“Acts for both respondents and claimants, specialising in regulatory work and discrimination law. He regularly appears in the Employment Tribunal and the EAT, often working on cases involving the medical profession.
Strengths: “Very quick and bright”. “He’s an excellent barrister who gives very commercial advice”. Chambers & Partners 2017
“A mixed claimant and respondent employment practitioner.” Legal 500 2016
Ghazan Mahmood read law at Brunel University and was called to the Bar by the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple in 1997. He received a number of scholarships and prizes including:
- Sweet and Maxwell Law Prize for “academic excellence” (1996)
- Duke of Edinburgh Scholarship (1996)
- Inner Temple Scholarship (1996)
- Leonard Sainer Legal Education Scholarship (by Titmus Sainer Dechert) (1997)
- Jardine Studentship (1997)
- Employment Law Association
- Former Head of the Employment Group (2009-2014)
- Sits as a Deputy District Judge (civil) on the North Eastern Circuit
- Part-time County Court Judge (DDJ Civil). Appointed in 2010
- Accredited for Direct Public Access instructions
- Ghazan is accredited to accept instructions in the DIFC (Dubai)
- Part-time Advocacy Tutor on the Bar Vocational Course at MMU (2001-2008)
- Part-time tutor in Contract law (Brunel University, 1997-1999).
Areas of Expertise
Employment law: both Claimant and Respondent.
Regulatory work: acting for medical/dental and other practitioners before their respective regulatory bodies, including the GMC, GDC and HCPC.
Commercial Law: including, sale of goods, supply of services, hire purchase, consumer credit, contractual, financial disputes of all kinds.
Legal Directory Recommendations
Ghazan is ranked as one of “UK’s leading barristers” and is included in Who’s Who Legal: UK Bar 2015: “St John’s Buildings’ Ghazan Mahmood is ‘rated very highly’ by his peers. Head of the employment practice group at the set, he is praised for his ‘admirable personality’ which makes him a ‘pleasure to work with’.”
He has been described by the Legal 500 as “an astoundingly bright advocate” (Legal 500 2012) and by Chambers & Partners as a barrister who is “very good at cross-examination and is highly thought of in the marketplace.” (Chambers & Partners 2015). He is also described as a “fantastic strategist” (Legal 500 2014), “impressive” and as someone who has “built a fine reputation …..as a committed barrister who will fight to the bitter end for his client.” (Chambers & Partners 2013).
“As head of the employment team, Ghazan Mahmood is typically instructed in high profile matters for clients in both the private and public sectors, including appearances at the Court of Appeal. He demonstrates a particular focus in discrimination claims, health sector claimant work and related regulatory issues.
Strengths: “He is exceptionally bright, articulate and has great interpersonal skills with professional and lay-clients.” “He’s been commended by judges and panel members, he’s knowledgeable and flexible and he takes account of any issue.”
Recent work: Instructed in Moty Cristal v Manchester Mental Health Trust, which concerned claims for both direct and indirect race discrimination as well as breaches of contract.” Chambers & Partners 2016
“Thoroughly prepared, whether in conference or at a hearing.” Legal 500 2015
“Ghazan Mahmood is best known for his work on discrimination claims….He is particularly noted for his representation of healthcare professionals in both internal disciplinary matters and GMC proceedings. He is a very realistic opponent…is very good at cross examination…and is highly thought of in the marketplace.” Chambers & Partners 2015
‘A fantastic strategist who thinks on his feet very well.’ Legal 500 2014
“Ghazan Mahmood has built a fine reputation amongst his peers as a committed barrister who will fight to the bitter end for his client. Another discrimination law specialist, he is head of the practice group at St John’s Buildings.” Chambers & Partners 2013 .
“Ghazan Mahmood is an astoundingly bright advocate” Legal 500 2012.
“Employment group Head, Ghazan Mahmood is impressive. He has proven himself particularly adept in race discrimination claims and recently appeared before the Court of Appeal in Deman v The Commission for Equality and Human Rights, a case concerning the proper construction of S 67(4) of the Race Relations Act 1976” Chambers & Partners 2012.
“Ghazan Mahmood impresses particularly in contractual disputes and discrimination claims. He has “an impressive grasp of the law” Chambers & Partners 2011.
“St Johns Buildings recommended Juniors include Ghazan Mahmood” Legal 500 (2010, 2011, 2012).
“Ghazan Mahmood has had a very successful year in and out of the Court of Appeal, representing unions and individual claimants in some widely reported cases, most notably Chaudhary v Secretary of State on issues arising from the Race Relations Act 1976.” Chambers & Partners 2010.
Ghazan is an Employment Law specialist. He has a particular interest in whistleblowing, TUPE and discrimination claims involving multiple parties, although he is experienced in all fields of employment law. Ghazan regularly appears in the employment tribunals, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and carries out an increasing amount of litigation in the High Court (particularly in the field of restrictive covenants and restraint of trade). His practice is evenly split between Claimant and Respondent work. He has appeared in the Court of Appeal on numerous occasions and has considerable experience of dealing with difficult discrimination based complaints.
Ghazan has considerable experience of representing medical professionals both at the Employment Tribunal and before their regulatory bodies. He has been involved in several leading cases on the impact of MHPS.
Ghazan is accredited by the Bar Council to undertake direct public access work and has advised and represented a significant number of clients on this basis.
Dr Bakir v Pennine Trust (2014): Ghazan represented the Claimant in a substantial two week trial involving allegations of discrimination, victimisation and whistleblowing detriments.
Dr Hussain and 8 others v (1) GMC (2) RCGP & (3) Health Education England (2014): Ghazan represented the Claimants at a multi-day PHR. The hearing revolved around the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to deal with discrimination based complaints brought by a number of GP trainees.
Challoner v Trafford Borough Council (2014): Ghazan defended the Respondent in this multi-day complex sexual orientation discrimination and harassment complaint.
Moty Cristal v Manchester Mental Health Trust (2013): Ghazan successfully defended the Manchester Mental Health Trust in a substantial, multi-day strike out hearing in the Central London County Court. Led by J Hendy QC. The claim involved allegations of direct and indirect race discrimination, breach of the Human Rights Act and breach of contract.
Maxine Campbell v Greater Manchester Probation Trust (2013): Ghazan successfully defended the Greater Manchester Probation Trust in a two-week trial in the Liverpool Employment Tribunal. The claim involved allegations of race discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Cook and Murphy v Trafford Borough Council (2013): Ghazan successfully defended Trafford Borough Council in a two-week trial, involving allegations of unfair dismissal and victimisation for alleged whistleblowing.
Greer v Trafford Borough Council (2013): Successfully defended Trafford Borough Council in a two-week trial, involving allegations of unfair dismissal and sex discrimination and alleged whistleblowing.
Harry Pearson-Young v Bolton University (2012): Ghazan represented the Claimant in a two-week trial. The claim involved allegations of age discrimination, unfair dismissal and victimisation for whistleblowing.
O’Brien v Ralli Solicitors (2012): Successfully represented the Respondent firm of solicitors in a two-week trial involving allegations of automatic unfair dismissal and sex discrimination.
Dr Cherian v Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust (2010): Ghazan successfully represented the Claimant in her complaint of victimisation and unfair dismissal, resulting in a six figure award.
Dr Deman v Commission for Equality and Human Rights (2011) C.P Rep.12 (Court of Appeal); (2010) EWCA Civ 1279;  All ER (D) 168 (Nov): Ghazan represented the Claimant in this complex County Court Claim. Led by J Hendy QC. Appeal from the County Court, leapfrogged directly to the court of appeal on a number of legal issues.
Dr Hameed v Central Manchester And Manchester Children’s University NHS Trust  EWHC 2009 (QB): Ghazan represented the Claimant in this five-day High Court action following the termination of the Claimant’s employment. The claim revolved around the applicability and affect of ‘MHPS’ on the Claimant’s contract of employment.
BMA v Chaudhary (2007) IRLR 800; (2007) 97 BMLR 15; (2007) LS Law Medical 554: (Led by J Hendy QC). Ghazan represented the Appellant in an Appeal which lasted 11 days in the Court of Appeal and involved consideration of several issues arising out of the RRA 1976, including the impact of s,57(3) on the issue of damages.
Chaudhary v Secretary of State (2007) EWCA Civ 789: Three-day appeal before the Court of Appeal (following a 10 day trial with G Millar QC) on several issues arising out of the RRA 1976 (including comparators, disparate impact, justification etc).
Sandhu v Jan De Rijk Transport Ltd (2007) IRLR 519 : (2007) ICR 1137: Represented the Respondent on an appeal before Court of Appeal: appeal on the distinction between a forced resignation and a dismissal.
Chaudhary v Secretary of State  EWCA Civ 1648: Represented the Appellant on an appeal concerning the admissibility of without prejudice material obtained in an action involving different parties.
Chaudhary v Royal College of Surgeons (2005) EWCA Civ 282: Represented the Appellant Appeal on the issue of the limits imposed by s.54(2) RRA 1976.
In addition to the above Ghazan has successfully represented a number of Doctors in internal disciplinary proceedings (based on allegations of misconduct or competence based hearings) and has represented Doctors at appeal hearings before ARCP Panels.
Ghazan has substantial experience of dealing with all of aspects of MHPS.Book BarristerBack to top
Ghazan is frequently instructed to defend professionals before the GMC, HCPC and GDC. He has represented numerous professionals over the years and has been involved in several of the leading cases on the affects of MHPS. He is also frequently instructed to defend Doctors in internal disciplinary hearings and appeals before an ARCP Panel.
GMC v Dr Hagroo (2014): Ghazan successfully represented the doctor at a review hearing leading to his reinstatement on the medical register.
GMC v Dr Bakir (2014): Ghazan defended the doctor on serious allegations of dishonesty and misconduct. The trial lasted two weeks.
GMC v Dr Ashraf (2014): Ghazan successfully defended the doctor on serious allegations of misconduct. The trial lasted two weeks.
Dr Fazal v GMC (2014) [Court of Appeal]: Ghazan recently represented the Appellant in an appeal against the decision of the GMC. The appeal is expected to modify/clarify the approach of the FTP to allegations of dishonesty.
GMC v Dr Banerjee (2013): Ghazan successfully represented the doctor in this three week hearing before the FTP.
HCPC v Rose (2012): Ghazan successfully represented a senior podiatrist on allegations of misconduct.
GMC v Dr Volckers (2012): Ghazan successfully represented a consultant dermatologist at four IOP hearings. The doctor was permitted to continue practising without conditions. Ghazan’s detailed written submissions eventually led to the GMC’s decision to cease its investigations/proceedings against the doctor.
Dr Raza v GMC (2011) EWHC 790 (Admin): Ghazan represented the doctor in an appeal to the High Court from a decision of the GMC. The appeal was allowed. Ghazan later successfully represented the same doctor in a subsequent hearing before the GMC.
GMC v Dr E.D (2010): Ghazan successful represented the doctor before the GMC. The doctor’s practise was found not to be impaired and he was permitted to continue unconditional practise.
Dr Abdul Baten Jalal Ahmad v GMC (2001) UKPC 49; (2002) 66 BMLR 52
Ghazan has also successfully represented numerous doctors at IOP hearings and review hearings.Book BarristerBack to top
Company and Commercial
Ghazan sits as a Deputy District Judge (Civil) on the North Eastern Circuit.
As an advocate Ghazan has considerable experience in the following types of cases:
• Sale and carriage of goods
• Commercial and construction disputes
• Warranty claims in business and share sales
• Commercial fraud
• Pre-emptive and restraining injunctions, including freezing injunctions, search orders, interim orders to enforce restrictive covenants etc
• Company and insolvency
• Disqualification of directors
• Professional indemnity
Akhtar v Afzal and anr (2013): Successfully represented the Claimant in a substantial two-week trial involving allegations of fraud. The case centred on the legal and beneficial ownership of a number of properties.
Clydesdale Bank PLC v Faulkner (2011): Substantial claim based on the terms of a written contract of guarantee. Ghazan defended Mr. Faulkner against the claim by the Bank, based on allegations of material non-disclosure and undue influence.
RBS Finance v Grindrod (2009): Substantial claim based on the terms of a contract of guarantee. Defence based on whether the guarantee was binding as a matter of law.
Additional arguments based on material non-disclosure:
Kenfil Construction Ltd v Caldwell (2005): Ghazan successfully represented the Claimant in this three-day High Court action before the VC of the County of Palatine of Lancaster. Claim for rectification of a written agreement, injunction and damages.
Bimal Kumar and anor v United Bank Ltd (2001) LTL 27/9/01: Led by D Berkley QC. Claim revolved around the duty of care owed by a bank in relation to the acceptance of bills of exchange.
Ghazan also has experience of dealing with VAT related claims. The following cases are of note:
MDA v HMRC (2007): Led by P Lasock QC. Judicial review involving a substantial claim for repayment of VAT.
Powell Thorne v Commissioners for Customs and Excise (2004): VAT tribunal. Claim for restoration of a vehicle.
Hanaan Ltd v Commissioners for Customs and Excise (2004): VAT tribunal. Successfully represented HMRC on a two-day appeal against a substantial VAT assessment.
Harding v Commissioners for Customs and Excise (2003): LTL 4.9.03. Claim for restoration of a vehicle.Book BarristerBack to top