Legal Guidance and Research / Experts / Daniel Hayes
Daniel Hayes#6445
LinkedIn

Daniel Hayes

D Hayes Public Law Practice
I am a solicitor advocate, and my expertise is in immigration and public law, court processes and procedure. I have appeared in over 2500 court hearings as an advocate, and managed over 700 judicial reviews as a solicitor, gaining expertise over thirteen years. I have conducted significant and prolific cases in the Tribunals, the High Court and Court of Appeal. 

Key cases include: 
 
  • PK (Ghana), R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 98 on trafficking policy; 
  • Caroopen & Myrie v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 1307 on the nature of supplementary decisions in judicial review claims 
  • Secretary of State for the Home Department v Shehzad & Anor [2016] EWCA Civ 615 – on the treatment of evidence at judicial review and the jurisdiction to appeal Tribunal decisions 
  • Mehmood & Anor, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 744 on the sequencing of decisions and the adequacy of alterantive remedies in judicial review 
  • Khanum & Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (paragraph 353B) [2013] UKUT 311 
  • Seye (Chen children; employment) France [2013] UKUT 178 (IAC) (28 March 2013) 

 
In Planning:  
 
  • Old Sarum Airfield Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing Communities And Local Government [2020] EWHC 2112 on heritage harm and NPPF 196 
  • Granger-Taylor, R (on the application of) v High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 1442 
  • Spitfire Bespoke Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government [2020] EWHC 958 on the preservation of listed buildings and procedural fairness

Practice Area

Panel

  • Contributing Author

Qualified Year

  • 2006

Experience

  • Government Legal Department Planning Team (2019 - 2020)
  • Statutory Instruments (2018 - 2019)
  • Immigration and Public Law (2015 - 2018)
  • Turpin & Miller LLP (2013 - 2015)
  • Home Office (2007 - 2013)
  • Matrix Chambers (Placement) (2004 - 2004)
  • HMRC (Placement) (2002 - 2002)

Qualifications

  • Higher Rights (2016)
  • QLTT (2013)
  • Barrister (Non-practising) (2006)
  • LLB Law (2005)

Education

  • ICSL (2005-2006)
  • Brunel University (2001-2005)

2 Contributions by Daniel Hayes

Immigration judicial review in England and Wales: pre-action protocol, issuing claims, urgent relief, permission, hearings, remedies and costs in the Administrative Court and Upper Tribunal
PRACTICE NOTES
Immigration judicial review in England and Wales: pre-action protocol, issuing claims, urgent relief, permission, hearings, remedies and costs in the Administrative Court and Upper Tribunal
Section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981) Section 31 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981) sets out the statutory scheme for judicial review. It is not an exhaustive catalogue of powers, and case law can identify or clarify how inherent powers operate in practice (for example, when the High Court will grant bail). The routes and rules for judicial review in the Administrative Court—a specialist ‘list’ within the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court—are prescribed by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR). CPR 54 and CPR PD 54A address judicial review specifically. From 14 July 2022, fresh remedial powers appear in SCA 1981, s 29A, introduced by the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022. This discretionary jurisdiction permits the court to make suspended and prospective-only quashing orders. Debate about these powers emerged alongside potentially wide-ranging reforms to judicial review. The circumstances in which this power should be exercised, how often it will be used, and its broader consequences remain unclear overall. In National Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Limited, the House of Lords treated prospective orders as confined to exceptional cases, to advance the aim of administering justice fairly...
Immigration
UK Immigration Judicial Review: Reviewable Decisions, Key Grounds including Illegality, Legitimate Expectation, Fairness, Proportionality, Certification, Tribunal Challenges, Remedies and Damages
PRACTICE NOTES
UK Immigration Judicial Review: Reviewable Decisions, Key Grounds including Illegality, Legitimate Expectation, Fairness, Proportionality, Certification, Tribunal Challenges, Remedies and Damages
Judicial review In essence, any administrative ruling about a person’s immigration status or nationality can be contested, on orthodox public law grounds, by way of judicial review when no other remedy is available. Judicial review denotes the mechanism through which judges of the Administrative Court—within the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice—and, from 1 November 2013, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), determine the legality of public bodies’ acts or omissions, and supervise inferior courts and tribunals. In Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service, Lord Diplock observed that: ‘Judicial review…provides the means by which judicial control of administrative action is exercised.’ Its role in immigration matters is particularly pronounced, since most decisions no longer carry a right of appeal, leaving judicial review oversight as the sole legal remedy. In O’Reilly v Mackman the process received a warm judicial welcome: Lord Denning called it ‘a lion’, the ‘normal resource in all cases of public law’, to be approached in a ‘wide and liberal spirit’. The contemporary position, however, is markedly different...
Immigration
Expert page AD
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.