Chambers UK Bar 2025 listings
We are delighted to have 42 members and 10 departments ranked in the 2025 edition of Chambers UK Bar, an impressive increase from our...
Senior Clerk – Civil, Commercial & Employment Clerk
Assistant Senior Clerk
Civil Clerk
Civil Clerk
Civil Clerk
“Ghazan’s attention to detail is outstanding. He builds up a great rapport with clients, establishing trust and confidence.”
Legal 500, 2025 (Professional Disciplinary Law)
Strengths: “Ghazan has excellent client care and attention to detail, is reassuring to clients and is completely on top of issues and instructions. He never disappoints.”
Chambers UK Bar, 2025 (Employment )
‘Ghazan is bright, capable, excellent on his feet and in evolving situations, and clients appreciate him and inevitably recommend him to others. He is precise, commercial, provides robust advice, and he works effectively as a team with the client.’
Legal 500, 2025 (Employment)
Acknowledged by all major legal directories as a leading barrister, Ghazan has over 25 years’ experience in professional discipline, commercial law, employment law and a range of related fields.
He is described as an “astoundingly bright advocate,” a “fantastic strategist” (Legal 500), and “someone who had built a fine reputation as a committed barrister who fights to the bitter end for his clients” (Chambers UK Bar). He has been consistently ranked as one of UK’s leading barristers in every edition of the Legal 500 and Chambers UK Bar since 2007. Additionally he has been ranked as a leading barrister by “Who’s Who Legal.”
Ghazan specialises in Regulatory & Professional Discipline cases, Employment Law and Commercial Law. He is Head of the Regulatory Team at SJB and previously headed the Employment Team. He is regularly instructed on cases involving medical and dental professionals and is particularly sought for his expertise on MHPS based disputes as well as professional regulatory matters. He has a wealth of experience in representing medical, dental and other professionals before Employment Tribunals, the GMC, GDC, GPhC, HCPC, UKCP other and Fitness to Practise Committees of various disciplines.
Ghazan is widely considered to be the go-to barrister for complex employment and contractual disputes, particularly claims involving restrictive covenants, injunctions, bonus claims, whistleblowing and complex discrimination complaints. He regularly appears in the High Court, Employment Tribunals the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and the Court of Appeal. He is also often instructed on MHPS disciplinary hearings to represent members of the medical profession.
Ghazan also specialises in commercial law and is often instructed on multi-day trials of considerable value.
Ghazan is Head of the Professional Discipline team. He has considerable experience in representing medical, dental and other professionals before their regulatory barristers. He is ranked as a leading barrister in the field of Professional Discipline by the Legal 500 and is widely regarded as the go-to barrister on matters of professional discipline. Over the years he has represented hundreds of professionals in all kinds of regulatory hearings, including internal disciplinary hearings, appeals, restoration hearings, fitness to practice hearings, and interim order hearings.
A Kumar v Registration Appeals Committee of the GMC (2024): Represented the appellant doctor in a 2-day appeal against the decision to erase his name from the medical register based on allegations of dishonesty. Appeal involved complex arguments on the procedural requirements on a registrar’s decision to erase registration summarily.
GMC v Dr Mehat (2024): Successfully represented the Doctor in a 7-day MPTS hearing, on allegations of racial hostility. No finding of impairment.
GMC v Dr S Khan (2024): Successfully represented the Doctor in an 8-day MPTS hearing, on allegations of professional misconduct. No finding of impairment.
GDC v Dr K Shah (2024): Successfully represented a dentist on a 5-day hearing involving allegations of personal and professional misconduct.
GMC v Dr Shendy (2024): Successfully represented the Dr in 1 4-day MPTS hearing involving serious allegations of misconduct. No finding of impairment.
Wythenshawe NHS Trust v Dr AS (2024): Provided representation in a complex multi-day MHPS hearing, involving allegations against a senior consultant of personal and professional misconduct.
GMC v Dr A Choudhury (2024): Successfully represented the Doctor in a 14-day trial before the MPTS. The Doctor was accused of serious misconduct, including dishonesty. This case was covered in the Daily Mail.
Harminder Surdhar v GMC (2023): Represented the Doctor in an 8-day restoration hearing before the MPTS.
GMC v Dr Altemimi (2023): Represented the doctor in a 3-week trial before the MPTS, based on allegations of personal misconduct. Also, represented the same doctor in an internal disciplinary appeal, arising out of a flawed MHPS investigation.
GMC v Dr A Suri (2023): Successfully represented the doctor before the MPTS in a 2-week hearing. Successfully represented the doctor in relation to serious allegations of dishonesty and personal misconduct. No finding of impairment.
L Shimmin v Registration Appeals Committee of the GDC (2023): Successfully represented the practitioner in relation to an appeal to restore her name to the register.
GMC v Dr Oluwajobi (2022): Successfully represented the Doctor in a 10-day trial before the MPTS in relation to serious allegations of professional and personal misconduct. No finding of impairment.
GMC v Dr F.A: Successfully represented the doctor in a 3-week trial before the MPTS based on allegations of dishonesty. No finding of impairment. This case was covered in Lincolnshire Live.
GMC v Dr Biswas (2022): Represented the Doctor in a 19-day trial before the MPTS based on allegations of dishonesty and professional misconduct. Successfully challenged all allegations of dishonesty.
GMC v Dr Chiu (2022): Represented the Doctor in a 5-day MPTS hearing involving allegations of discrimination.
GMC v Dr Raza (2022): Successfully represented the Doctor in a 7-day hearing before the MPTS on allegations of personal misconduct.
GMC v Dr Okewole (2022): Represented Dr O on a complex trial involving allegations of dishonesty and impropriety. Trial lasted several weeks. Dr O was cleared of all allegations of dishonesty.
GMC v Dr Maarij (2021): Successfully represented the Doctor in a 5-day trial. No finding of impairment.
Dr Maged Shendy v Liverpool Women’s NHS Trust (2021): Ghazan represented the doctor in an internal appeal hearing following a finding of gross misconduct. Appeal lasted several days and involved complex arguments as to the differences between professional misconduct and incapability, the applicability of MHPS and lapses in procedure under the terms of MHPS.
UKCP v Saltiel (2021): Successfully represented the registrant before his disciplinary body.
Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v GMC and Dr Sharma: Represented the respondent in the First ever joint Appeal brought by the PSA against the decision of the MPTS on the grounds that the sanction of suspension was insufficient to protect the interests of the public. This was listed to be heard by a specially constituted Administrative Court comprised of Lady Justice Sharp and Dingemans J. The case settled on agreed terms following the lodging of skeleton arguments by all parties and was remitted for a further hearing to a differently constituted MPTS, which following a lengthy hearing, (again), chose not to erase Dr S’s name from the medical register.
GMC v Dr Hagroo: Successfully represented the doctor at a review hearing leading to his reinstatement on the medical register.
GMC v Dr Jhadav: Successfully represented Dr J in a complex sexual misconduct case involving multiple witnesses, including several expert witnesses. After lengthy cross-examination and detailed submissions, the Panel found for the Dr on each and every allegation
GMC v Dr Ashraf: Successfully represented Dr A in lengthy sexual misconduct case lasting some 2 weeks. The case involved multiple witnesses, multiple complainants, and was advanced by the GMC by a KC. After detailed cross examination of all the witnesses, the FTTP found that Dr A’s conduct was not sexually motivated and his fitness to practise was not impaired.
Dr Fazal v GMC (2014) [2014] EWCA Civ 2246: Represented the Appellant in an appeal against the decision of the GMC. The appeal assisted in clarifying the approach of the FTP to allegations of dishonesty.
Dr Raza v General Medical Council (2011) EWHC 790 (Admin): Successfully represented the Doctor in a High Court appeal against the decision of the MPTS. The case involved allegations of serious professional misconduct.
Dr Abdul Baten Jalal Ahmad v GMC (2001) UKPC 49; (2002) 66 BMLR 52: Represented the appellant doctor before the privy Council.
Additionally Ghazan has successfully represented numerous doctors at IOP hearings and review hearings.
Ghazan is an Employment Law specialist and the former Head of the Employment Department. He is widely recognised as a leading practitioner in the field of employment law, having been ranked as a top tier barrister for almost two decades by the Legal 500 and Chambers UK Bar.
He acts for claimants and respondents in complex and high value litigation involving discrimination, whistleblowing, equal pay, cross-border jurisdictional issues, TUPE, commercial agents, and disputes involving partners and LLP members. He advises parties in cases brought in the employment tribunal, the High Court and also in domestic disciplinary settings. He also has particular expertise in contractual claims arising from employment and similar relationships, notably bonus claims, claims to enforce restrictive covenants and obligations of confidentiality.
Ghazan regularly appears in employment tribunals, the Employment Appeals Tribunal and carries out a substantial 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 and whistleblowing based complaints.
He has particular expertise in conducting disciplinary, whistleblowing and grievance investigations at the highest levels of organisations ranging from global law firms to leading educational institutions and is often engaged to represent medical professionals in MHPS hearings. He advises and represents those who are involved in such processes, or who face disciplinary proceedings by regulatory bodies, including medical doctors, dentists, pharmacists, solicitors, academics, sportspeople and those in regulated financial institutions. He lectures regularly on all aspects of employment law, particularly on matters pertaining to the medical profession and the requirements of MHPS.
Ghazan has been involved in several leading cases on the impact of MHPS and regularly lectures on the topic.
Physician Associates (2024): Ghazan has recently been instructed to advise and represent a number of physician associates in a proposed class action following the implementation of the BMA’s revised scope of practice criteria, restricting the ambit of the role of physician associates in GP settings.
Wythenshawe NHS Trust v Dr AS (2024): provided representation in a complex multi-day MHPS hearing, involving allegations against a senior consultant of personal and professional misconduct.
Radhika Srinivasaprasadh v Damira (2024): successfully represented the Respondent dental practice at a PHR on jurisdictional issues, in relation to a substantial claim for unlawful deductions arising out of a claw back provision under the Dental Associate Agreement.
Staffordshire County Council v Lowers (2024) EAT 110: represented the appellant in a 2-day appeal before the EAT, leading David Jones of Counsel. Appeal involved complex issues as to the appropriate criteria for striking out a Response.
Mallon v Carbon 60 (2024). successfully represented the Respondent in a multi-day hearing involving allegations of disability discrimination.
Dr Shyam Kumar v Care Quality Commission (2022)
Successfully represented the Claimant (a senior doctor) in a 2-week employment tribunal, based on awhistleblowing complaint against the CQC. The complaint arose from a series of serious protected disclosures made by the doctor. He was detrimentally treated as a result. Claim was successful leading to a finding of victimisation by the CQC. This case had coverage in the BBC and The Times.
L Towu v Whitfield School (2022): Successfully represented the Respondent in a 11-day trial involving allegations of discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal.
Dr Maged Shendy v Liverpool Women’s NHS Trust (2021): Represented the doctor in an internal appeal hearing following a finding of gross misconduct. Appeal lasted several days and involved complex arguments as to the differences between professional misconduct and incapability, the applicability of MHPS and lapses in procedure under the terms of MHPS.
Queen Elizabeth Hospital v Altemimi (2022): Successfully represented the doctor in a MHPS appeal arising out of a finding of serious misconduct. Ghazan identified numerous MHPS breaches to demonstrate that the original decision was flawed.
Curtis & Thomas v Cluttons LLP (2021): Successfully represented the Claimants on claims of unlawful deduction from wages and constructive dismissal, following unilateral pay reductions during the pandemic.
TP Icap & Tullet Prebon v GMG (Dubai) Ltd v Olayanju (2021): Represented the Defendants in the High Court in Dubai (DIFC). Represented the 2nd Defendant on allegations of breaching restrictive covenants and the 1st Defendant on allegations of procuring the said breach. Complex case involving allegations of race discrimination, repudiatory breaches of contract and the circumstances in which an employer can be liable for procuring a breach of covenants. The claim involved jurisdictional issues and a thorough understanding of the law and procedure applicable to discrimination claims in Dubai. This case was covered in The Guardian.
David Allen v Craig Pollock and Dodd & Co (2020 EWCA Civ 258): Successfully represented Dodd & Co in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to a claim brought by the claimant for breaches of restrictive covenants by an employee (Pollock) and an allegation that Dodd & Co knowingly induced that breach. This is now the leading case on the issue of when and in what circumstances an employer might be liable for inducing a breach of contract where it receives legal advice on the merits of the covenants. This case received coverage in Accountancy Daily.
D Fenton v Pennine Trust: Successfully represented the Claimant in a 4-week tribunal hearing, involving complex allegations of whistleblowing victimisation, sex discrimination and unfair dismissal, leading to a substantial award.
Lawal v Kent Community Health NHS Foundation Trust (2017): Represented the appellant in an Appeal to the EAT in respect of the decision to strike out the Claimant’s case for non-payment of Tribunal Fees. First ever appeal on this issue following the Supreme Court Decision in the case of R (on the Application of Unison) v Lord Chancellor (2017) UKSC 51, which ruled that the Fees Order is unlawful. The Claimant was granted permission to appeal following a rule 3(10) hearing, on the grounds the decision to impose a requirement to pay a fee was unlawful and accordingly the decision to strike out the case was consequently unlawful.
Dr C v Pennine Trust: Successfully represented a senior Doctor in a 3-week tribunal hearing, involving complex allegations of whistleblowing victimisation, breach of contract, discrimination and unfair dismissal, resulting in substantial compensation.
Dr Allaun v Fred Olson Cruise Lines Limited: Represented the appellant on an appeal arising out the Tribunal’s territorial jurisdiction in respect of a UK based medical professional working part-time on a foreign cruise ship based on foreign waters, for a foreign employer.
Moty Cristal v Manchester Mental Health Trust: 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 KC. The claim involved allegations of direct and indirect race discrimination, breach of the Human Rights Act and breach of contract.
Dr Hussain and 8 others v (1) GMC (2) RCGP & (3) Health Education England: Represented the Claimants (medical doctors) in a class action 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.
Harry Pearson-Young v Bolton University: 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: Successfully represented the Respondent firm of solicitors in a two-week trial involving allegations of automatic unfair dismissal and sex discrimination.
Dr Deman v Commission for Equality and Human Rights (2011) C.P Rep.12 (Court of Appeal); (2010) EWCA Civ 1279; [2010] All ER (D) 168 (Nov): Led by J Hendy KC. Appeal from the County Court, leapfrogged directly to the court of appeal on two important legal issues: firstly the proper construction of s.67(4) of the Race Relations Act 1976 in the context of a county court dispute involving allegations of race discrimination (ie whether a civil judge is required to sit with law assessors in all hearings involving allegations of discrimination): secondly, consideration of the requirements imposed by the CPR in terms of pleading a complaint of discrimination in a civil court.
Dr Hameed v Central Manchester And Manchester Children’s University NHS Trust [2010] EWHC 2009 (QB): Led by David Berkley KC. 5-day High Court action. The Claim revolved around the applicability and effect of ‘MHPS’ on the Claimant’s contract of employment and the applicability of Article 6 in the context of a disciplinary hearing
BMA v Dr Chaudhary (2007) IRLR 800; (2007) 97 BMLR 15; (2007) LS Law Medical 554: Led by J Hendy KC. Multi-day Appeal in the Court of Appeal. Involved consideration of several issues arising out of the RRA 1976, including the impact of s,57(3) on the issue of damages. The appeal involved several leading Counsel and is widely recognised as an important case in the field of discrimination law. The claim (and appeal) also involved consideration of the law relating to direct and indirect discrimination, victimisation, burden of proof in race discrimination complaints, comparators, and victimisation.
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 KC) 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, -on the distinction between a forced resignation and a dismissal.
Chaudhary v Royal College of Surgeons (2005) EWCA Civ 282: Represented the Appellant 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 and Dentists in internal disciplinary proceedings and appeals.
Ghazan has considerable experience in dealing with all kinds of civil and commercial disputes.
As an advocate Ghazan has considerable experience in the following types of cases:
Hagan v Mazen (2024): Ghazan is instructed to represent the Defendant in s substantial high court commercial fraud trial, listed for 5-days. Matter is ongoing.
Lloyds Bank v Click Solutions (2024): Represented the Respondents, before HHJ Halliwell, in relation to a High Court freezing injunction application, based on allegations of fraud. Matter is ongoing.
Manolete Partners v Parker (2024): Successfully represented the defendant in respect of a 7 figure claim pursued by the Claimant. The claim was struck out on procedural grounds due the defective service, following which the claim now stands time barred.
Abdul Kalam Azad v Liaqat Ali & Ali (2023): Represented the Claimant in a substantial 5-day trial before Recorder Berkley KC. Claim related to the beneficial ownership of a large residential property, arguments on constructive trust, estoppel and illegality.
Haniwell Investments v Sabha (2023): Successfully obtained a high court world-wide freezing injunction against the Defendant based on allegations of fraud.
I.E v AB Ltd (2023): Successfully obtained a high court injunction to prevent a former employee from disclosing confidential/sensitive information in relation to the employer. Following this defended the employer in ET proceedings and subsequently represented the employer, successfully, at a mediation.
Manolete v Dalal (2022) EWHC 1597 (Ch): Successfully represented the Defendants in an 8-figure claim brought by the Claimant based on alleged historic tax underpayments and breaches of fiduciary duties as directors leading to tracing claims. Trial lasted 5 days and involved complex issues including the scope of duties owed by the directors, the issue of whether the Defendants were shadow directors, and the scope of any tracing claim. Successfully represented the Defendants on all issues.
Dean Howard v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police (2019): Represented the Respondent in an application for judicial review of a decision taken by the Chief Constable in relation to a refusal of payment to the retiring officer of the financial value of his rest days accrued but not taken. The case turned on whether the applicant had a legitimate expectation that payment would be made, and the circumstances in which relief is obtainable.
TCOY v CNL (2020) Led by David Berkley KC. Represented the Defendants in a substantial partnership dispute, involving several counsel.
Akhtar v Afzal and anr Successfully represented the Claimant in a substantial two-week trial before HHJ Bird, involving allegations of commercial and property fraud. The case centred on the legal and beneficial ownership of a number of properties.
MDA v HMRC: Led by P Lasock KC. Judicial review involving a substantial claim for repayment of VAT.
Clydesdale Bank PLC v Faulkner: 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: 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: 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.
Ghazan was called to the Bar by the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple in 1997, achieving top marks in his Bar School exams (100% criminal law, and 90% civil law). He was awarded a number of scholarships, which include:
“Ghazan has an outstanding client manner and brilliant advocacy skills.” Chambers UK Bar 2024 (Employment)
“Ghazan is very good at cross-examination of witnesses and will see opportunities to make applications throughout proceedings where necessary.” Legal 500 2024 (Professional Disciplinary Law)
“Ghazan is a forthright and confident advocate. He manages expectations of clients and works as part of the solicitor client team, and he can also bring humour to the table, which can lighten a heavy case.” Legal 500 2024 (Employment)
Strengths: “Ghazan Mahmood is much appreciated by clients for his intelligence, commercial awareness, diligence, tenacity and impressive advocacy.” – Chambers UK Bar 2023
“Recommended Expert.” – Legal 500 2023 (Professional Disciplinary Law)
“Ghazan is great with clients, builds a rapport and explains complicated issues in a client friendly way.” – Legal 500 2023 (Employment)
“He is an able and experienced practitioner.” “He is a very good advocate and knows his stuff.” – Chambers UK Bar 2022
“Recommended Expert.” – Legal 500 2022 (Employment Law and Professional Disciplinary Law)
“He is a quality practitioner, with an excellent pedigree in race discrimination claims and work involving medical professionals.” Chambers UK Bar 2021
“An excellent advocate, tenacious, as committed to cases as the clients, clients are without exception always pleased to have had him on their side and grateful for his efforts, excellent on his feet.” – Legal 500 2021 (Employment)
“His strengths are his attention to detail and being able to find novel ways of resolving issues.” – Legal 500 2021 (Professional Disciplinary Law)
“He’s very empathetic, great with clients, robust and remarkable on his feet.” – Chambers UK Bar 2020
“Particularly experienced in discrimination cases.” – Legal 500 2020
“Very experienced.” “Technically excellent and thorough.” – Chambers & Partners 2019
“Very experienced in representing medical professionals in employment matters.” – Legal 500 2019
Strengths: “He is technically excellent, thorough and has a good manner with clients.” – Chambers & Partners 2018
“An employment law specialist.” – Legal 500 2017
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 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 John’s 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