budget without any consultation with those who will be affected by the significant spending cuts.
“We call on the county council to reconsider its decision and engage with those who will be severely affected by this decision.”
Ever since the CCG announced its intention to withdraw funding for Nascot Lawn the families have shown great strength and determination to fight this decision, not once but twice.
“Despite concerns having been raised numerous times about the legality of the decision, the CCG continued to press ahead with its plans, meaning the families had no alternative but to take their fight to the High Court.
“We have always argued on their behalf that the CCG and the local authority should work together to decide how they can continue to operate this vital community service and are delighted that the court has today endorsed this view.
“The CCG has twice been told by the High Court following our submissions that its actions were unlawful and the decision to withdraw funding from Nascot Lawn has been quashed for a second time. We only hope that this time the CCG co-operates with the county council to ensure that Nascot Lawn stays open.”
The decision to take this case to the High Court was one that was not taken lightly. However, the families felt that they had no choice because of the clinical commissioning group’s continued failure to enter into meaningful dialogue.
“We feel that we put forward a very strong legal argument as to why the decision to cease funding was unlawful.
“We thank the court for listening to our case and how the families who rely on Nascot Lawn would be severely impacted by its closure. We now await the court’s judgement.”
Taking the case to a judicial review has been a decision that has not been taken lightly but the families feel they have no alternative.
“We now look forward to putting the case forward in the hope that this vital community lifeline remains open so it can continue providing excellent care to children and their families.”
Request a call back
Enter your details below and we'll call you back, at a time of your choice.