Telephone: 020 7400 9600 Email:
Select Page

David Mitchell


Call date: 2004
Telephone number: 020 7400 9600

David Mitchell

Call date: 2004
Telephone number: 020 7400 9600


A strong advocate who is very pragmatic and excellent at handling a judge.

Chambers and Partners – 2020 – Employment

He has broad knowledge of all aspects of employment law and is a fierce advocate who will fight for the client.

Chambers and Partners – 2020 – Employment

Attracting attention in both defamation and privacy matters.

Legal 500 – 2020 – Defamation and privacy

An excellent barrister with all the key ingredients: a good mind; being tactically astute; knowledgeable in the law and a compelling manner with clients.

Legal 500 – 2020 – Employment

Really thorough in his preparation. Excellent on his feet and well liked by clients.

Chambers and Partners 2019 – Employment

His work is always of a high standard. He is always well prepared and extremely approachable.

Legal 500 2018 – Defamation

He is thorough and sensible.

Legal 500 2018 – Employment

Sharp and incredibly focused. He has a finely tuned moral compass and is excellent on his feet.

Chambers and Partners – 2018

He is extremely approachable and his work is always of a high standard

Legal 500 2017 – Employment

He is a very bright guy and is very user-friendly for clients.” “He works hard to get his head around complex law and delivers fantastic results for the clients.

Chambers UK 2017 – Employment

Practice areas

Media & sport  Public & regulatory

David’s practice spans media, employment and public law. His advocacy is split between trial and appellate work. He is appointed to the Attorney General’s A panel of junior civil counsel and the Equality and Human Rights Council’s B panel. He is consistently ranked as a leading individual in Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500.

Media & sport

Defamation, privacy, malicious falsehood, breach of confidence, freedom of information and data protection. Recent work includes obtaining an ex parte privacy injunction on behalf of a prominent businessman and advising the Attorney General regarding a contra mundum injunction for lifelong anonymity in the case of A&B (arising from the 2009 Edlington attacks).

Rachel Riley v Michael Sivier QB-2019-002492: For defendant journalist in libel action brought by claimant television presenter. Words complained of determined to be statements of fact and opinion. Defences of truth, honest opinion and publication on a matter of public interest advanced.

RPB v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs QB-2019-000371: successful for defendant in transferring misuse of private information claim from High Court to County Court under s.40(2) County Courts Act 1984. Transfer upheld upon Claimant’s appeal.

Kathryn Hopkins v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs QB-2019-002322: successful for defendant in resisting claimant civil servant’s application for a privacy injunction to prevent a workplace disciplinary investigation.

Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism [2019] EWHC 281 (QB): for claimant in trial of preliminary issues of meaning and fact / opinion.

Qureshi v Information Commissioner and Home Office EA/2018/0024: successful for respondent in GRC appeal concerning FOIA request to obtain information about government funding of Prevent programme. Reliance on national security exemption upheld.

Lee Johnson v Ministry of Justice [2018] EWHC 2829 (QB): Summary judgment for defendant following its publication that the claimant was subject to a General Civil Restraint Order rather than a Limited CRO. Claimant’s status as a vexatious litigant established by the All Proceedings Order made by the Divisional Court in [2017] EWHC 979 (Admin).

Dhir v Saddler [2018] 4 W.L.R. 1: Successful for claimant following 5-day slander trial. Leading authority on serious harm in the context of slander. Slander comprised the defendant’s announcement at a meeting of the Seventh Day Adventist Church that the claimant had threatened to slit her throat.

Daryanani v Ramnani [2017] EWHC 183 (QB): for claimant in action for slander and libel.

KLA v Chief Constable of Surrey and News Group Newspapers: for claimant in privacy, misfeasance in public office and HRA claims against police and privacy and harassment claims against the newspaper concerning sale of the victim of crime’s private information to the Sun newspaper.

Romanova v Sloutsker: for the appellant Russian journalist on behalf of Media Law Defence Initiative in her challenge to Court of Appeal against jurisdiction judgment ([2015] EWHC 545 (QB)) permitting the libel claim of a Russian oligarch to be brought in the English courts.

Ministry of Defence v Rusty Firmin & Bloomsbury Publishing: Memoirs of SAS soldier withdrawn from sale on behalf of Claimant (confidence, DPA and copyright).

Associated Newspapers Ltd v Duncan Bannatyne: breach of confidence and privacy – advising former wife of defendant.

Yalland v O’Connor: successful set aside of libel judgment for founder of Fathers4Justice.

Dr Haitham Al-Haddad v Times Newspapers Limited: successful libel claim for Islamic scholar.

McAlpine v Bercow [2014] E.M.L.R. 3: for defendant in twitter libel claim (led by William McCormick QC)


Acting for employees and employers in full range of statutory ET claims and common law civil actions. Overlap with media and public law practices (Chambers UK 2017: “has a wide employment law practice that is bolstered by his knowledge of media and public law. Clients praise his impressive knowledge and his dedication to his clients and their cases”).  Recent Court of Appeal work includes London Underground Ltd v Amissah [2019] I.R.L.R. 545 and Agarwal v Cardiff University [2019] I.C.R. 433. Recent EAT work includes Thompson v Ark Schools [2019] I.C.R. 292 (instructed by Equality and Human Rights Commission in pregnancy / maternity discrimination time limits challenge). Recent ET work includes obtaining a re-engagement order in excess of £450k following finding of unfair dismissal (Kelly v PGA European Tour). Instructed in national security proceedings in the ET (for claimants and respondents). Recent civil work includes race discrimination challenge against Open University’s policy of applying US sanctions to prevent Cuban students studying in UK. Instructed in proceedings before the Central Arbitration Committee.

London Underground Ltd v Amissah [2019] I.R.L.R. 545: successful for claimants in group action under Agency Worker Regulations (led by Tom Linden QC). Previously successful before EAT: [2017] I.C.R. 581; [2017] I.R.L.R. 318.

Agarwal v Cardiff University [2019] I.C.R. 433: jurisdiction of ET to construe contractual terms in wages claims. For Cardiff University.

Thompson v Ark Schools [2019] I.C.R. 292: successful for claimant in pregnancy / maternity discrimination time limit appeal (instructed by Equality and Human Rights Commission).

Gutierez v Open University: for claimant in civil challenge leading to defendant’s revocation of discriminatory prohibition on admitting Cuban students (instructed by Equality and Human Rights Commission).

Arjomand-Sissan v East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust UKEAT/0122/17/BA: For claimant in whistleblowing appeal (Soole J).

Fire Brigade’s Union (FBU) v South Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Authority [2018] EWHC 1229 (Admin); [2018] IRLR 717: for defendant Fire Authority in judicial review concerning compliance of firefighters’ shift system with the Working Time Regulations.

South Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Service v Mansell UKEAT/0151/17/DM: availability of injury to feelings awards in working time detriments claims (Soole J.)

Kelly v PGA European Tour UKEAT/0157/17/JOJ: appeal against dismissal of age discrimination claim (Choudhury J.)

Tree v South East Coastal Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust UKEAT/0043/17/LA: successful for employee appellant regarding correct approach of ET to making deposit orders in discrimination claims.

Robert Newbound v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2015] I.R.L.R. 734: successful in Court of Appeal on behalf of unfairly dismissed employee in case concerning apparent bias of EAT.

GW v Ministry of Justice (Central London ET): for claimant in national security proceedings under rule 94 and schedule 2.

Ramphal v Department for Transport [2015] I.R.L.R. 985, EAT: for respondent in appeal concerning unfair dismissal / role of HR in decision to dismiss. Settled upon the respondent’s further appeal to Court of Appeal.

Gale & Ors v Mid & West Wales Fire and Rescue Service UKEAT/0365/14: successful defence of group action for detriments under WTR 1998. Previously acted in leading authority concerning WTR detriments – Arriva v Nicolaou [2012] I.C.R. 510, EAT.

Jean-Charles v Department for Work and Pensions UKEAT/0905/14: successful cross-appeal for DWP who refused to reinstate ex-employee until she repaid monies owed to employer (ss.113 & 117 ERA).

Public & regulatory

Predominantly defendant judicial review practice in immigration, education and electoral law. Recent Court of Appeal work includes Kotuk v ECO Warsaw, Talpada v SSHD and NE-A (Nigeria) & HM (Uganda). Recent Divisional Court work includes Auzins v Latvia [2017] 1 W.L.R. 2981 (amicus curiae). Regular conduct of national security proceedings in SIAC.

R. (Karagul & Ors) v SSHD [2019] EWHC 3208 (Admin): replacement of statutory appeal by administrative review for ECAA applicants did not breach principle of effectiveness under EU law (led by Deok Joo Rhee QC).

R. (Alliance of Turkish Businesspeople) v SSHD [[2019] 1 W.L.R. 4273 (Admin): successful defence of legitimate expectation challenge to new immigration rules and policy regarding ECAA businesspeople (led by Sir James Eadie QC).

Home Office v JA [2019] EWHC 49 (QB): successful appeal against finding of unlawful detention concerning eight-month-old child who had not proven his British nationality under the British Nationality (Proof of Paternity) Regulations 2006.

Soner Kotuk v Entry Clearance Officer, Warsaw [2019] 4 W.L.R. 10: Court of Appeal confirmed “standstill clause” in the additional protocol to the Ankara Agreement did not apply to right of establishment. Successful for respondent (led by Deok Joo Rhee QC)

R. (Rahman & Ors) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 1571: for respondent in Court of Appeal in costs argument concerning judicial reviews stayed behind Ahsan v SSHD [2018] Imm. A.R. 531.

R. (Fire Brigades Union) v South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority [2018] EWHC 1229 (Admin); [2018] IRLR 717: for defendant in challenge under Working Time Regulations 1998 against firefighters’ shift pattern.

R. (Talpada) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 841: successful for SSHD in Court of Appeal concerning PBS challenge based on evidential flexibility and legitimate expectation.

R. (MG) v SSHD [2018] EWHC 31 (Admin): successful in resisting fresh protection claim of foreign national offender and private law claim for false imprisonment concerning 25 months immigration detention. No independent evidence of torture or trafficking.

SE (Mauritius) v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 2145: successful for respondent before Court of Appeal in resisting appeal concerning application of para 276 ADE(vi) and s.117B NIAA.

MWH v SSHD SN/57/2015: successful for SSHD before SIAC (Singh J) in resisting naturalisation challenge by Iraqi national.

R. (Adewunmi) v SSHD [2017] EWCA Civ 1253: successful for SSHD before Court of Appeal in joint appeals concerning rejection of Tier 4 (General) Student application and rejection / certification of human rights claim.

NE-A (Nigeria) & HM (Uganda) v SSHD [2017] EWCA 239; Imm. A.R. 1077; [2018] INLR 88: successful in Court of Appeal for SSHD in joined appeals concerning article 8 claims of foreign criminals resisting deportation.

Salvis Auzins (No. 2) v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia [2017] 1. W.L.R. 2981; [2017] ACD 33: amicus curiae in extradition appeal before the Divisional Court concerning interpretation of the Extradition Act 2003 by Magistrates’ Courts.

MB v SSHD SN/47/2015: successful defence of refusal of British citizenship to Algerian national based on membership of the GIA, a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000.

R. (Soner Kotuk) v ECO, Warsaw JR/15777/2014 (Green J): successful for respondent before UT in challenge concerning settlement rights of family members of Turkish businesspersons under the “standstill clause” at Article 41(1) of the Ankara Agreement (ECAA) Additional Protocol.

Paul Henke v UKIP: declaratory relief for Chairman of UKIP in Scotland. Suspension declared null and void and in breach of rules of membership.

“Report of the Morecambe Bay Investigation”: Adviser concerning report on maternity and neonatal services at Morecambe Bay Hospitals.

“Review into the disclosure handling in the case of R v Mouncher”: Adviser to HM Chief Inspector of the CPS, appointed by the DPP to investigate conduct of the prosecution case in R v Mouncher (murder of Lynette White) amid alleged police corruption.


Employment Law Bar Association
Employment Lawyers’ Association
Discrimination Law Association
Administrative Law Bar Association
Bar Human Rights Committee
Index on Censorship

Pro bono
Employment Law Appeal Advice Scheme (“ELAAS”)
Mary Ward Legal Centre
Bar Pro Bono Unit

2019: Re-appointed to Equality and Human Rights Commission – B panel
2016: Attorney General’s Junior Counsel to the Crown – A Panel
2015: Equality and Human Rights Commission – B panel
2012: Attorney General’s Junior Counsel to the Crown – B panel
2009: Attorney General’s Junior Counsel to the Crown – C panel

Regulatory information

Vat number: 867769351

Chambers and its members are regulated by the Bars Standards Board

Bar Standards Board – The Barristers’ Register

Privacy Notice

Case news

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.