+44(0)7830729959 | +44(0)2074061455 info@5cl.co.uk

‘The Problem With Politics Today’ discussed on ReviveFM

Barrister Tahir Ashraf presenting Real Talk on ReviveFM discusses the problem with politics today along with a studio guest, Life Performance Coach Carl Watts.

We identify that part of the problem with politics today is effective communication. Or a lack of effective communication. This problem in part has been tackled by the Liberal Democrats who have communicated a clear concise message to stop Brexit. The Brexit Party through Nigel Farage has also communicated a clear message. That is to deliver Brexit. I say, that isn’t enough because neither these two parties are have a parliamentary majority to be able to pass legislation to get their respective position, delivered.

During the show, I am called by Michale Armstrong. So I ask: “Michael we’re talking about effective leadership and what is going on with the leaders of today what do you think is wrong with the political leaders of Britain today?” 

“the problem with politics today is that the politicians don’t actually speak the common language of the common people…”

Michael explains that he thinks “the problem with politics today is that the politicians don’t actually speak the common language of the common people they don’t answer questions when they’re asked them. They avoid questions, they have clever tactics to not engage and you know pussyfoot around telling people what they really feel, and I think that relates to animosity between the voters and people who are so disillusioned then because nobody’s really speaking for them and sort of addressing the things.”

Multi-award-winning business barrister Tahir Ashraf turns radio presenter radio host on Revive FM an upcoming FM radio station. 'Real Talk with Barrister Tahir Ashraf'. 'The Problem With Politics Today' discusses on ReviveFM
Multi-award-winning business barrister Tahir Ashraf turns radio presenter radio host on Revive FM an upcoming FM radio station. ‘Real Talk with Barrister Tahir Ashraf’.

During the call I then explore the problem with politics and ask about Nigel Farage, whether he is acting for his own benefit of the benefit of the country and the public.

“I think Nigel Farage is the only politician for a long time who probably does have the common touch just have a common language and therefore his speaking a language that some people will agree with whether you agree with his policies or not he has a touch you know

I then go on to say that Nigel Farage isn’t acting for the benefit of the British public because he can’t deliver Brexit especially because he’s not in Parliament. 

I then conclude on the following note by asking: So what do you think today’s leaders need and if you had a message to politicians, British politicians in particular what would you say your message would be?”

a message to politicians would be to “learn to listen”

Life Performance Coach Carl Watts.

“I think it would be to learn to listen … to learn to hear and reflect what people are saying. To learn a set of skills I think very similar to what Michael was saying there that’s why I’ve developed this skill system this life skills system it’s purely to be able to to help leaders be able to understand and how to communicate with the people they represent and so on.

Business Barrister Turns Radio Presenter

A multi-award-winning business barrister has turned radio presenter radio host on an upcoming FM station. Business Barrister Tahir Ashraf Turns Radio Presenter Radio Host.

I am pleased to announce that I have accepted an invitation to host a current affairs show on Revive FM, entitled ‘Real Talk with Barrister Tahir Ashraf’.”

Having presented two shows already, here is a snippet following a call that came in by Councillor Mr Manzar Iqbal, who is also a Youth and Community worker.

Revive FM Radio Show: Real Talk with Barrister Tahir Ashraf

After getting the introductions out of the way, I asked about leadership and said: “Insofar as leadership qualities are concerned, I raised it earlier that Teresa May has resigned from her position. And in her resignation speech towards the very end, she was quite emotional. Now, many people would say that showing that level of emotion is actually not a good quality of a leader. Others might disagree. Others might say, actually, it is a fantastic quality of leader. What’s your view? And I appreciate you’re a Labour man so let’s see how this goes!” 

Cllr Iqbal replied: ‘To be quite honest, with you Tahir, Ive been quite privileged, in the sense that I’ve been to university I’ve gained an MBA in Strategic Leadership, I understand the role of a leader because within my capacity as a youth and community work manager I’ve been a leader for many many years. Whilst we’re on leadership I think it’s absolutely imperative that any leader even if it’s Theresa May, or Margaret Thatcher, or even Churchill that they actually demonstrate to the people we serve that we have emotional contact with them, that we’re not robots. The problem Theresa May had previously with the voters was that she was classed as a robot and she wasn’t showing her emotions.’

I then interjected, hopefully not too rudely and said, ‘Well hang on a second, well hang on hang on, she wasn’t showing her emotion earlier. But insofar as this particular set of circumstances was concerned, you do then, if I’m clear, you do agree that, actually, that was quite courageous. Would you agree? Would you agree it was quite courageous of the second female Prime Minister that this United Kingdom has ever seen, to be showing that level of emotion? She virtually broke down, so would you agree with me, that that was quite courageous? Very courageous and arguably commendable. Would you agree with that?’

The show continued and it turned out that Councillor Iqbal and I were on the phone for quite a while discussing also the lack of a clear position that Labour had on brexit. We also talked about the kicking in the teeth expected by Labour, despite being in opposition. Mainly due to a lack of clarity of a position by Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader on whether the party line would be to back a second referendum or otherwise.

Multi-award-winning business barrister Tahir Ashraf turns radio presenter radio host on Revive FM an upcoming FM radio station. 'Real Talk with Barrister Tahir Ashraf'.
Multi-award-winning business barrister Tahir Ashraf turns radio presenter radio host on Revive FM an upcoming FM radio station. ‘Real Talk with Barrister Tahir Ashraf’.

Real Talk with Barrister Tahir Ashraf is on Sundays at a radio station in London called Revive FM. It is available for the moment online, on Facebook, on YouTube as well as various other media platforms. Crucially, Revive FM is due to launch on the FM frequency in July 2019.

I have added the link above so that those who wish to, can see and hear the clip of the show, from the point that I dive into the discussion.

I have not been asked why I accepted the invitation to present a radio show. Despite which, I want to explain. That I agreed to do this in the hope that I might inspire others to follow in my footsteps. In my view, I am also contributing to the debate around the issues of the day. Particularly in British politics. It just so happened to be that Prime Minister Theresa May resigned and was emotional at the end of her speech. So much so that commentators have talked about the qualities of leadership. It occurred to me to talk about this, and commend the prime minister, at the very least for her courage to show her emotions, in the face of adversity.

If you would like to appear as a guest for a discussion, or be interviewed on current affairs, please do not hesitate to contact me.

No Confidence Motion: Theresa May Successful in defeating Jeremy Corbyn

Contact Me Now

    Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

    NO CONFIDENCE MOTION: THERESA MAY SUCCESSFUL IN DEFEATING JEREMY CORBYN

    No Confidence Motion - Theresa May Successful in defeating Jeremy Corbyn

     

    No Confidence Motion – Theresa May Successful in defeating Jeremy Corbyn

    Theresa May has successfully defeated Jeremy Corbyn’s no confidence motion. This is a momentous occasion and to my mind just goes to re-affirm the position that I talked about yesterday. See my article from yesterday on why I think the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is wrong to bring a no confidence motion against Theresa May’s government. 

    Moments ago, Jeremy Corbyn’s no confidence motion against Theresa May has been defeated. No surprises there because it was expected that she would win. If anything, the exercise shows that an entire day of parliamentary time has been wasted to achieve absolutely nothing. 

    The exercise just re-affirms my belief that Jeremy Corbyn was plain wrong to bring a motion of no Confidence. Jeremy Corbyn has now seen that regardless of how unpopular the Brexit deal was, Theresa May continues to enjoy the support of the parliamentary party as well as the DUP. That support is not just from the parliamentary party for votes which defeated Jeremy Corbyn’s no confidence motion. Ordinary members of the British public, who are otherwise either apolitical or indeed even against the Conservative party acknowledge that Theresa May as prime minister, has inherited a thankless task. With that in mind, people are beginning to see the logic against Jeremy Corbyn’s stance. 

    Of course, Jeremy Corbyn could have taken a completely different approach. That approach could have been to properly campaign for remain at the time of the referendum in 2016. He did not. Now, it is too little and far too late and so the nation must move on and look to what next. Indeed, Jeremy Corbyn too must now move on. 

    No Confidence Motion – Theresa May Successfully Sees Off Corbyn Who Probably Wants General Election

    Undoubtedly the next thoughts will be to somehow seek to trigger a general election. I for one, do not think that the PM should heed the calls for a general election. There is no appetite for it in the country. Quite the opposite. Ordinary people on the doorstep are expressing unhappiness with the way in which politicians like Jeremy Corbyn seem to be pushing an extremely left-wing agenda, under the guise of socialism.

    No Confidence Motion – Theresa May – Government Supports ‘Hand up not Hand out’

    Jeremy Corbyn’s policies really mean that people should not aspire to better themselves and that the state should do more and more to look after people and give handouts.

    … my own view is that people should be given a ‘hand up’ and not a ‘hand out’ for the good of the country and every citizen – Tahir Ashraf.

    Whereas my own view is that people should be given a ‘hand up’ and not a ‘hand out’ for the good of the country and every citizen. That is not to say that those in society who are most in need of assistance should not get it. It simply means that we should better ourselves to the point where each of us can help others around us. Help those in our neighbourhoods, our towns cities and our country, and of course then the world. An infamous quote from the American President John F Kennedy springs to mind: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”

    Here is an extract of the speech of Theresa May following the defeat of Jeremy Corbyn’s no confidence motion, as printed in the Guardian online:

    The prime minister said:

    “I’m pleased that this house has expressed its confidence in the government tonight. I do not take this responsibility lightly and our government will continue its work to increase our prosperity, guarantee our security and to strengthen our union. And yes we will also continue to work on the solemn promise we made to the people of this country to deliver on the result of the referendum and leave the European Union. I believe this duty is shared by every member of this house and we have a responsibility to identify a way forward that can secure the backing of the house. 
    To that end I’ve proposed a series of meetings between senior parliamentarians and representatives of the government over the coming days and I would like to invite the leaders of parliamentary parties to meet with me individually and I would like to start these meetings tonight. Mr Speaker, the government approach is to hold these meetings in a constructive spirit and I urge others to do the same but we must find solutions that are negotiable and command sufficient support in this house. 
    And I’ve said we will return to the house on Monday to table an amendable motion and to make a statement about the way forward. The house has put its confidence in this government, I stand ready to work with any member of this house to deliver on Brexit and to ensure this house retains the confidence of the British people.”

    Contact Me Now

      Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

      Jeremy Corbyn Is Wrong: Here Is Why-Explains Barrister Tahir Ashraf

      Contact Me Now

        Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

        JEREMY CORBYN IS WRONG: HERE IS WHY-EXPLAINS BARRISTER TAHIR ASHRAF

        Jeremy Corbyn is Wrong For Not Engaging With Theresa May on Brexit

         

        Jeremy Corbyn is Wrong For Not Engaging Meaningfully With Theresa May on Brexit

        Jeremy Corbyn is wrong on many aspects and the last 7 days have been no different. Except that it is different. It is different because this time, he has made some serious errors of judgement. Unless of of course the steps he has taken have been on advice! In which case they have been taken on misconceived advice! Here is my view, as to why I think Jeremy Corbyn is plain wrong.

        Keep in mind that I did not say that he put the interests of his party first. No, not at all. Jeremy Corbyn has put his own interests first. Those who oppose to my argument will say that ‘he has done what he believes to be the right thing’. That argument does not hold water because he has decided and announced that he will not engage with Theresa May to discuss Brexit, unless ‘no-deal’ is off the table.

        Of course, that is not a sensible suggestion, even worthy of being considered. I say this because strategically, the outcome would mean that the effect is for the British public to accept whatever deal is then on the table. 

        So instead of engaging and discussing all outcomes, he has decided, presumably on some misconceived advice, that the better way forward (no doubt for him), is to bring a ‘no confidence motion’ in Theresa May’s government. In other words, when the country is in the midst of some of the most fundamental changes to its history, Jeremy Corbyn wants to score some political points! To my mind, that, is just plain wrong. 

        Of course, a person does not need to be a commercial barrister to see that it is nonsense to complain of a lack of engagement to then to set pre-conditions before discussions can take place! It is simply the wrong position to adopt because you are then obstructing any potential constructive and meaningful dialogue…”

        I am a commercial barrister and in my day job, I engage with opposing solicitors and barristers as do others. Of course, a person does not need to be a commercial barrister to see that it is nonsense to complain of a lack of engagement to then to set pre-conditions before discussions can take place! It is simply the wrong position to adopt because you are then obstructing any potential constructive and meaningful dialogue, that could well occur. Unless of course, being obstructive is precisely what Jeremy Corbyn wants. That might just be why he has decided to bring about a no confidence motion.

        Jeremy Corbyn Is Wrong for bringing a No Confidence Motion

        I do firmly believe that Jeremy Corbyn is plain wrong to bring a motion of no Confidence. How? The answer is by putting forward a no confidence motion against Theresa May and her government, that is how. Now, hold that thought and let me explain. Let me explain to you that Jeremy Corbyn is wrong for putting forward the no confidence motion at a time when he knows that Theresa May is going to have the support of the parliamentary party as well as the DUP. Support from not just the parliamentary party for votes to defeat Jeremy Corbyn’s no confidence motion but actually support from ordinary members of the British public. Those members of the public who are clear in their support of Theresa May and acknowledge that Theresa May as prime minister, has inherited a thankless task. 

        Jeremy Corbyn Is Wrong for Not Engaging with the Prime Minister 

        The deadline for Brexit is looming and by putting forward the no confidence motion at a time when the world’s eyes are on the British Parliament, the opposition leader has decided not to help the country. He has decided not to help the country by stating in Parliament that he will not hold any talks with Theresa May until ‘no-deal’ is off the table. 

        Seriously, any reasonable person can see that it is not sensible to hold the government over a barrel especially because it shows the whole world that the Brits are afraid of a no deal Brexit. That does not mean that I am a supporter of a no deal Brexit. But this is not about me – this is about Jeremy Corbyn who is clearly putting his own interests before the interests of the British public – plain and simple.

        Jeremy Corbyn Is Wrong for bringing a No Confidence Motion

        How? By putting forward a no confidence motion against Theresa May and her government, that is how. Now, hold that thought and let me explain. Let me explain to you that Jeremy Corbyn is wrong for putting forward the no confidence motion at a time when he knows that Theresa May is going to have the support of the parliamentary party. Not just the parliamentary party for votes to defeat Jeremey Corbyn’s no confidence motion but actually support from ordinary members of the British public. Those members of the public who are clear in their support of Theresa May and acknowledge that the Theresa May as prime minister, has inherited a thankless task. 

        Jeremy Corbyn Is Wrong for Not Engaging with the Prime Minister 

        The deadline for Brexit is looming and by putting forward the no confidence motion at a time when the world’s eyes are on the British Parliament, the opposition leader has decided not to help the country. He has decided not to help the country by stating in Parliament that he will not hold any talks with Theresa May until ‘no-deal’ is off the table. 

        Seriously, any reasonable person can see that it is not sensible to hold the government over a barrel especially because it shows the whole world that the Brits are afraid of a no deal Brexit. That does not mean that I am a supporter of a no deal Brexit. But this is not about me –this is about Jeremy Corbyn who is clearly putting his own interests before the interests of the British public, plain and simple.

        Contact Me Now

          Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

          Extremism – Barrister Advises Against CJ Pakistan’s UK Visit Protests

          Contact Me Now

            Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

            EXTREMISM - BARRISTER ADVISES AGAINST CJ PAKISTAN’S UK VISIT PROTESTS

            Extremism – Barrister Advises Against CJ Pakistan’s UK Visit Protests

            Extremism and protests have often been linked together. People all too often do not realise the risks assocated with getting involved in protests. In this circumstances and based on the picture poster below, you will see and read the issues I have raised, in a simple and straightforward manner.

            You will see that there is a clear risk. Particularly, if you want to protest against the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s visit to the UK. Because of the issues I raise, taking part in a protest could lead to you being labelled as an extremist, fundamentalist, or worse still, a terrorist! That is why I decided to write this short article to create awareness and as a result, to prevent people from falling victim not to misinformation. More importantly, to prevent people from victim to extremism due to a lack of information.

            Accidental Extremism - Protests Against Chief Justice of Pakistan’s UK Visit Could Lead to Labels of Accidental ‘Extremism’

            Accidental Extremism – Barrister Tahir Ashraf advises ‘Not to Participate in Protests Against Chief Justice of Pakistan’s UK Visit as it Could Lead to Labels of Accidental ‘Extremism’

            The Chief Justice of Pakistan Mr Justice Mian Saqib Nisar is visiting the UK in November 2018 and people are seeking to create support for protests. I accept, and do not deny that in a just and democratic society, people have the right to peaceful protest. Though the problem is how to prevent extremism and people being labelled as ‘extremists’ due to not fact checking basics. So using the poster picture above, here are a few quick tips to prevent yourself and your loved ones from falling victim to being labelled, with the wrong sort of label.

            Preventing Extremism By Identifying The Problem

            Preventing extremism by identifying the problem is far easier said, than done. The problem that I see with the poster above is that those people that are organising the protests and wanting people to protest at various locations across the UK are failing to identify themselves. As a result, this raises all sorts of questions concerning the credibility of those seeking to organise the protests.

            So, before you decide to go and join a protest or pass on the information to others to get them to join a protest, I say, pause. Pause for moment. And think. Think to yourself: “do I really want to risk being associated with those people at the expense of being associated with extremism”? The answer to that question should be in the negative. In other words, “no, I do not want to be associated with extremism”.

            Accidental Extremism

            Most people would think that the words ‘accidental’ and ‘extremism’ do not go hand in hand. If anything, most people would think that the word ‘accidental’ is so far from the word ‘extremism’ that there has to be an element of intention involved. Of course, this short article is not intended to provide the answers to many a question concerning extremism. It is though, intended to raise awareness on how ordinary people might fall victim to being labelled as extremists and fundamentalists, quite unwittingly.

            For example, in July this year, I came across a poster. Rather, it was a work up of a poster. As is quite common in this technological day and age, the poster was doing the rounds on social media. That poster, sought to invite people to protest under the banner of Hizb ut Tahrir (“HT”). The HT poster was inviting people to gather together in a protest to take place in September in front of the Pakistan High Commission in London. HT, according to proponents ‘is an islamic political organisation’. So, to my mind, the issue was that HT and groups of that nature, are banned in many countries. That is why I say that people should not fall victim to the ideologies of such groups. Instead people should participate in the proper democratic process of a country. I have dealt with that in another post, here. Every person reading this should aim to forward this post to others if they think it might help to prevent extremism.

            Preventing Extremism – Read!

            One way to prevent yourself or your loved ones from falling victim to the underhanded tactics of unsavoury characters is to read the information. So here is the information that I came across ‘requesting people to join in protest against the Chief Justice of Pakistan’s visit to the UK.

            The text is broken into three sections and the most relevant are the first and last sections. The first section suggests that there will be ‘his victims’ uniting from various faith and ethnic backgrounds uniting in protest. This is just mis-information plain and simple, seeking to play on identity politics.

            The second is just information on the venues so that doesnt trouble me. However, the third section, is loaded with the sort of language commonly used in reference to dictators. Even then, my perspective is to keep it even simpler than that! That is why, the most troubling content of all, is the lack of contact information. The ‘workup’ clearly has no contact details and there is no information concerning who has organised the protest. If nothing else, that should be sufficiently categoric evidence to set off alarm bells. That is why my advice is not to engage in protests unless you are certain that of at least some of the most basic information. And as much as we have become a society obsessed with labels, I am not convinced that in a just and democratic society, ‘extremism’ is a label of with which anyone should be proud to be associated.

            Be The Change You Want To See

            Ultimately the best advice I could give to someone is instead of joining protests, get involved with helping people within your neighbourhoods without discriminating. Give charity. Even a smile, is charity. Get involved and the democratic process, to make the world a better place. Be the change you want to see – Be The Change.

            Contact Me Now

              Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

              Pakistan Crowdfunding Infrastructure JIBFL Publishes Barrister Tahir Ashraf

              PAKISTAN CROWDFUNDING INFRASTRUCTURE JIBFL PUBLISHES BARRISTER TAHIR ASHRAF

              Pakistan Crowdfunding Infrastructure JIBFL Publishes Barrister Tahir Ashraf

              Crowdfunding Infrastructure – Pakistan’s Crowdfunded Dams: JIBFL Publishes Barrister Tahir Ashraf’s Article in November 2018, in readiness for the visit of the Chief Justice of Pakistan, MrJustice Mian Saqib Nisar.

              If you were looking forward to reading Tahir Ashraf’s long-awaited article on Pakistan crowdfunding infrastructure, specifically, Dams, the wait is over! See the link at the bottom of this post!

              Following the teaser confirming that barrister Tahir Ashraf was commissioned to write on Pakistan’s crowdfunding dams, it is now confirmed that the article has been published, in the Journal of International Banking and Financial Law (JIBFL). The article is published in JIBFL on the 1st of November 2018. As a barrister of over 10 years Tahir brings to life the critical issue of a serious lack water reserves in Pakistan’s infrastructure.

              Crowdfunding Infrastructure – Pakistan Leads in World First

              Through the publication of the article in JIBFL (a LexisNexis Reed Elsevier publication), Tahir has brought the issue to life not just to the Pakistani diaspora in the UK but also to a western audience. This serves for the issue to have been brought to life on the international stage, which brings with it greater awareness.

              With greater awareness comes the greater possibility of other countries following the Pakistan crowdfunding infrastructure solution for development.

              Tahir considers this to be a significant moment in the country’s history and suggests that other countries could use the Pakistan approach for infrastructure development. With greater awareness comes the greater possibility of other countries following the Pakistan funding of infrastructure solution for development.

              Crowdfunding Infrastructure – Pakistan Crowdfunding Infrastructure – An Issue Brought to Life on the International Stage

              Using his standing as a practising British business barrister and member of the editorial board of JIBFL, Tahir has posited that the crowdfunding infrastructure method is an excellent method of raising capital from non-traditional sources – such as the general public. Whilst it may not replace traditional sources of funding, at the very least, it is a formidable method for the partial funding of national infrastructure.

              In the article Tahir writes that the method was propagated by the Chief Justice of Pakistan Mr Justice Mian Saqib Nisar. Following his oath as Prime MInister of Pakistan, HE Mr Imran Khan, has also wholeheartedly supported the initiative.

              To read the Article click below. Please note that the link will open in a new tab so be sure to enable pop-ups from this website.

              [gview file=”https://tahirashraf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Barrister-Tahir-Ashraf-Article-on-Pakistan-Dams-published-in-the-Journal-of-International-Banking-Financial-Law-1st-November-2018.pdf”]

              Contact Me Now

                Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                Crowdfunding National Infrastructure: LexisNexis Commissions Tahir Ashraf on Pakistan’s World First

                TAHIR ASHRAF | BARRISTER

                WELCOME TO THE WEBSITE OF MULTI-AWARD-WINNING CHANCERY COMMERCIAL BARRISTER TAHIR ASHRAF

                Need Some Help?

                  Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                  TAHIR ASHRAF COMMISSIONED ON PAKISTAN WORLD FIRST INITIATIVE

                  Crowdfunding National Infrastructure: LexisNexis’ JIBFL Commissions Tahir Ashraf on World First Initiative by Pakistan’s Chief Justice of Supreme Court

                  Crowdfunding National infrastructure – The Journal of international Banking and Financial Law (JIBFL) has commissioned Tahir Ashraf to write about the world first initiative by Pakistan’s Honourable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (HCJ). The HCJ made an Order on 4th July 2018 as a world first initiative for crowdfunding national infrastructure in Pakistan. Namely, the construction and establishement of two dams, known as ‘Diamer Bhasha Dam and Mohmand Dam.

                  JIBFL is a peer reviewed, highly regarded and authoritative legal journal. It provides global legal and banking professionals and practitioners with the very latest developments in banking and financial law. Published 11 times a year it is available in hard copy. Articles are also available online. The JIBFL journal is of interest to all bankers and lawyers in private and corporate practice and indeed, academia.

                  Crowdfunding National infrastructure: The Supreme Court Order

                  Tahir’s article will focus predominantly on the Order made by the Supreme Court and consider its implications as a new source of funding. The article is intended for publication in November 2018 and hopes to highlight this crowdfunding intitiave as a measure to use as an anti-corruption tool, potentially usable by developing countries in emerging market economies.

                  Crowdfunding National Infrastructure – Taxation and Money Markets

                  In light of the call for crowdfunding national infrastruture Tahir’s article will also consider taxation options and standard fundraising activities through the money markets as well as Islamic finance.

                  For more comments advice or interviews concerning any of the aspects of crowdfunding national infrastructure or this post or indeed any aspects of the Order of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, please contact Tahir via email at: ta@tahirashraf.co.uk / ta@5cl.co.uk. Alternatively you may wish to contact Tahir via his Chambers Director on info@5cl.co.uk.

                  Tahir Ashraf is Head of Chambers and an award-winning practising commercial and chancery barrister at 5 Chancery Lane, London. Listed in the Muslim 100 Power List Parliamentary Review, he has a particular interest in public international and constitutional law, corporate governance, energy infrastructure and banking law. He is also a registered barrister in Pakistan and is a member of JIBFL’s editorial board. https://tahirashraf.co.uk

                  TESTIMONIALS & REVIEWS

                  Ken Ng Model Review Group, Morgan Stanley (Business Partner) | London, UK

                  Tahir is an excellent communicator and provides a first class service. He gives you more than you expect, is very trustworthy and extremely helpful. His easy going character makes him a star around people and above all you can feel that he is very dedicated to his work.

                  TESTIMONIALS & REVIEWS

                  A Khan, Barrister | London, UK

                  Tahir is a great strategist like Hannibal (one of the greatest military commanders in history).

                  TESTIMONIALS & REVIEWS

                  B. Pindoria, Managing Partner Solicitor | London, UK

                  Tahir is an excellent lawyer who understands what a client wants from him. He provides high quality professional legal services to us with a fast and efficient turn around. He has also added value by going beyond his instructions to give us satisfied clients. A person to look out for as he progresses in his legal career in the next few years which I expect to be distinctive and leader in his field.

                  TESTIMONIALS & REVIEWS

                  S. Kinch – Managing Partner, Solicitor Commercial Insolvency Litigation West Sussex, UK

                  Tahir has worked very hard on a complex insolvency claim and drafted some great documentation.

                  TESTIMONIALS & REVIEWS

                  Cyril Worthing, West Sussex, UK

                  Tahir was absolutely outstanding throughout my case and very professional and cared so much about my case by treating it as his own. Terry [and his team] kept me updated with progresses and set-backs, and paid attention to every detail. This made me feel very confident during the process that I was going to get a positive result in the end.

                  TESTIMONIALS & REVIEWS

                  K. Iyer, Director / General Manager, Victoria, London, UK

                  Having sought advice in respect of two matters a private limited company and commercial property dispute, I was pleasantly surprised by the extent of urgency and personal touch provided, which made me feel that my problem was made his own.

                  Finding the right quality business legal advice service is no longer challenging and  expensive. Business barrister Tahir Ashraf can help you and your business with the right quality advice at a competitive rate.

                  Sustainable transport and alternative fuels such as hydrogen are 21st century global challenges. Commercial barrister Tahir Ashraf advises on the banking, green bonds, Islamic finance and other aspects of these projects.

                  Advising on contracts, drafting, negotiation and scrutiny of contracts is at the heart of commercial barrister Tahir’s commercial contracts practice. He advises individuals, UK, international companies, as well as public sector organisations.

                  Traditionally in England and Wales matters relating to land law problems would be dealt with by the chancery courts. These days the courts require that parties to a dispute attempt settlement of land disputes. As a land disputes and business barrister Tahir Ashraf deals with the various forms of land disputes.

                  Contact Me Now

                    Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                    How I Realised I Am Conservative And Why You Should Be Too

                    HOW I REALISED I AM CONSERVATIVE AND WHY YOU SHOULD BE TOO

                    How I Realised I Am Conservative And Why You Should Be Too

                    Why I am Conservative? Some might say that because I Tahir Ashraf, come from a mill town which served or rather, contributed to build Britain’s cotton and weaving industry, I cannot be a Conservative. Particularly because I come from a family where Labour was the party of choice, because Labour were seen to be the ‘working-man’s party’. Specifically, those who were in labour jobs. Of course, my parents’ generation up until the mid to late 1990s had identified as Labour voters. Just like I realised that I share core Conservative values, they too, like me, realised that they actually share far more Conservative values.

                    I am Conservative Building a Country that Works for Everyone

                    I am Conservative Building a Country that Works for Everyone

                    I Am Conservative | My Conservative Values
                    I hold dearly the principle that the American President Ronald Reagan articulated. That is that, “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”.

                    The excesses of the past have caused people to deem themselves to be better-off by choosing not to work for the sake of an extra £20 or £50. However, my views are that we as individuals in society should do more to better ourselves. It is imperative that for betterment, we do what we can to reach our potential. Only then can we help to improve and better the lives of those with whom we come into contact. More importantly that we, as individuals should together, better our localities, towns, cities and country. Only then can be truly good role models, for our children.

                    I am Conservative Because I Encourage Enterprise
                    I am a great believer in encouraging enterprise. To my mind businesses should have the opportunity to flourish with minimalistic red-tape. That is because enterprise encourages employment which in turn leads to contribution through economic growth and creating jobs.

                    I am Conservative | One Nation
                    People, I believe should progress on the basis of merit and not on the sole basis of where one has come from or indeed the number of years one has been involved within a party. I hold dear the idea that Britain should continue to build an ‘economy that fairly enables all to thrive, rewarding hard work and responsibility’.

                    These are just some of the reasons as to why I am a conservative. If you share these values, perhaps the Conservative party is the right one for you.

                    Contact Me Now

                      Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                      Tahir Ashraf Named in Muslim 100 Power List 2018

                      Contact Me Now

                        Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                        TAHIR ASHRAF NAMED IN 2018 MUSLIM 100 POWER LIST

                        Commercial and International Law Barrister Tahir Ashraf Named in Muslim 100 Power List 2018 Parliamentary Review Launching 7th May 2018, HIlton Park Lane, London, United Kingdom. It promises to be an excellent event highlighting the achivements of Muslims both n the UK and internationally.

                        I am absolutely delighted to be listed and very much look forward to laying my hands on a copy of the publication.

                         

                        Tahir Ashraf to be Named in Muslim 100 Power List on 7 May 2018 at The Park Lane Hilton London, UK

                        Tahir Ashraf to be Named in Muslim 100 Power List on 7 May 2018 at The Park Lane Hilton London, UK

                        TAHIR ASHRAF NAMED IN 2018 MUSLIM 100 POWER LIST

                        Contact Me Now

                          Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                          State Immunity: Tahir Ashraf In Supreme Court On Momentous Case – For Intervener 4A LAW

                          TAHIR ASHRAF APPEARS IN SUPREME COURT ON STATE IMMUNITY CASE

                          State Immunity: Tahir Ashraf Appears In Supreme Court On Momentous State Immunity Case For Intervener 4A LAW

                          State Immunity Tahir Ashraf Supreme Court: Barrister Tahir Ashraf 5 Chancery Lane appears in the UK Supreme Court for the intervener 4A LAW in a case concerning state immunity under public law (public international law).

                          This is momentous case because it concerns public international law and international relations. This is because among the other legal questions the case concerns whether employees performing non-sovereign functions can bring challenges against their ‘state employers’ in the UK courts” – Tahir Ashraf

                          The following information has been taken from the UK Supreme court website:
                          Benkharbouche –v- Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs & Libya –v- Janah

                          From the Supreme Court website:

                          State Immunity Case “Benkharbouche (Respondent) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Appellant)

                          Case ID: UKSC 2015/0063

                          Case summary

                          Issue

                          Whether granting immunity from suit under the State Immunity Act 1978 engages, and breaches, the Respondents’ rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and EU Charter.

                          Facts

                          Ms Janah was employed as a member of the domestic staff at the Libyan Embassy in London. Ms Benkharbouche was employed in the Sudanese Embassy. Following dismissal from their employment, the claimants issued claims in the Employment Tribunal. Libya and Sudan claimed immunity from suit under the State Immunity Act 1978. The claimants responded that barring their claims would breach Article 6 and/or Article 14 of the ECHR and/or Article 47 of the EU Charter. The Court of Appeal accepted the claimants’ arguments, making a declaration of incompatibility pursuant to section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and disapplying the State Immunity Act 1978 in respect of the elements of the claims within the scope of EU law. The Secretary of State was joined to proceedings at the Court of Appeal stage as entitled under section 5 Human Rights Act 1998.

                          Judgment appealed

                          [2015] EWCA Civ 33

                          Parties

                          Appellants
                          1. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
                          2. [Libya]
                          3. [Embassy of the Republic of Sudan]
                          Respondent
                          1. [Ms Fatima Ahmed Benkharbouche]
                          2. Ms Minah Janah
                          Interveners
                          1. The AIRE Centre
                          2. 4A LAW Public Interest Lawyers Ltd

                          Appeal

                          Justices

                          Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption

                          Hearing start date

                          06 Jun 2017

                          Hearing finish date

                          08 Jun 2017

                          Tahir Ashraf can be seen on the Supreme Court video-link streaming service (and subsequent publication of video) from 2.00pm: https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

                          Tahir Ashraf can be seen at the UK Supreme Court on the following dates 6th – 8th Jun 2017.

                            Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                            No State Visit President Donald Trump Says Westminster Hall

                            ‘NO’ STATE VISIT PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP SAYS PARLIAMENT'S WESTMINSTER HALL

                            ‘No’ State Visit President Donald Trump Says Parliament’s Westminster Hall

                            Following hours of debate in Parliament’s Westminster Hall the debate has been completed. There was overwhelming support for a ‘No’ to a State Visit for President Donald Trump to the UK.

                            ‘No’ State Visit President Donald Trump Says Parliament's Westminster Hall

                            ‘No’ State Visit President Donald Trump Says Parliament’s Westminster Hall – Donald Trump—Gage Skidmore (Flickr.com)

                            ‘No’ State Visit for President Donald Trump Says Parliament’s Westminster Hall

                            There is website setup specifically highlighting the fact that there were close to almost 2 million signatures urging Parliament debate the question of whether the US President should be afforded the honour of a State Visit to the UK.

                            Moments ago, in the House of Commons following the discussion or debate of a petition to stop the state visit of Donald Trump to Britain. Many MPs are in favour of there being no state visit, though do not oppose the US president visiting. Signed by over 1.8 million people, despite which Theresa May was refusing to revisit the question of the State Visit – ‘saying she is looking forward to welcoming the US President to Britain’.

                            ‘No’ State Visit for President Donald Trump Says Parliament’s Westminster Hall

                            It was a remarkable debate in which many members of Parliament wanted to participate. The UK is in the position of being a global leader, a defender of human rights, the rights of women, minorities and upholding the rule of law. It should come as no surprise to many who were continually supportive of the government position that a State Visit is not in the UK national interest were reminded of the concerns with Trump’s ties to Russia.

                            What does no state visit for President Donald Trump actually mean? No state visit for President Donald Trump actually means that we as the British people do not bestow one of our highest honours on a foreign state leader. Let us not forget that the Queen is also the head of state in Canada, where one governement through Justin Trudeau is clear. Clear on the stance against the politics of division. However the British government is seeking to befriend the President of the US in what it hopes will be beneficial for Britain post Brexit. Many, disagree.

                            Whether Theresa May’s government continues with a state visit despite all the vocal and vociferous oposition, time will tell. In short, Britain’s national interest is better served if it does truly listen to the will of the people, particularly when people are proactively voicing their concerns over the politics of divide and rule. We must stand for the rights of every individual in society if we are to make Britain Great again.

                              Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                              Brexit UK Supreme Court Decision Government Loses Challenge

                              BREXIT UK SUPREME COURT DECISION: GOVERNMENT LOSES CHALLENGE

                              Brexit UK Supreme Court Decision: Government Loses Challenge

                              The Brexit UK Supreme Court decision has been delivered this morning and the government has lost its challenge. This comes as a defeat to the government by a majority of 8 to 3 Lady / Lord Justices who have just moments ago, dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal.

                              The Brexit UK Supreme Court decision has been delivered this morning and the government has lost its challenge. This comes as a defeat to the government by a majority of 8 to 3 Lady / Lord Justices who have just moments ago, dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal.

                              The Brexit UK Supreme Court decision has been delivered this morning and the government has lost its challenge. This comes as a defeat to the government by a majority of 8 to 3 Lady / Lord Justices who have just moments ago, dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal.

                              Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption and Lord Hodge were in the majority. Whereas Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes dissented.

                              The result is a conclusive one in that in a joint judgment of the majority, the Supreme Court holds that an Act of Parliament is required to authorise ministers to give Notice of the decision of the UK to withdraw from the European Union. Each of the dissenting justices gives a separate judgment.

                              Brexit UK Supreme Court Decision: Press Summary

                              The press summary from the UKSC states that “Lord Reed, with whom Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes agree, considers that the effect which Parliament has given to EU law under the ECA is inherently conditional on the application of the EU treaties to the UK and therefore on the UK’s membership of the EU. The ECA does not impose any requirement or manifest any intention in respect of the UK’s membership of the EU. It does not therefore affect the Crown’s exercise of prerogative powers in respect of UK membership [177].

                              Lord Carnwath observes that service of notice under Article 50(2) will not itself change any laws or affect any rights but is merely the start of an essentially political process of negotiating and decision making within the framework of that article. The Government will be accountable to Parliament for those negotiations and the process cannot be completed without the enactment by Parliament of primary legislation in some form [259]”.

                              Brexit UK Supreme Court Decision: Judgment

                              For those who might be interested in reading the entire 97 page judgment is now available to view / download from here: 2017 UKSC 5 20170124 Brexit Case Full Judgment UK Supreme Court.

                               

                               

                               

                                Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                Global Financial Crisis: Moody’s Pay $864m Penalty

                                GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS

                                Business Blog Global Financial Crisis: Moody’s Pay $864m Penalty

                                Following its role in the run up to the 2008 global financial crisis, the credit rating agency Moody’s has agreed to pay nearly $864m to the US federal and state authorities concerning its ratings of risky mortgage bonds. According to allegations, the role played by Moody’s in the run-up to the global financial crisis of 2008 was to give a higher rating to mortgage securities than they were actually worth – which partly contributed to the crisis. Reported by the Guardian online today, Saturday 14 January 2017 Moody’s reached the deal with the justice department, 21 states and the District of Columbia, resolving allegations that the firm contributed to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, the department said in a statement.

                                Global financial crisis, Lack of money is the root of all evil George Berna…

                                Global financial crisis of 2008 resulted in banks being unwilling to lend each other money – Lack of money is the root of all evil George Berna…—Artist in doing nothing (Flickr.com)

                                 

                                Global Financial Crisis: Moody’s Failed Ratings Standards

                                “Moody’s failed to adhere to its own credit-rating standards and fell short on its pledge of transparency in the run-up to the ‘great recession’,” principal deputy associate attorney general Bill Baer said in the statement.

                                Global Financial Crisis Moody’s – Not the Only Show in Town

                                In the run up to the global financial crisis of 2008, Moody’s was not the only show in town so to speak, that had a role in rating securities. There was also Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC (S&P) an American financial services company. It is a division of S&P Global that publishes financial research and analysis on stocks, bonds and commodities.

                                Global Financial Crisis – Standard & Poor’s Settlement

                                S&P Global’s Standard & Poor’s entered into a similar accord in 2015 paying out $1.375bn. Standard and Poor’s is the world’s largest ratings firm, followed by Moody’s. Moody’s said it would pay a $437.5m penalty to the justice department, and the remaining $426.3m would be split among the states and Washington DC. As part of its settlement, Moody’s also agreed to measures designed to ensure the integrity of credit ratings going forward, including keeping analytic employees out of commercial-related discussions. The rating agency’s chief executive also must certify compliance with the measures for at least five years.

                                The Guardian article states – Moody’s said that it stands behind the integrity of its ratings and noted that the settlement contains no finding of a violation of law or admission of liability and that it already has implemented some of the compliance measures in the agreement. Moody’s settlement on Friday resolved the justice department probe without a federal lawsuit. In the Standard & Poor’s case, resolution was reached after the US filed a $5bn fraud suit.

                                Connecticut, whose attorney general helped lead negotiations, filed a lawsuit against Moody’s in 2010. Mississippi and South Carolina later sued, and other states had potential claims. Connecticut’s law suit claimed that Moody’s ratings were influenced by its desire for fees, despite claims of independence and objectivity. It also accused Moody’s of knowingly inflating ratings on toxic mortgage securities. Moody’s ratings were “directly influenced by the demands of the powerful investment banking clients who issued the securities and paid Moody’s to rate them,” Connecticut attorney general, George Jepsen, said in a statement on Friday. This article is modified from the article published in the Guardian.

                                Tahir Ashraf’s work on the global financial crisis in banking including articles on Islamic banking and Green Bonds can be read here. You can also contact barrister Tahir by clicking here or using the form below. 

                                  Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                  Joe Cox Murder Trial Sentencing Remarks by Judge

                                  In Memory of Joe Cox MP

                                  Joe Cox Murder Trial Sentencing Remarks by Judge

                                  This page is dedicated to the memory of Joe Cox MP who was murdered in cold blood by Thomas Mair days before the Brexit referendum campaign.

                                  Joe Cox Murder Trial Sentencing Remarks by Judge

                                  Joe Cox Murder Trial Sentencing Remarks by Judge

                                  Joe Cox was a mother a politician and much, much more, as can be read in the judge’s reflection in the remarks below. In publishing these remarks are provided for information only from the HM Courts and tribunals service website the source of this information. 

                                  Joe Cox Murder Trial Sentencing Remarks Below

                                  R ‐v‐ Thomas Mair Sentencing Remarks of Mr Justice Wilkie

                                  By the verdicts of the jury, Jo Cox was murdered by you on 16 June 2016 and you caused Bernard Kenny grievous bodily harm with intent to do so.

                                  Because of her position as a Member of Parliament, her death was both a personal tragedy and a crime with great public significance.

                                  To her family, friends and colleagues Jo Cox was a wonderful mother, daughter, sister, partner, and companion, her generosity of spirit evident in the selfless concern she had for others even when facing a violent death. Their loss, caused by your actions, is and will be, almost unbearable.

                                  But because she was a Member of Parliament, the reason you murdered her, your crime has an additional dimension which calls for particularly severe punishment.

                                  She was just 41. before being elected as an MP she had already demonstrated herself to be a credit to herself, her community, and her country in the work she performed for Oxfam and other organisations devoting herself to seeking to better the lot of those less fortunate than her.

                                  She had only recently embarked on her role as an MP but had already shown herself to be passionate, openhearted, inclusive and generous as well as highly effective.

                                  The tributes to her from across the political spectrum were spontaneous, sincere and fulsome.

                                  The fundamental importance to our democracy for Members of Parliament to be able to perform their duties and meet their constituents safely and fearlessly is reflected in the fact that no respectable political party contested the by‐election caused by her death.

                                  In the true meaning of the word she was a patriot.

                                  You affect to be a patriot. The words you uttered repeatedly when you killed her give lip service to that concept. Those sentiments can be legitimate and can have resonance but in your mouth, allied to your actions, they are tainted and made toxic.

                                  It is clear from your internet and other researches that your inspiration is not love of country or your fellow citizens, it is an admiration for Nazism, and similar anti democratic white supremacist creeds where democracy and political persuasion are supplanted by violence towards and intimidation of opponents and those who, in whatever ways, are thought to be different and, for that reason, open to persecution.

                                  Our parents’ generation made huge sacrifices to defeat those ideas and values in the Second World War. What you did, and your admiration for those views which informed your crime, betrays the sacrifices of that generation.

                                  You are no patriot. By your actions you have betrayed the quintessence of our country, its adherence to parliamentary democracy.

                                  You have not even had the courage to admit and acknowledge what you did. You have, instead, forced the prosecution to prove this case in detail, withholding your agreement to anything which would have lessened that task, thereby adding, I have no doubt deliberately, to the anguish of Jo Cox’s family and the witnesses to these awful events forced, as they have been, to relive them.

                                  By contrast your second victim on that day, Bernard Kenny, acted instinctively and courageously trying to save a person he saw being attacked and by so doing was seriously injured himself. The ongoing cost to him is evidence from his Victim Personal Statement. His actions on that day are deserving of the highest praise and commendation.

                                  As you know, the only sentence I can pass on you for murder is one of life imprisonment, and I do so.

                                  I also have to consider whether to fix a minimum term or, by not doing so, to impose a whole life sentence which would mean that you would, in all likelihood, die in prison.

                                  I have to consider schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. There is no doubt that this murder was done for the purpose of advancing a political, racial and ideological cause namely that of violent white supremacism and exclusive nationalism most associated with Nazism and its modern forms. That is one of the indices of an offence of exceptionally high seriousness for which the appropriate starting point is a whole life term.

                                  This was a brutal, ruthless example of such a murder committed with determination and persistence. You armed yourself with a handgun and a vicious dagger designed to kill. You attacked Jo Cox repeatedly with both of them. You repelled an attempt by Mr Kenny to stop you in a similarly ruthless manner and, when it appeared, after your first assault, that Jo Cox might survive, you returned to inflict further fatal blows upon her. Your choice of weapons, a firearm and a knife places your offending even, without the political dimension, in categories having starting points of 30 and 25 years.

                                  In addition, as an aggravating feature, there was a substantial degree of premeditation and planning. You had, over a period of weeks, researched your intended victim, you had researched the firearm which was modified to become a hand gun. You made inquiries about its ability to inflict fatal injury and you sought instruction on how to use it in that modified form. You informed yourself about previous murders of civil rights workers and a past assassination of a serving MP.

                                  You contemplated the aftermath, researching lying in state arrangements. You even researched matricide knowing that Jo Cox was the mother of young children. You planned your escape from the scene by adopting a form of disguise to put off those searching for you and, in the course of your escape, you reloaded the firearm ready for any eventuality. Finally, as the jury has decided, you fully intended to kill Jo Cox.

                                  You are aged 53 and have no previous convictions both of which I must take into account. I must consider whether the seriousness of this offence, though categorised as exceptionally high, in fact requires a whole life sentence or whether I should fix a minimum term which would hold out the possibility of release on licence when you are very old to permit you to die in the community.

                                  I have considered this anxiously but have concluded that this offence, as I have described it, is of such a high level of exceptional seriousness that it can only properly be marked by a whole life sentence. That is the sentence which I pass.

                                  You will, therefore, only be released, if ever, by the Secretary of State exercising executive clemency on humanitarian grounds to permit you to die at home. Whether or not that occurs will be a matter for the holder of that office at the time.

                                  On count 2: that offence is inextricably linked with the count of murder and, on grounds of its exceptional seriousness, I pass the same sentence, life imprisonment and I make a minimum term order of 15 years less time on remand being one half of 30 years.

                                  On count 3: that offence was committed in order to facilitate the commission of the murder of Jo Cox. Within the guidelines, it is of high harm and high culpability and the circumstances take it above the sentencing bracket. The sentence is one of 20 years imprisonment concurrent.

                                  On count 4: the maximum sentence for this offence is 4 years imprisonment and I pass that sentence to run concurrently with the other sentences.

                                  The Hon Mr Justice Wilkie 23 November 2016

                                    Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                    Business Law Barrister Tahir Ashraf Wins Lawyer Monthly Legal Awards 2016

                                    Tahir Ashraf High Court Barrister, Business Barrister London, Company Lawyer Manchester

                                    BUSINESS LAW BARRISTER TAHIR ASHRAF WINS LAWYER MONTHLY LEGAL AWARDS 2016

                                    Business Law Barrister Tahir Ashraf Wins Lawyer Monthly Legal Awards 2016

                                    Business Law Barrister Tahir Ashraf Wins Lawyer Monthly Legal Awards 2016

                                    Business Law Barrister Tahir Ashraf Wins Lawyer Monthly Legal Awards 2016

                                    Business Law News: As part of my news, I am delighted to announce that I have received more recognition this year, as a commercial barrister, than ever before, especially by winning the prestigious Lawyer Monthly Legal Awards 2016.

                                    “I am absolutely delighted to be named the Commerce And Business Barrister of the Year 2016 by the Lawyer Monthly”.

                                    BUSINESS LAW REVIEW – SOLICTORS AND LAY CLIENTS

                                    I specialise in working with solicitors and industry clients including SME companies, entrepreneurs, owner-managed businesses and those in the energy oil and gas sectors. In addition to work on some of the most cutting-edge technological-developments, particularly those harnessing hydrogen, I am developing an interest in aircraft related matters.

                                    In my legal advisory and commercial litigation practice I advise and represent in often complex multiparty cases. These are often of a national and international nature. The most recent case was a construction dispute. It concerned a contractor insolvency and professional negligence. The case also raised questions on the liability of independent contractors and vicarious liability of an employer. To make matters even more challenging there was also the question of standing on the part of my clients and first registration of land. The question of adverse possession also had to be visited. My involvement came when the case had become a long running dispute, on-going since September 2009.

                                    I was fortunate enough to have been specifically sought out by the Instructing Solicitors and the clients. My involvement led to a settlement, just before trial. Needless to say, to the satisfaction of my clients. This has led to my being the recipient of excellent business law reviews and of course, to winning legal industry awards.

                                    BRITISH BUSINESS LAW BARRISTER – GLOBAL REACH

                                    I am often instructed by solicitors, high net worth individuals and SME companies. I also advise on business and partnership disputes concerning musicians, singers and former band members. As a litigator, I take a pragmatic yet robust approach to arbitration, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and litigation. Alongside my commercial litigation work, advising on and drafting contracts has become second nature.

                                    BUSINESS LAW – PUBLIC SPEAKING

                                    Earlier in the year, I was also invited as an expert-public-speaker at the Royal Automobile Club in February 2016. The invitation was to deliver a speech to in-house-counsel, solicitors and barristers. In light of the VW emissions scandal, the focus of the speech was on transport vehicle emissions in the UK and Europe. I have also written articles on the role of bond finance and green bonds in tackling climate change through infrastructure investment for international cities. Recently, I have been instructed to intervene in the Brexit case in the UK Supreme Court. I am also instructed to appear in cases concerning state immunity and ‘commercial activity’ on British soil.

                                    BUSINESS LAW CHAMBERS – 5 CHANCERY LANE COMMERCIAL BARRISTERS – 5CL 

                                    As a dedicated business lawyer I have also founded the first set of commercial barristers Chambers on Chancery Lane in recent years, specifically dedicated to global commerce and business law matters.

                                    Contact:

                                    ta@5cl.co.uk   |   info@5cl.co.uk   |   http://www.5cl.co.uk

                                    Mobile: +44(0)7830 72 99 59 | National & Mobile Friendly: +44(0)3300 88 2005

                                    5 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1LJ United Kingdom

                                      Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                      Lawyer Monthly Legal Awards 2016 Confirm Tahir Ashraf as Finalist

                                      Lawyer Monthly Legal Awards 2016 Shortlists Tahir Ashraf as Finalist

                                      Lawyer Monthly Legal Awards 2016 Confirm Tahir Ashraf as Finalist

                                      Lawyer Monthly Legal Awards 2016 Shortlists Tahir Ashraf as Finalist

                                      Lawyer Monthly’s 2016 Legal Awards have confirmed their shortlist and commercial law practitioner Tahir Ashraf is selected as a finalist in the Commercial Law – UK category.

                                      Lawyer Monthly Legal Awards 2016 Confirm Tahir Ashraf as a finalist for its Commercial Law UK category award.

                                      As the deadline drew closer, Ashraf asked for votes. That followed the publication of a link on his twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook accounts around mid-August 2016.  He has received numerous online and offline messages of support from client and practitioners alike.

                                      Lawyer Monthly Shortlist Notification

                                      Ashraf has since then, received notification that he has successfully made the shortlist for the award. The email confirmed that Tahir Ashraf had been shortlisted for the commercial category.

                                      “Lawyer Monthly is pleased to inform you that your firm has been shortlisted for the Lawyer Monthly Legal Awards 2016 in the category of Commercial – UK.”

                                      “I received notification via a much-welcomed email of being shortlisted as a finalist for the 2016 Commercial Law UK category at the end of this wonderful August bank-holiday weekend” said Ashraf on learning of his becoming a finalist. 

                                      “I am thrilled to be shortlisted for such a prestigious and industry leading award. I must add that I am grateful to my clients, peers, friends and family particularly all those who voted for me” he continued.

                                      Lawyer Monthly, since its inception in 2009,has established a reputation as the leading legal-business publication by producing features of unparalleled quality. It currently boasts a reader base in excess of almost 180,000 (independently audited by the ABC)

                                      ABC (Audit Bureau of Circulations) – Lawyer Monthly Certificate

                                      Legal Awards Lawyer Monthly 2016- A Global Celebration of Excellence

                                      “Recognising achievement and success in the legal industry, Lawyer Monthly is pleased to unveil the finalists for its 2016 Legal Awards. The finalists are made up from a wide spectrum of practice areas across many jurisdictions. The Legal Awards are a global celebration of excellence in the profession across private practice, the public sector, commerce and industry, and the Bar.”

                                      Lawyer Monthly Selection As a Finalist – How have I been selected as a finalist?

                                      Over the last 3 months the Lawyer Monthly Legal Awards have accepted thousands of nominations across a number of practice areas. Their research and selection process has determined the finalists based on their widely published extensive criteria. This includes things such as the number of vote nominations, supporting material and evidence, activity in the last 12 months when compared to industry peers as well as previous accolades and entries within the international legal guides. The final round of selection will take place shortly to determine the winners for each category in each jurisdiction and we will be notifying all winners week commencing 5th September.

                                      For more information you can contact Tahir Ashraf here or by completing the form below.

                                        Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                        Brexit Boris Johnson Causes Greatest Constitutional Crisis Says Lord Heseltine

                                        Brexit Boris Johnson Causes Greatest Constitutional Crisis Says Lord Heseltine

                                        Brexit Boris Johnson has caused Lord Michael Heseltine to speak candidly about his views on Boris Johnson and the brexit EU referendum. In particular on the role that Boris Johnson has played to cause the “greatest constitutional crisis” of modern times.

                                        Brexit boris johnson, Brexit Panic

                                        Brexit boris johnson, Brexit Panic—frankieleon (Flickr.com)

                                        Brexit Boris Johnson The Nihilist

                                        Lord Heseltine, a former deputy prime minister and member of the Conservative party told the BBC in an interview that Boris Johnson has caused the greatest constitutional crisis in modern times.

                                        Referring to Boris Johnson’s role in the brexit campaign as that of an army general, who led his army to the sounds of guns and at the sight of the battlefield abandoned the field. This is a remarkably scathing and certainly not an unwarranted view.

                                        Here is a short snippet of his interview with the BBC: … “I think there will be a profound sense of dismay and frankly contempt. He’s ripped the party apart and created the greatest constitutional crisis of modern times. He’s knocked billions off the value of the Nation’s savings.

                                        He’s like a general that led is army to the sound of guns. And at the sight of the battlefield, abandoned the field, to the claims of his agitant, who said he wasn’t up to the job in the first place. I have never seen so contemptible and irresponsible a situation.

                                        When asked what he thought should happen next, he responded “This is a free society, there’s no question of punishment. He must live with the shame of what he’s done.”

                                        Brexit Boris Johnson Should Be Ashamed 

                                        Lord Heseltine, when asked whether he thought brexit Boris Johnson was ashamed he continued “I have no idea, I know he should be”. He referred to this situation by saying that the “fundamental issue is a simple one. This process which would not have happened without him, has now left a great gaping hole in the future of Britain’s decision makers.” 

                                        “Not just Britain’s decision makers but all over the world people thinking about investing in this country or [those] in this country thinking of investing as well, don’t know what the future holds.”

                                        “The priority now is for that question to be answered and quickly. We cannot just let this thing drift as everybody makes speeches and pontificates. The decision making until it is restored will cost us jobs and investment and is at the heart of our future prosperity”.

                                        Lord Heseltine continued to talk of the conservative party, and called for the uncertainty to be brought an end. “The prime responsibility now is to end the uncertainty that is now like a dark cloud hanging over the Investment world”.

                                        Of course Brexit Boris knows that he didin’t really want for the brexit campaign to win. Not least because of the real likely financial losses that have been suffered post brexit referedum. consequences that have since transpired.  Perhaps the question ought to be whether or not this.

                                        To listen to the BBC radio clip on brexit Boris Johnson click here.

                                          Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                          Green Bonds: Bond, Green Bond: A Licence to Tackle Climate Change

                                           

                                          Green Bonds and Climate Change “Bond, Green Bond: A Licence to Tackle Climate Change”

                                          I am delighted to have been commissioned to write on green bonds topic, in this age of climate-consciousness, by the Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial law (JIBFL), which was published in April 2016.

                                          Green Bonds and Climate Change Bond Green Bond_A Licence to Tackle Climate Change by barrister Tahir Ashraf

                                          Green Bonds A snapshopt of the article as it is published by the esteemed Butterworths Journal of International banking and Financial Law on Climate | Bond Green Bond: A Licence to Tackle Climate Change – by barrister Tahir Ashraf (2016).

                                          This article follows my article in September 2015 on the banking regulation and bail-in following the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive available here.

                                          In the article I put forward the proposition that climate bonds could help raise the much needed finance to tackle climate change. I also discuss the concept of the shades of green. Green climate bonds have various shades of and I hope that in the article I do explain that in a way that is reader friendly.

                                          Green Bonds: The Three Shades

                                          As a result of the shades of green I also suggest that the green bond credentials are intentionally broad in scope to encourage a greener low carbon economy. The proceeds of green bonds could well be an issue, which can be prevented. Accordingly, I call on investors and issuers to take advantage of the Green Bond Principles and second opinion providers to prevent disputes and provide transparency of climate projects and climate benefits derived from the use of the green bond proceeds.

                                          It may sound as though I am doing a review of my own work. Though in my defence, that is of course, what a good writer should be able to do. Accordingly, as one would expect in an article of this size, the article offers a brief overview of green bonds and the use of proceeds from a green bond issuance. It does not analyse the various bond structures, but instead, provides an easy to follow narrative of the broad scope of projects that can benefit from categorisation under the umbrella of green bonds. It also highlights the importance of clarity, information sharing and transparency in a green bond issuance with a view to dispute prevention and better investor relations.

                                          I conclude by writing that …”Whilst “green” definitions are broad, green bonds can provide a realistic revenue stream for investors and a much needed cash injection towards a better, greener future”. The full text of the article can be found here.

                                            Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                            Some Reasons Why You should Vote Remain by A Straight talking Yorkshire Lawyer

                                            Some Reasons Why You should Vote Remain

                                            S. Zeb - Yorkshire - BPP Lawyer

                                            Remain EU

                                            The case for remain has another fellow lawyer who has made an impassioned expression of her views on Facebook.

                                            I can’t quite get my head around the fact that we very shortly may not be part of the #EU. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that the people of the UK make the correct decision and vote to #Remain. The EU has (if not been wholly responsible for), helped significantly in maintaining dialogue between European nations which undoubtedly has contributed to the 60 years of peace we have enjoyed. The EU has protected many #rights for workers (equal pay, safety at work, holiday pay, sick pay to name but a few), mothers, fathers, holiday makers, black people, brown people, LGBT people, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jews, Hindus to name a few protected by the anti-discrimination laws. This is not to say the UK gave people no rights prior to membership of the EU, but the EU has given UK citizens more comprehensive rights in many aspects of daily life and more quickly than the UK government would have as they were obliged to ratify legislation agreed on by members of the EU within certain timescales.

                                            What would the EU get out of giving us more rights and freedoms?

                                            What would the EU get out of giving us more rights and freedoms? A big fat nothing. The EU has no other agenda. It is not a country or political party pushing its own views, it is literally a safeguard for us, against the laws and regulations put in place by our politicians, which are not always in our best interests. It acts as a check and balance against the behaviour of our government and all European Union governments.  I love how the Leave campaign have tried to paint our politicians and our country in this fabulously fuzzy, nostalgic and slightly air-brushed light. We believe in the UK! We believe we can do it alone! We don’t need Brussels telling us what to do! We want our elected officials making the decisions! We trust the government we vote in to protect our rights! We don’t need EU for that. Your elected officials, the leaders of the three main political parties in the UK, are ALL telling you to vote remain. If you trust them, then follow their advice!

                                            Do not think for one second that leaving the EU will give you more rights or that the rights you have will be protected. Governments are notoriously slow and slippery when it comes to giving people what they are entitled to and are quick to take rights away where they can to make their work easier. Sure there may be a little less ‘red tape’, which is fine whilst things are running smoothly, but the second you have a dispute with your employer, you will wish all that red tape was there cushioning your fall.

                                            Remain EU Regulations

                                            Regulations are there for a reason – to protect us! With regards to #immigration, let’s get a few things clear here. Firstly, the freedom of movement allows us to move freely within the EU, for holidays, work, leisure etc without the need to apply for a visa. In just the same way, people from the EU are allowed to come here for holidays or for work etc. So, leaving the EU will not mean Johnny European cannot come over to the UK to work, but it will be harder for him. He may need to show that he has a job offer or apply for a visa or show certain savings. I am speculating here but just trying to illustrate the point. If jobs are unfilled by the UK workforce foreigners will still come over to the UK to do those jobs that we don’t want to.

                                            This is not foreigners taking your jobs but foreigners doing the jobs that keep this country going BECAUSE YOU CAN’T OR DON’T WANT TO. Secondly, as the Leave panel on the BBC debate stated, if we put a stop to free movement of workers within the EU, this would mean workers from other parts of the world (India, Thailand, Pakistan, Malaysia, Uganda for example) would have a better chance of getting a job and coming over to the UK. In fact a Leave panellist (Gisela I believe) stated that it was unfair that we currently discriminate against non-EU migrants and leaving the EU would allow more non-EU migrants to enter the UK which would be fairer! That’s right, leaving the EU will not mean a ban on immigration or even, lower levels of immigration, but perhaps higher levels of net migration of non-EU workers. More of those brown people that could easily be confused for a refugee/Muslim/asylum seeker/terrorist (they are one and the same anyway), I jest.

                                            I do realise that not all Leave supporters are racist or xenophobic but judging by some of the horrendous things I have read, many are. The rest of you are, unfortunately, simply misguided. Anyhow, back to immigration. Immigration for study or work purposes is different to migration for asylum and refugee status. The former is out of choice usually to better your standard of living. The latter is when you leave your country with little more than the clothes on your back and your ID documents (if they have not been destroyed by bombs in your war-torn homeland) to seek refuge/shelter/help within a safe country, for instance the UK or Canada or Spain or France (we are not the only ones that take in refugees)!

                                            Whether or not we are part of the EU, we have obligations under the Geneva Convention to take some people fleeing such persecution. Whether or not we are part of the EU, there will be people that come here to claim asylum and in some cases we will accept them as refugees. This has nothing to do with the free movement of people within the EU. Therefore it should have no bearing on your vote.

                                            Finally on the matter of immigration, #Turkey. Again this is blatant scaremongering on the part of Camp Leave. Turkey has to fulfil many, many, conditions before it is eligible for EU membership – which is not happening anytime soon. And, even if it were, we, the UK, have a veto. This means even if all the other EU member states vote in favour of Turkish accession to the EU, the UK can simply vote NO and prevent Turkey joining the EU, if we so choose. We have all the power in our hands with regards to Turkey joining the EU, whilst we Remain of course! So, to clarify, Turkey is not “set to join the EU”. That is simply BS.

                                            With regards to the economy, our jobs, our income, we all know (both Leave and Remain, all the experts in the field, even the bookies know), leaving the EU will create uncertainty in the economy, will lead to job losses and you will most likely have less money in your pocket. It is a humongous #gamble leaving the EU, and experts have also warned that it may lead to another credit crunch. This is not scare tactics, just facts. If you are happy to take a risk with yours and my livelihood because you think migrants are queueing up at the Channel to enter the UK, go ahead. Just be warned of the consequences of your actions.

                                            One final(ish) point I would like to make. People often talk about the unelected Eurocrats that make decisions in Brussels that affect us in the UK. Occasionally, the EU does pass legislation that each member state has to abide by. But the majority of our laws are made by our elected parliament then approved (or not) by a house of unelected Lords. I suppose those of you with a problem with the unelected Eurocrats have a problem with the unelected Lords too. Shall we abolish the House of Lords also?

                                            Following on from the last point, there has been much use of the phrase “taking back control”. Please be clear, you will have no more control over decisions made on your behalf if you vote Leave. The Tories, or the next elected government, will have more powers to pass THEIR legislations. They will not be giving Leave supporters any more control than they have now. They will simply use THEIR EXTRA CONTROL to further their own agendas. If you want control, every single one of you ought to use your vote today and in any future elections. It’s a bit rich for people who have never voted to say they want to take back control, they want to vote for their decision makers via a democratic process, unlike the European politicians who are unelected!

                                            Childish comments made by the Leave panel on the BBC Debate included assertions that none of us would know the names of the presidents of the EU. Well I didn’t know your name #GiselaStuart nor yours #AndreaLeadsom. Does that make your points any less valid or the job you do any less worthwhile? Most people will not know the names of the “elected officials” (who you seemed to put on a pedestal) that they voted in to the UK parliament. Again, this should not be the measure used to assess a person’s worth as a politician. These points made by Leave were clutching at straws as their arguments continued to fail them. The major world leaders are advising us to #Remain. The experts are advising us to #Remain. Business leaders are advising us to #Remain.

                                            All major parties in the UK are advising us to #Remain. Are you seriously more clever and wise, and able to forecast what will happen better than all of the aforementioned?? Please, please, reconsider your Leave vote and switch to #Remain. It is a massive, massive, decision and massive responsibility. Once we leave, we lose all our privileges including our vital veto. It will be a very long, difficult road back if we ever choose to return. If you are unsure, vote #Remain as the option is always there in the near future to leave if we want. There is no compulsion to stay if and when we no longer want to. But right now, the gamble is not at all worth it.

                                            #Voteremain #Remain #imin #IN #campaignremain #lovenotleave #useyourvote #themostimportantvoteofourlives #Peace. #REMAIN

                                              Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                              Time to Cancel Referendum on Brexit

                                              Stronger In Not Brexit

                                               

                                              Time to Cancel Referendum on Brexit

                                              Brexit: Is it time to cancel the Brexit referendum, following the recent debacles that have demonstrated that misinformation is the order of the day?

                                              Stronger In Not Brexit Argues Tahir Ashraf

                                              Stronger In Not Brexit Argues Tahir Ashraf

                                              During the last three weeks, the world has witnessed the death of the greatest boxer the world has ever known. He happened to be African American and chose his religion as Islam and made it known to the world. Contrary to the current bastardisation of the word Islam, Mohammad Ali championed Islam in every sense of the word. Mohammad Ali stood against the politics of fear perpetrated by the likes of Donald Trump.

                                              In 1966, two years after winning the heavyweight title, Ali refused to be conscripted into the U.S. military. He cited his Islamic religious beliefs and opposition to American involvement in the Vietnam War.

                                              Of course, that he was arrested, found guilty of draft evasion charges. Not to mention the fact that he was stripped of his boxing titles. Mohammad Ali successfully appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and had his convictions for failing overturned in 1971. In 1971, Mohammad Ali had not fought for almost four years and had felt that he had lost his peak period at the top of his game. Ali was undoubtedly a rightful conscientious objector to the war.

                                              Brexit and the Politics of Fear

                                              Mohammad Ali was also against the politics of fear that led to murder of MP Jo Cox. One might be forgiven for describing Jo’s murderer as a terrorist. The terrorist murderer, Thomas Mair, cited words to the effect of ‘Britain First’ when he murdered Jo Cox. Britain First, claims to be a political group whose ideology is: ‘to campaign primarily against immigration, multiculturalism and what it sees as the Islamisation of the United Kingdom’.

                                              Evidently the politics of fear have taken such a stronghold on the United Kingdom that, as Jo Cox’s husband put it, mainstream politicians are ‘clueless on migration debate’. Jo Cox, was pro multiculturalism. Jo Cox stood for and believed in human beings regardless of the colour of their skin.

                                              Nigel and the Hitler-esque Brexit Poster

                                              Despite it becoming apparent that Jo Cox’s murder was nothing short of a terrorist on British soil, fuelled by the politics of division and fear, Nigel Farage’s Brexit poster (which he has remarkably stood by), shows a scene of people of colour suggesting that coloured people are trying to get into the UK. Thankfully, social media has outed this neo-nazism and demonstrated that the poster mirrors Hitler’s campaign of fear and hatred against our Jewish brethren. That hatred led to WWII.

                                              Let us not forget WWII. Let us not forget that British lawyers assisted in drafting the 1951 Convention. It was then in 1998 that we enacted the Human Rights Act, which came into force a couple of years later. Let us not forget that the racist and nationalist colours of proponents of Leave are becoming clearer. Boris Johnson’s Brexit comment regarding President Obama’s Kenyan heritage at a time when President Obama stresses that Britain is stronger and better as a member of the EU, are nothing short of abhorrent racial attacks and slurs, the like of which fan the flames of ideologies based on false premises and misinformation.

                                              The Brexit Confusion

                                              One thing is certain. The brexit and immigration debate has provided the public a great deal of misinformation and highlighted that the politicians will manipulate information to tell a headline instead of presenting true facts.

                                              It has become clear that contrary to pro brexit campaign’s claim Britain in fact is a net beneficiary of EU funds. Despite that, the staunch brexiteers cling on to the illusion of power, as indeed did Pharoah before his drowning.

                                              Instead of feeding us as the public a brexit diet of confusion, followed by dessert laced with the politics of division, I call upon the political elites, to give think about all the positive contributions that the migrant community has made to the United Kingdom. I ask the question that, as unlikely as it may seem, is it time to cancel the referendum on Brexit?

                                                Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                                High Court Judge Peter Smith Crticised by CoA

                                                Court of Appeal Criticises High Court Judge Peter Smith

                                                Court of Appeal Criticises High Court Judge Peter Smith

                                                The Court of Appeal criticises High Court Judge Peter Smith claims an article by the Law Society gazette. The criticism is over a ‘disgraceful’ and ‘worrying’ letter the judge sent to Blackstone Chambers.

                                                High Court Judge Peter Smith - High Court Judge's Wig

                                                High Court Judge Peter Smith – High Court Judge’s Wig

                                                Published online on 16th June 2016, the article relates to the fact that although the CoA ruled there was no apparent bias, it granted the appeal in Harb v Aziz on three separate grounds. It did this because of what it considered to be shortcomings in the way the judge dealt some of the evidential issues.

                                                Last year,  High Court Judge Peter Smith, recused himself from a case against British Airways after he got into a dispute with the airline over lost luggage. He had been accused of apparent bias for sending a letter to Blackstone Chambers following an article by Lord Pannick QC criticising the judge’s conduct.

                                                High Court Judge Peter Smith – The Letter

                                                The Court of Appeal also heavily criticised Smith for his letter to Blackstone. The letter, to Anthony Peto QC, co-head of Blackstone, warned that Pannick’s article was ‘extremely damaging’ to the chambers within the Chancery Division. High Court Judge Peter Smith’s also said in his letter, it was obvious that the [Blackstone] chambers ‘takes but does not give’.

                                                The letter emerged in an appeal against a judgment by Smith in which he awarded Janan Harb, the alleged ‘secret wife’ of the late King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, £25m after accepting her claim that Prince Abdul Aziz, Fahd’s son, had agreed a huge payout.

                                                Master of the rolls Lord Dyson said it was a ‘shocking’ and ‘disgraceful’ letter to write. ‘It shows a deeply worrying and fundamental lack of understanding of the proper role of a judge. What makes it worse is that it comes on the heels of the baggage affair.’

                                                The Court of Appeal also said the comments made in Pannick’s article, which said that the reputation of the legal system was damaged by Smith’s behaviour in the BA case, was justified.

                                                CoA Regrets Need to Criticise High Court Judge Peter Smith

                                                Dyson said: ‘We greatly regret to have to criticise a judge [High Court Judge Peter Smith Crticised by CoA] in these strong terms, but our duty requires us to do so. Though it does not follow from the fact that he acted in this deplorable way that the allegation of bias must succeed.’

                                                The CoA said … a fair-minded observer would conclude, that there was a real possibility the judge was biased against all 100 members of Blackstone Chambers, at least for a short period. But it said that the fair-minded observer would not conclude that this would affect the judge’s determination of issues in a case where a party was represented by a member of Blackstone.

                                                The court ruled that it was ‘unrealistic’ to suggest that Smith was motivated by bias against the prince. Continuing that it was ‘fanciful’ to suggest that the judge would have made major changes to the assessment of the evidence as a reaction to the article. The article was published after he heard the evidence.

                                                In any event the court allowed the appeal on three separate grounds. Concluding that Smith had not dealt fully with the evidence or explained how he had reached his conclusions. It ordered that the case be tried before a different judge.

                                                  Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                                  Commercial Barrister Tahir Ashraf Leaves 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square Chambers

                                                  Contact Me Now

                                                    Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                                    COMMERCIAL BARRISTER TAHIR ASHRAF LEAVES 4-5 GRAY’S INN SQUARE CHAMBERS

                                                    Commercial Barrister Tahir Ashraf announces departure from 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square Chambers

                                                    Commercial Barrister Tahir Ashraf announces his departure from 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square Chambers to focus on his commercial practice. Ashraf a multi-award-winning purely business and commercial law barrister cited ‘commercial, economic and focus reasons’ behind his departure.

                                                    Commercial Barrister Tahir Ashraf announces departure from 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square Chambers

                                                    Commercial Barrister Tahir Ashraf announces departure from 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square Chambers

                                                     

                                                    “there is no substitute for hard work which has earnt me my reputation amongst solicitors and clients.”

                                                    When asked whether he regretted joining following the set’s collapse in 2012, business barrister Tahir Ashraf asserted that “the last 3 years have reinforced my commitment to my existing and new clients as a barrister dedicated to providing a solution orientated approach to the delivery of legal services”.

                                                    While other barristers have also left in the 6 months preceding Ashraf’s announcement he remains tight-lipped on the suggestion that his departure is pre-emptive of a collapse.

                                                    A Hard Working Commercial Barrister

                                                    “Experience has shown that there is no substitute for hard work which has earnt me my reputation amongst solicitors and clients. That reputation has meant that I have been fortunate enough to have won legal awards, from leading legal industry awards publishing bodies including best commercial barrister of the year 2015 and 2016”.

                                                    Ashraf recognised for his work in international banking and finance law became an Editorial Board Member of the LexisNexis’ Journal of international Banking and Financial Law, claims that “the reason for my move is to concentrate resources and energies on being able to provide the best service that has earned me my awards, to benefit my clients both existing and new”.

                                                    As a disputes and business barrister Ashraf first came to the public limelight as a barrister, through his commercial case against an overzealous local authority’s action against a local business over a café dispute in which he won a full award of costs in favour of his client.

                                                    Best known for his insolvency, commercial, hydrogen and contracts work Ashraf claims clients view him as an excellent choice barrister for discerning business clients because of his skills in negotiations, international dispute resolution as well as commercial litigation.

                                                    Tahir Ashraf will continue to sharpen the focus on arbitration, energy, oil and gas, insolvency as well as his commercial practice for national and international law matters and can appear in County Court and High Court matters involving interlocutory relief, contracts, as well as company law matters. Tahir will continue to provide an unrivalled service to clients based across the UK and the globe. He can be contacted here.

                                                    Contact Me Now

                                                      Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                                      27th Annual Motor Law Conference Invites Tahir Ashraf

                                                      27th Annual Motor Law Conference Invites Tahir Ashraf

                                                      I am delighted to be invited to speak at the 27th Annual Motor Law Conference on the subject of emissions legislation, in light of the VW emissions scandal

                                                      The motor law conference in its 27th year is to be held on the 25 February 2016 at The Royal Automobile Club, in Pall Mall, London.

                                                      I will be delighted to speak on a key area for discussion in this year’s motor law conference. My discussion will focus on emissions legislation. This is in light of the cheat devices and the legal fallout from the Dieselgate or what I term as emissiongate scandal.

                                                      the impact of legal protection of software on the right to repair; some important cases on consumer law; and aspects of the Consumer Rights Act of particular interest to the industry.

                                                      “The annual Motor Law Conference brings together industry leaders and delegates in discussion on all the current legal issues and provides an excellent opportunity for networking with industry colleagues. This year we are proud to include in the programme the Anthea Worsdall memorial lecture, which will be given by Prof Geoffrey Woodroffe, formerly Director of the Centre for Consumer and Commercial Law Research at Brunel University and author of Woodroffe and Lowe’s Consumer Law and Practice. He will talk about the Consumer Rights Act” as stated on the motor law website.

                                                      The team of expert speakers, under the “regular chairman, David Evans, will consider how the motor industry is adapting or should adapt to deal with the challenges presented. The conference again provided the ideal opportunity for delegates, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, to meet colleagues and join in the debate.” 

                                                      A booking form can be accessed from the motor law website by clicking here.

                                                        Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                                        International Banking Journal Appoints Business Barrister Tahir Ashraf to Editorial Board

                                                        International Banking Journal Appoints Tahir Ashraf as Editorial Board Member

                                                        It gives me great pleasure to announce that I have been appointed on to the Editorial Board of a prestigious global banking law journal. Part of the LexisNexis family the ‘Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law‘ (JIBFL) has published my appointment in the journals too. The appointment follows my small article on which was published in this prestigious Islamic Banking and the EU Bank recovery and Resolution Directive which came into force last year.

                                                        International Banking Law – An Evolving Landscape

                                                        Tahir Ashraf business barrister Appointed to Editorial Board of International Banking Law Journal

                                                        Tahir Ashraf business barrister Appointed to Editorial Board of International Banking Law Journal

                                                        I am thankful and grateful for the recognition that this appointment brings to my work in global banking matters. I will also be writing about other issues impacting upon international banking as well as commenting on developing areas. I had the pleasure of being expressly commissioned to write about a topic on international banking within the EU. The article is entitled ‘To bail-in or bail-out? That is the question: Islamic Investment Banking Bonds’. The LexisNexis webpage states that the international banking law journal is a highly regarded and authoritative journal providing practitioners with the very latest developments in banking and financial law internationally. It is of interest to all bankers and lawyers in private and corporate practice.’

                                                        International Banking – Solutions for Climate Change

                                                        I was recently invited as a public speaker at the 27th Annual Motor Law conference to deliver a talk to other commercial lawyers. The subject of my talk was Emissions Legislation: A Primer for Commercial Lawyers. As part of the talk I explored briefly the Toyota Green Bond and of course investor appetite for greener investments.

                                                        These are therefore undoubtedly exciting times. Like many 2016 international banking and finance is an area likely to see a substantial amount of growth. This is particularly noticeable by virtue of the growth investor interest within the climate change sector and green bonds.

                                                          Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                                          Climate Change London 2015

                                                          The Climate Change London Summit 2015 took up much my time last week. An event which brought together a group of the world’s leading judges, lawyers and legal academics in London. The Climate Change London Summit started on Thursday the 17th of September at the Supreme Court in London.

                                                          The Honourable Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah of Pakistan with Tahir Ashraf barrister at the Climate Change London Summit 2015

                                                          The Honourable Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah of Pakistan with Tahir Ashraf barrister at the Climate Change London Summit 2015

                                                          The most notable highlight for me was being informed … and meeting the Rt Hon. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah of the HIgh Court of Pakistan, who had Ordered the constitution of a Climate Change Commission in Pakistan.

                                                          Climate Change London Summit – King’s College, London

                                                          Hosted by the Dickson Poon School of Law at King’s College London, with the support of The UK Supreme Court, HM Government, the Journal of Environmental Law, the Asian Development Bank and the United Nations Environment Programme. The Climate Change London symposium welcomed over 25 eminent international jurists, legal practitioners and academics. It was particularly planned ahead of the UN climate change conference in Paris this December.

                                                          The Climate Change London Summit Aim

                                                          The aim of Climate Change London was to explore the extent to which courts are equipped to deal with the legal challenges presented by climate change and the potential changes needed for legal systems to resolve environmental and climate change related disputes.

                                                          Climate Change London conference organisers explain that: ‘Climate change is a disruptive problem, for our social, financial and legal systems, and will only become more so. The causes and impacts of climate change are many and they operate and are felt at every level, from the local to the international. The climate change treaty process seeks to address and help remedy some aspects of climate change, but it cannot be a comprehensive solution to the problem.’

                                                          The most notable highlight for me was being informed by Lord Carnwath at the Climate Change London event of the Order made by the Rt Hon. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah of the HIgh Court of Pakistan, Ordered the constitution of a Climate Change Commission, to expedite and to effectively implement the fundamental rights of the people. The Pakistan Climate Change Commission which is due to meet imminently at the beginning of October will also report to the Rt Hon. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah.

                                                          Congratulations to the Rt Hon Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and to Pakistan on the creation by judicial Order of Climate Change Commission, a world-leading judicial intervention on climate change which demonstrates to the world the role that the judiciary can play to deal with the global threat of climate change. 

                                                          It was an honour to meet some of the most notable among many other Climate Change London event attendees including the Rt Hon Lord Robert Carnwath (Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom); the Hon. Justice Brian J Preston, Chief Judge of the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, Australia; Justice Swatanter Kumar, Chairperson of the National Green Tribunal, India; Justice Antonio Benjamin, Justice of the National High Court of Brazil; Phillipe Sands QC; David D. Caron, Dean and Professor of Law at The Dickson Poon School of Law and Liz Fisher, Professor of Environmental Law, University of Oxford.

                                                          Congratulations to the Rt Hon Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and to Pakistan on the creation by judicial Order of Climate Change Commission, a world-leading judicial intervention on climate change which demonstrates to the world the role that the judiciary can play to deal with the global threat of climate change. 

                                                          For more information on the climate change challenge and air pollution Tahir can be contacted here.

                                                            Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                                            VW Emissions Scandal Automaker Admits Cheating Emission Tests

                                                            VW Emissions Scandal

                                                            German automaker Volkswagen Group also known as VW effectively admitted that it had been cheating on Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) tests. News of the VW emissions scandal could not have come at a better time from the perspective of the run up to the 21st Conference of the Parties ‘COP21’ where politicians from across the globe are due to gather in December 2015 to become known as the Paris agreement on climate change. 

                                                            VW Emissions Scandal Reports September 2015

                                                            The news reports of the VW cheat device software came to light in September 2015. Bloomberg Business published an article “Volkswagen Admits to Cheating on U.S. Emissions Tests” which highlighted that the VW Emissions Scandal came to light as a result of the curiosity of a clean air group. It is referred to as a scandal because VW has admitted that it intentionally programmed software into vehicles, in particular, with diesel engines, to activate emissions controls specifically and one might say, only, during emissions testing in a laboratory environment.

                                                            The Impact of the VW Emissions Scandal on Human Health and Climate Change

                                                            As a consequence the impact of the VW emissions scandal is such that national and international rules concerning clean air pollution and emission standards have been wilfully breached. There are serious implications concerning the impact this has had on end users of these vehicles. Whether VW ought to prepare compensation by way of refund or simply ‘repair’ the affected vehicles not just in America where it was discovered but also in the UK. Many people had bought VW vehicles considering them to be ‘greener’ and ‘cleaner’ than other vehicles. One of the most pertinent questions must be concerning the impact the cheat device may have had on human health and global climate change. Surely alternative fuels such as hydrogen can provide the answer today to a cleaner, greener, sustainable world, today.

                                                            The video below also shows the Congress hearing concerning the VW emissions scandal. Questions include those surrounding vehicle performance, fuel economy, as well as the emitting emissions upto 40% higher in cars affected than those advertised.

                                                             

                                                            The focus of Tahir’s recent practice is also on transport emissions and air pollution. Tahir can be contacted for advice on the VW Emissions Scandal here or fill out the form below with your contact details.

                                                             

                                                              Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                                              To Bail in or Bail out? That is the Question In Investment Banking

                                                              To Bail in or Bail out? That is the Question In Investment Banking

                                                              To Bail in or Bail out – That is the question that I addressed after being commissioned to write an advisory article on investment banking and the EU Bank Resolution and Recovery Directive. The focus of the article was on Islamic Banking and more specifically Islamic banks in the UK.

                                                              Journal of International Banking and Financial Law cover Islamic Investment Banking Bonds Bail in or bail Article by Tahir Ashraf banking barrister

                                                              Journal of International Banking and Financial Law cover Islamic Investment Banking Bonds Bail in or Bail Out Article by Tahir Ashraf banking barrister

                                                              The Bail In Article Issues

                                                              The article addressing the bail in question published on 4th September 2015 by the Butterworths Journal of International Banking Law (JIBFL) offers a brief overview of the issues faced by sukuk investors and Islamic banks concerning Sharia compliance in light of the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive. It does not analyse the various sukuk structures, but instead, provides an easy to follow overview to highlight the definition of Islamic bonds followed by the underlying defining principles to which regard must be had for the bonds to be ethical and compliant with Sharia.

                                                              Bail Out – Pre Bail In Rules

                                                              The articles talks of how banks such as Northern Rock and Lloyds plc have in the global financial crisis been bailed out. Bail-out in essence is a capital injection of taxpayer funds from the Treasury. The twist of the BRRD is that as a matter of English and EU law, an Islamic bank with a UK base is subject to the “bail-in” provisions of the BRRD, as opposed to the previous position of a bail-out. After this the article addresses the powers granted to the regulatory body, namely the Bank of England and how in practice some of these powers might be exercised.

                                                              Bail in

                                                              The bail-in mechanism empowers the Bank of England (BoE as the relevant resolution authority) to intervene and write down the Islamic bank’s liabilities converting funds from existing creditors to prevent failure.

                                                              The BoE is able to exercise its power to “resolve” a bank that has failed or is likely to fail and is not reasonably likely to be able to recover and no other action will be taken to prevent the bank from failing. In practical terms a key objective of the BRRD is to prevent a “too big to fail” scenario.

                                                              I also pose the question of whether there is too much power in the hands of the BoE. That said, when viewed from the perspective of insolvency, investors are likely to be better off than in the event of a default leading to liquidation. However, only time will tell whether the exercise of the power to resolve is used in a capricious and arbitrary manner. Whilst in theory the application of the BRRD into contracts seems like a great plan for conventional bond issuances, the position must also be considered for Islamic bond holders from the perspective of the underlying defining principles.

                                                              The link to To bail-in or bail-out Islamic Investment Banking Bonds. Tahir can be contacted for Banking compliance regulatory and other matters here.

                                                                Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                                                International Banking Law Journal Commissions Tahir Ashraf

                                                                International Banking Law Journal Commissions Tahir Ashraf

                                                                International Banking Law Journal commissions Tahir Ashraf

                                                                banking barrister investment banking and climate bonds barrister

                                                                Tahir Ashraf is an investment banking barrister and also dual qualified as a solicitor. Tahir has a particular interest in climate bonds capital markets and corporate governance – Contact Tahir direct

                                                                Tahir Ashraf is commissioned by the Journal of International Banking and Financial Law – JIBFL to write on the difficult subject of bank recovery resolution directive in correlation with Islamic banking and finance. (more…)

                                                                Memorandum of Understanding MOUs – to use or not to use that is the question!

                                                                MOU which is short acronym for Memoranda / Memorandum of understanding are somewhat of an anomaly. This is because they are often used in private and international law. In the UK many government departments have a tendency to use them when they want to capitalise on and create some publicity for working together.

                                                                MOUs – What’s All The Fuss?

                                                                Without turning this short article into a law lecture on the nuances of enforceability of contracts and intentions, the MOU is usually nothing more than an expression of the intention of the parties.

                                                                MOUs – Change of Intentions or Subject to Contract

                                                                The problem as I have seen all too often is that when things have gone horribly wrong because the MOU has been intended to serve as a contract, it fails to deliver. It fails to deliver because it is too general in many aspects that it covers.

                                                                Governor O'Malley signs MOU agreement with Cork Ir…

                                                                Governor O’Malley signs MOU agreement with Cork Ir…—MDGovpics (Flickr.com)

                                                                MOUs – When To Use The MOUs

                                                                If and only if, the MOU must be created, for some pressing need, then I would recommend the use of the MOU tool in the document armoury to be deployed for use between government organisations and perhaps on rare occasions non-governmental organisations. MOUs are far more commonplace between international governments too. Other usage circumstances might include the mutual co-operation between governments to secure borders and or prevent illegal migration. Others still might also reasonably include where project finance is sought and there is the need for sovereign backing for the procurement of the same. One key feature though is that where there is an express intention intended by the government and reliance is placed on the same, there is the possibility for some form of liability to the party which may have procured to enter into a contract.

                                                                MOUs – The Contents

                                                                Because of all sorts of liability issues that generally can arise even in the simplest of scenarios between just two contracting parties, for me, the MOUs should fundamentally include headlines. It could sensibly be used as a sort of a checklist, a pre-cursor to a fully fledged agreement. What tends to happen is that the person drafting it does so after a conversation in a pub, so often the MOUs lack the sort of information that a good lawyer might wish to include.

                                                                MOUs – Prevention Is Better Than Cure

                                                                It is always advisable to consult a good lawyer to assist in the creation and oversight of the contractual documentation before a document is created, negotiated and subsequently finalised.

                                                                  Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                                                  Tahir Ashraf in Court of Appeal on UK / EU Law State Immunity Case

                                                                  Tahir Ashraf in Court of Appeal on UK / EU Law State Immunity  Case

                                                                  Tahir Ashraf barrister successfully represented the intervener 4A Law, in a ground-breaking Court of Appeal case concerning state immunity and public international law

                                                                  Court of Appeal Judgments

                                                                  42 years of state immunity practice in the UK are changed in Court of Appeal judgments in Benkharbouche & Another v Sudan and Libya. The above case has significant ramifications for public international law. The State Immunity Act 1973 provisions have been set aside to give effect to EU law, and granting a declaration of incompatibility.

                                                                  The Court of Appeal for Ontario 1934 - Tahir Ashraf in Court of Appeal on UK / EU Law State Immunity Case

                                                                  The Court of Appeal for Ontario 1934—Law Society of Upper Canada Ar… (Flickr.com) Tahir Ashraf in Court of Appeal on UK / EU Law State Immunity Case

                                                                  The intervention raised novel submissions which were against to the position of the UK government, in particular, the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It was also contrary to the position of the State of Libya, and The Sudan.

                                                                  Court of Appeal judges Lord Justice Elias and the Master of the Rolls granted 4A Law permission to intervene were recognised for assisting the Court of Appeal in arriving at its decision.

                                                                  The arguments advanced on behalf of 4A Law at the Court of Appeal were that Sections 4(2)(b) and 16 1 (a) of the SIA could not be read in a manner so as to appear compliant with EU law. The SIA accordingly was incompatible with directly enforceable EU law. As a result, a claim could be made in the UK by an employee carrying out non-sovereign functions in circumstances where there is no rule of customary international law preventing such claims from being brought against a state.

                                                                  Under British legislation, namely, the European Communities Act 1972, sections 4 (2) (b) and 16 1 (a) of the State Immunity Act 1974 should be set aside to give effect to directly enforceable EU rights, taking into account, in particular, the direct effect of Article 47 of the EU Charter and Article 6 of the ECHR.

                                                                  The Court of Appeal judges Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls, Lady Justice Arden, and Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, held that the court is required to dis-apply the SIA to those parts of the claims which fall within the scope of EU law and granted a declaration of incompatibility.

                                                                    Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                                                    Insolvency Barristers London Advice for Solicitors and Businesses

                                                                    Insolvency Barristers London

                                                                    Commercial barrister Tahir Ashraf advises office holders Solicitors and private clients on insolvency law matters related business and property.

                                                                    Insolvency Barristers London Advising Solicitors, Office-holders and Busineses

                                                                    Insolvency barristers London – Tahir Ashraf is one of a number of Insolvency barristers in London. As a pre-dominantly London based commercial barrister Tahir advises office holders and often private clients on business and property related insolvency law matters.

                                                                    Insolvency Barristers London, Tahir Ashraf advises and assists in Private Examinations - Insolvency Practitioners

                                                                    Insolvency Barristers London, Tahir Ashraf advises and assists in Private Examinations – Insolvency Practitioners Interviews—David Davies (Flickr.com)

                                                                    Insolvency Barristers London – Litigation

                                                                    Many insolvency barristers in London and solicitors firms have a tendency to be unduly aggressive. Many solicitors all too often and far too quickly choose an aggressive approach over one that is designed to achieve a settlement at minimal cost to the insolvency in question. Considered by clients to be one of the best insolvency barristers in London probably because Tahir often advises that it is generally better to avoid insolvency litigation. Not least because litigation can be lengthy. Cases particularly those concerning land, can drag on in the courts for years before judgment and conclusion. Even then it can take longer for enforcement of the judgment which leads to additional costs.

                                                                    Often to it is far better to try to maximise recovery through some form of realistic and meaningful negotiations.

                                                                    This is especially important where there are leases giving rights to landlords to forfeit. Generally where a company goes into administration often landlords are not able to forfeit a lease, except for in certain circumstances. Where a landlord does choose to exercise a right of forfeiture in the event of an administration the court will take all circumstances into consideration.

                                                                    Insolvency Barristers London – Advice to Office Holders

                                                                    Managing relationships as well as an office-holder’s duties to the court and to creditors can often be a fine balancing act. In any event, as an insolvency practitioner, office-holders need to be very much alive to the possibility of personal liability.

                                                                    Insolvency Barristers London – Pre-litigation Negotiations

                                                                    Tahir Ashraf also trained at the Insolvency Service and works alongside other insolvency barristers London and either through insolvency barristers chambers or with individuals. Tahir advises on all aspects of insolvency and arising litigation. He can assist with pre-litigation negotiations as well commercial disputes. 

                                                                      Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                                                      Arbitration

                                                                      Arbitration

                                                                      Arbitration is an alternative way to solve a dispute without going to court. It is an alternative used instead of going to court. It is mainly used for business to business and commercial type disputes.  

                                                                       

                                                                      Settlement by Arbitration 383 2 BC

                                                                      Settlement by Arbitration 383 2 BC—Tilemahos Efthimiadis (Flickr.com)

                                                                      Arbitration – How does it work?

                                                                      Generally speaking when there is a dispute between two parties they refer the problem to a person known as an ‘Arbitrator’. An arbitrator makes the decision about the dispute. Instead of the decision being called a judgment, it is known as an ‘arbitration award’.

                                                                      International Arbitration

                                                                      Arbitration is also used by businesses and high net worth individuals in international disputes. This is mainly because details about the dispute are usually kept out of the general news available to the public.

                                                                      What are The Main Advantages?

                                                                      Before entering into an agreement to arbitrate, business should consider what the main advantages of arbitration are for them. One of the main advantages is privacy and confidentiality. Another advantage is that often it is faster and cheaper than litigation in court. It can often be flexible too.

                                                                      Is It Legally Binding?

                                                                      Often businesses wonder and ask is it binding? The answer is that if there an agreement in place between the parties which requires the parties to arbitrate a dispute, then arbitration is usually legally binding.

                                                                      The Privacy Factor

                                                                      Increasingly more and more businesses are turning towards this method of alternative dispute resolution instead of taking a dispute to court. Many businesses like the fact that the arbitration process is usually private and confidential. The very fact that it is private means that details about the dispute are not public. Often, a benefit is that parties or their representatives do not usually talk about the dispute to journalists.

                                                                      Can I Overturn or Appeal an Arbitration Award?

                                                                      Once an award is made it can be very difficult to overturn or appeal. There are very few circumstances in which an award can be overturned. Each individual case should inevitably be decided on its facts. Expert advice is almost always needed to try and overturn or appeal an arbitration award. Tahir Ashraf advises on all aspects of arbitration and can assist with pre-contract negotiations as well commercial disputes.

                                                                      Contact Me Now

                                                                        Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                                                        London Barristers

                                                                        London Barristers

                                                                        London Barristers

                                                                        This article is about London barristers. Most London barristers and those from other parts of the country work from ‘barristers chambers’. A chambers is a room or office or a number of rooms or offices, used by a barrister or a group of barristers. 

                                                                        London barristers, Lincoln's Inn

                                                                        London Barristers – Legal Profession Changes

                                                                        The legal profession has seen many changes since at the very least, the year 2007. More recent changes have been about access to justice. These changes include cuts in legal aid as well as rises in court fees. Legal aid cuts have not had a direct negative impact on the work of business barristers and solicitors in London or the rest of England and Wales. The cuts have however, directly and negatively impacted on the work of criminal law, family law and immigration law barrister and solicitors in London and the rest of England and Wales

                                                                        Other changes that the British justice system has seen include several rises in court fees. Because of these substantial court fee increases many claimants will find it difficult to gain access to justice. Unlike legal aid cuts, court substantial fee increases have had a direct and negative impact on access to justice. This is especially when it comes to insolvency, commercial and business disputes and disputes related to property.

                                                                        Barristers in England and Wales are renowned for being some of the best barristers in the world. However that reputation is no consolation for access to justice. That said, it is always helpful for a business or individual client to know that the case is being handled by one of the best business barristers.

                                                                        Business Person First – London Barrister Second

                                                                        Tahir describes himself as a business-man first and a barrister second. This is borne out of the ethos that only by understanding a client’s business can a good barrister truly provide commercial and pragmatic business advice. Tahir works with a number of solicitors and local in London and across England and Wales for services direct to the public, businesses and local authorities.

                                                                        Why use London Barrister – Tahir Ashraf?

                                                                        Tahir Ashraf is efficient and cost effective and advises on various business and individual disputes. Part of Tahir’s strategy includes avoiding disputes before they arise. Advisory work includes contract transactions involving international businesses and national companies.

                                                                        London Barrister Tahir Ashraf can also be contacted via his London barristers Chambers or directly from this website.

                                                                        Contact Me Now

                                                                          Please complete this form and we will get back to you as soon as possible

                                                                          Settlement Agreement Compromise Agreement Lawyers Ask is it The Same Thing?

                                                                          Settlement Agreement Compromise Agreement Lawyers Ask is it The Same Thing?

                                                                          SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

                                                                          Settlement or Compromise Agreement – The Same Thing?

                                                                          What is a settlement agreement or a compromise agreement? That is the question. That question arises because in July 2013 the name for what was termed a ‘compromise agreement’ changed.

                                                                          Service for Settlement agreement compromise agreement solicitors by a dual qualified solicitor and practising barrister www.tahirashraf.co.uk

                                                                          Settlement agreement solictors compromise agreement solicitors as well as businesses and individuals are provided contract drafting and advisory service by Tahir Ashraf a (dual qualified solicitor and) practising barrister.

                                                                          Service for

                                                                          (more…)