Naina Patel KC

Naina acted for Anti-Slavery International in this case concerning the Secretary of State’s approach to the imposition of Public Order Disqualification decisions on a victims of trafficking and its compatibility with the Anti-Trafficking Convention. Significant parts of the Secretary of State’s Modern Slavery Act Guidance were found to be unlawful.

Naina acted for Anaesthetists United in this challenge to the General Medical Council’s failure to properly regulate physician associates and anaesthetist associates, resulting in risks to patient safety and a loss of trust in the profession.

Naina has acted or is acting in a number of judicial reviews brought by Afghans in relation to their eligibility to relocate to the UK pursuant to the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Programme. These follow previous cases she was involved in which challenged the UK Government’s policy of ceasing to use bridging hotels to accommodate such individuals on arrival in the UK, which led to thousands being stranded in third countries like Pakistan awaiting relocation, leading to the expiry of their Pakistani visas and the threat of imminent deportation back to Afghanistan following Pakistan’s announcement that it would relocate those without present without Pakistani visas after 1 November 2023. The Government withdrew the challenged policy in October 2023.

Naina acted in this appeal brought by British Gas against the Divisional Court’s judgment in this challenge to the subsidy granted to Octopus Energy to enable it to acquire the customers of Bulb which had entered into energy administration.

Naina acted for the CMA in this appeal against the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s unanimous decision to uphold the CMA’s finding that Motorola was able to charge prices above the level expected in a competitive market for providing communications network services to the UK emergency services (with Josh Holmes KC).

Naina acted for the Kingdom of Spain in appeal proceedings arising from the long-running litigation concerning the loss of the M/T ‘Prestige’ off the coast of Spain in November 2002 and its attempt to register the resulting Spanish judgment against the insurers in England (with Timothy Young KC). The Kingdom successfully defended a claim that the judgment should not be enforced due to alleged breaches of human rights in unincorporated treaties, said to tender it incompatible with public policy.

Naina acted for the Independent Monitoring Authority as intervener in the Upper Tribunal in an important challenge to the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s approach to decision-making on applications for settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme, raising issues of interpretation relating to the Withdrawal Agreement.

Naina represented the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in this challenge alleging that the Universal Credit rules in relation to additional bedroom allowance are discriminatory against fathers who are separated but have equal shared care of a child with its mother.

Naina acted as Advocate to the Court in a case concerning the UK-wide jurisdiction of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) to grant warrants to search business and domestic premises under ss.28-28A of the Competition Act 1998.

Naina acted for the CMA in this judicial review in which the Competition Appeal Tribunal, in a unanimous decision, upheld the CMA’s finding that Motorola was able to charge prices above the level expected in a competitive market for providing communications network services to the UK emergency services (with Josh Holmes KC).

Naina acted for Ofsted in this judicial review challenge to a school’s rating following an inspection which raised issues relating to the framework for the assessment of standards in schools.

Naina represented Scottish Power in this highly expedited judicial review of the subsidy granted to Octopus Energy to enable it to acquire the customers of Bulb which had entered into energy administration, one of only two subsidy control cases brought before the UK courts since the UK left the European Union (with Kieron Beal KC).

Naina represented the Department of Education, an Interested Party in this appeal by Ofqual against a Decision Notice of the Ico which required it to disclose certain information requested under FOIA which showed the percentage of Centre Assessed Grades in each education centre in England that was adjusted following the application of the algorithm or standardisation applied during Covid. The appeal was dismissed but the decision of the First-Tier Tribunal was subsequently set aside by the Upper Tribunal in [2023] UKUT 253 (AAC).

Naina represented Ofcom in this judicial review challenge to a decision to reject an application for a small-scale radio multiplex licence on multiple grounds. Permission refused.

Naina defended Ofcom in this appeal brought by CityFibre against a commercial offer from Openreach concerning the rollout of fibre to the premises (FTTP) broadband (Equinox) (with Monica Carss-Frisk QC).

Naina represented the Competition Market Authority in the first ever judicial review of the making of a market investigation reference.  The investigation concerned Motorola’s Airwave network, the mobile radio network used by all emergency services in Great Britain (with Josh Holmes QC).

Naina acted for Star Pubs & Bars Limited in the first ever appeal to the High Court against a financial sanction imposed by the Pubs Code Adjudicator (with Catherine Callaghan QC).

Naina acted for Her Majesty's Treasury and Revenue in Customs in this judicial review of a decision to abolish the abolition of the VAT Retail Export Scheme in Great Britain and the extra-statutory concession for airside shopping in the United Kingdom following the exit of the UK from the EU.  One of The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2021, the case was the first to consider the justiciability of WTO law domestically post-Brexit .

Naina represented the Claimant charity in its challenge to the lawfulness of Guidance by which the norm of oral appeal hearings was replaced with a default of paper determinations of statutory asylum and immigration appeals during the Covid-19 pandemic. The President has, in response to the judgment, withdrawn the unlawful guidance.  (With Charlotte Kilroy QC and Rachel Jones).

Naina represented the claimants at an early stage in this challenge to the SSHD's failure to consider their eligibility for DLR as a victim of modern slavery before considering their protection claims and her policies on victims on modern slavery as failing to reflect the obligations imposed by the Anti-Trafficking Convention.

Naina acted for the QFC in this first-of-its-kind application to enforce the financial penalty stipulated in one of its Decision Notices against the First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC.  The application involved questions relating to service in the context of the diplomatic blockade of Qatar by the UAE and the test the Court should apply to deciding whether to permit enforcement of the QFC's Decision Notice (with Ben Jaffey QC).

Naina represented the Secretary of State in this important decision about the treatment of informal agreements by non-resident parents to maintain children outside the jurisdiction of the UK for the purposes of child maintenance assessments.

Naina was junior counsel to the Secretaries of State in these appeals concerning challenges to the compatibility of the criminal records disclosure regime with Article 8 ECHR (with James Eadie QC and Kate Gallafent QC).

Naina represented the FCO in this appeal against the ICO's determination of a FOIA appeal concerning documentation relating to an attempted aircraft bombing in 1986. 

Naina represented the SSHD in interlocutory proceedings relating to a mother's application for a declaration that committal findings against the father (who had removed her three children to Nigeria) constituted criminal offences so as to achieve his extradition to the UK.

Naina acted for the Claimant company in this judicial review and related applications [2017] EWHC 255 (Admin) and [2017] EWHC 2482 (Admin) challenging various decisions of the SSHD and SSJ relating to a foreign criminal convicted of stealing their confidential investment strategies, including his proposed deportation to China where there was a real risk of his being reunited with the fruits of his crime.

Naina acted for Scottish and Southern Electricity, a proposed third party to a judicial review of a determination by GEMA relating to charges payable by customers for connections to electricity distributors under the Electricity Act 1989.

Naina acted for the Secretary of State in these challenges to the criminal records disclosure scheme on the grounds its alleged absence of procedural safeguards infringed Article 8 ECHR (with Kate Gallafent QC).

Naina acted for the Secretary of State in this challenge to the criminal records disclosure scheme on the grounds its alleged absence of procedural safeguards infringed Article 8 ECHR (with Kate Gallafent QC).

Naina acted for the Respondent in this appeal against the decision of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal (British Virgin Islands) that the Commissioner's seizure of Delta's fuel storage tank and its contents was unlawful, the fuel not having been liable to forfeiture under the Customs Management and Duties Act No 6 of 2010.

Naina represented the Defendant in this challenge to the recall of a prisoner from open conditions following the introduction of a new policy on transfers to open conditions for prisoners with an abscond history.  The Court found no illegality or Article 5 ECHR breaches.

Naina acted for the Metropolitan Police, an interested party in this challenge to the decision to seize and cancel passports using powers under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 and the royal prerogative, raising issues of interpretation relating to the Withdrawal Agreement.

Naina represented the Secretary of State in this unlawful detention claim where the Court accepted the submission that the Secretary of State was entitled to a period of time to consider a change of circumstances and decide whether to release.

Naina acted for PLP in this successful challenge to the proposed residence test for civil legal aid, set out in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2014.  The Supreme Court found that the test was ultra vires its authorising statute (with Michael Fordham QC and Ben Jaffey).

Naina represented the Defendant in this appeal concerning a challenge to a new policy on transfers to open conditions and temporary release for prisoners with an abscond history, following the dismissal of the claim R (Gilbert) v SSHD [2015] EWHC 927  (with Tom Weisselberg QC).

Naina represented Stagecoach in proceedings before the Quality Contracts Board regarding the proposed Quality Contracts Scheme for buses in Tyne and Wear. 

Naina represented the Appellant in this appeal from AA/03394/2006 on remittal from the Court of Appeal following its decision in AH (Algeria) [2012] EWCA Civ 395 regarding the application of the exclusion clauses in Article 1F of the Refugee Convention.

Naina represented the Defendant in this challenge to a new policy on temporary release for prisoners with an abscond history on grounds which included alleged indirect discrimination for prisoners suffering from certain disabilities.

Naina acted for the Civil Aviation Authority in this challenge regarding the safety standards to be applied at RAF Northolt, a government aerodrome which accepts civil passenger and commercial air traffic as well as military aircraft (with Sarah Wilkinson).

Naina acted for the aluminium producer United Company Rusal in its judicial review of a warehousing rule change by the London Metal Exchange (with Monica Carss-Frisk QC and James Segan).

Naina represented the Claimants in this in this leapfrog appeal from [2012] EWHC 3635 Admin, a challenge to the decision of the Registrar-General for Births, Deaths and Marriages not to register the London Scientology Chapel as a place of meeting for religious worship on grounds of unlawfulness and religious discrimination (with Lord Lester QC).

Naina acted for UNHCR in this case concerning the application of HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31 to cases concerning imputed political opinion, where individuals are politically apathetic but be persecuted for being perceived to be politically opposed to a particular regime (with Michael Fordham QC).

Naina acted for the Governor of the Cayman Islands in this challenge to the constitutionality of various provisions of the Cayman Islands Constitution Order 2009 relating to judicial independence pursuant to section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833 (with Lord Pannick QC and Professor Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC).

Naina acted for the Claimant in this vires and fairness challenge to the conduct of the Commission of Inquiry into corruption in the government and legislature of the Islands (with Lord Pannick QC and Javan Herberg QC).

Naina acted for the Thames Valley Police in this challenge to the amendments to Code A of the PACE Code of Practice removing the requirement to monitor the ethnicity of a person subject to stop and search powers, successfully resisting the grant of permission.

Naina acted for the Claimants in this appeal from [2007] UKHL 26; [2007] 3 WLR 33 concerning the extra-territorial application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to killings by British soldiers in post-war Iraq (with Rabinder Singh QC and Michael Fordham QC). 

Naina acted for JUSTICE/Liberty in this appeal regarding the compatibility of the closed material in employment proceedings with Article 6 ECHR and EU law, brought on the context of a claim for racial and religious discrimination (with John Howell QC).

Naina represented UNHCR in this landmark case on the rights of gay asylum seekers where the Supreme Court held that such individuals could not be expected to seek to protect themselves from persecution in their home country by concealing sexual identity (with Michael Fordham QC)

Naina acted for the Claimant in this challenge, on EU and ECHR grounds, to legislation banning the display of tobacco products (with Tom de la Mare QC).

Naina acted for Anti-Slavery International in this case concerning the Secretary of State’s approach to the imposition of Public Order Disqualification decisions on a victims of trafficking and its compatibility with the Anti-Trafficking Convention. Significant parts of the Secretary of State’s Modern Slavery Act Guidance were found to be unlawful.

Naina acted pro bono as lead junior counsel for Ukraine in this inter-state case against Russia before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the Ukrainian Government’s allegations of “human rights violations committed by the Russian Federation in its military operations on the territory of Ukraine since 24 February 2022”. The merits judgment was delivered on 9 July 2025, unanimously finding violations by Russia.

Naina has acted or is acting in a number of judicial reviews brought by Afghans in relation to their eligibility to relocate to the UK pursuant to the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Programme. These follow previous cases she was involved in which challenged the UK Government’s policy of ceasing to use bridging hotels to accommodate such individuals on arrival in the UK, which led to thousands being stranded in third countries like Pakistan awaiting relocation, leading to the expiry of their Pakistani visas and the threat of imminent deportation back to Afghanistan following Pakistan’s announcement that it would relocate those without present without Pakistani visas after 1 November 2023. The Government withdrew the challenged policy in October 2023.

Naina acted for an individual in an appeal against the strike out of an Article 4 ECHR claim bought against local police and a local council in relation to their failure to refer the individual into the National Referral Mechanism. The failure resulted in the re-trafficking of the individual and them coming to harm at the hands of their trafficker.

Naina acted for the Kingdom of Spain in appeal proceedings arising from the long-running litigation concerning the loss of the M/T ‘Prestige’ off the coast of Spain in November 2002 and its attempt to register the resulting Spanish judgment against the insurers in England (with Timothy Young KC). The Kingdom successfully defended a claim that the judgment should not be enforced due to alleged breaches of human rights in unincorporated treaties, said to tender it incompatible with public policy.

Naina acted for the Independent Monitoring Authority as intervener in the Upper Tribunal in an important challenge to the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s approach to decision-making on applications for settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme, raising issues of interpretation relating to the Withdrawal Agreement.

Naina acted for the claimants in a civil claim against a natural resources company, in respect of serious assaults allegedly perpetrated by security personnel (with Tim Otty KC).

Naina acted on behalf of 71 claimants who allege that they suffered serious human rights abuses at the Williamson Diamond Mine in Tanzania.  Settlement followed the issue of claims in the High Court in London against Petra Diamonds Ltd and its majority-owned Tanzanian subsidiary, Williamson Diamonds Ltd (with Tim Otty QC).

Naina represented the Kingdom of Spain in this appeal against the registration of a Spanish judgment, raising the issue of whether alleged breaches of ECHR or ICCPR rights can constitute a manifest breach of English public policy (with Timothy Young QC). The Kingdom successfully defended a claim that the judgment should not be enforced due to alleged breaches of human rights in unincorporated treaties which rendered it incompatible with public policy.   

Naina acted for various government departments in this challenge to the use of UK aid to fund assistance to a certain country in circumstances in which it was alleged the government known or should have known that such assistance would be used to commit or contribute to serious violations of human rights.

Naina represented the Claimant charity in its challenge to the lawfulness of Guidance by which the norm of oral appeal hearings was replaced with a default of paper determinations of statutory asylum and immigration appeals during the Covid-19 pandemic. The President has, in response to the judgment, withdrawn the unlawful guidance.  (With Charlotte Kilroy QC and Rachel Jones).

Naina represented the claimants at an early stage in this challenge to the SSHD's failure to consider their eligibility for DLR as a victim of modern slavery before considering their protection claims and her policies on victims on modern slavery as failing to reflect the obligations imposed by the Anti-Trafficking Convention.

Naina represented the Claimant in this Article 4 ECHR claim for damages for breach of the protective obligation to protect against trafficking and forced labour by virtue of entry clearance procedures in place and properly operated. Successfully defended strike out application.

Naina was junior counsel to the Secretaries of State in these appeals concerning challenges to the compatibility of the criminal records disclosure regime with Article 8 ECHR (with James Eadie QC and Kate Gallafent QC).

Naina represented the Respondent in this second appeal against an entry clearance decision relating to a minor seeking to join his mother on the basis of an error concerning serious and compelling circumstances. 

Naina represented the SSHD in interlocutory proceedings relating to a mother's application for a declaration that committal findings against the father (who had removed her three children to Nigeria) constituted criminal offences so as to achieve his extradition to the UK.

Naina acted for the Claimant company in this judicial review and related applications [2017] EWHC 255 (Admin) and [2017] EWHC 2482 (Admin) challenging various decisions of the SSHD and SSJ relating to a foreign criminal convicted of stealing their confidential investment strategies, including his proposed deportation to China where there was a real risk of his being reunited with the fruits of his crime.

Naina acted for the Claimant in this Article 4 ECHR claim for damages for breaches of the protective obligation to protect against trafficking and forced labour by virtue of operating the join ship visa scheme.

Naina represented the Claimant in this complex unlawful detention claim where, following 3 interlocutory hearings, the Claimant was released on bail pending the expedited hearing of his claim for judicial review.  

Naina acted for the Secretary of State in this challenge to the criminal records disclosure scheme on the grounds its alleged absence of procedural safeguards infringed Article 8 ECHR (with Kate Gallafent QC).

Naina acted for the Metropolitan Police, an interested party in this challenge to the decision to seize and cancel passports using powers under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 and the royal prerogative, raising issues of interpretation relating to the Withdrawal Agreement.

Naina represented the Secretary of State in this unlawful detention claim where the Court accepted the submission that the Secretary of State was entitled to a period of time to consider a change of circumstances and decide whether to release.

Naina represented the Defendant in this challenge to the recall of a prisoner from open conditions following the introduction of a new policy on transfers to open conditions for prisoners with an abscond history.  The Court found no illegality or Article 5 ECHR breaches.

Naina acted for the Secretary of State in this challenge to the criminal records disclosure scheme on the grounds its alleged absence of procedural safeguards infringed Article 8 ECHR (with Kate Gallafent QC).

Naina acted for PLP in this successful challenge to the proposed residence test for civil legal aid, set out in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2014.  The Supreme Court found that the test was ultra vires its authorising statute (with Michael Fordham QC and Ben Jaffey).

Naina acted for the Metropolitan Police at a number of preliminary hearings leading up to the fact finding hearing in these care order proceedings concerning a child allegedly poisoned and/or infection and at risk of being taken to Syria.

Naina represented the Defendant in this appeal concerning a challenge to a new policy on transfers to open conditions and temporary release for prisoners with an abscond history, following the dismissal of the claim R (Gilbert) v SSHD [2015] EWHC 927  (with Tom Weisselberg QC).

Naina represented the Defendant in this challenge to a new policy on temporary release for prisoners with an abscond history on grounds which included alleged indirect discrimination for prisoners suffering from certain disabilities.

Naina represented the Appellant in this appeal from AA/03394/2006 on remittal from the Court of Appeal following its decision in AH (Algeria) [2012] EWCA Civ 395 regarding the application of the exclusion clauses in Article 1F of the Refugee Convention.

Naina acted for the Department in this challenge to its process of assessing the Government of Ethiopia’s compliance with its Partnership Principles (in particular its commitment to respecting human rights and other international obligations) for the purposes of making continued aid disbursements to the country (with James Eadie QC).

Naina represented the Claimants in this in this leapfrog appeal from [2012] EWHC 3635 Admin, a challenge to the decision of the Registrar-General for Births, Deaths and Marriages not to register the London Scientology Chapel as a place of meeting for religious worship on grounds of unlawfulness and religious discrimination (with Lord Lester QC).

Naina acted for the Governor of the Cayman Islands in this challenge to the constitutionality of various provisions of the Cayman Islands Constitution Order 2009 relating to judicial independence pursuant to section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833 (with Lord Pannick QC and Professor Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC).

Naina acted for the Claimant in this vires and fairness challenge to the conduct of the Commission of Inquiry into corruption in the government and legislature of the Islands (with Lord Pannick QC and Javan Herberg QC).

Naina acted for UNHCR in this case concerning the application of HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31 to cases concerning imputed political opinion, where individuals are politically apathetic but be persecuted for being perceived to be politically opposed to a particular regime (with Michael Fordham QC).

Naina acted for the Thames Valley Police in this challenge to the amendments to Code A of the PACE Code of Practice removing the requirement to monitor the ethnicity of a person subject to stop and search powers, successfully resisting the grant of permission.

Naina acted for JUSTICE/Liberty in this appeal regarding the compatibility of the closed material in employment proceedings with Article 6 ECHR and EU law, brought on the context of a claim for racial and religious discrimination (with John Howell QC).

Naina acted for the Claimants in this appeal from [2007] UKHL 26; [2007] 3 WLR 33 concerning the extra-territorial application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to killings by British soldiers in post-war Iraq (with Rabinder Singh QC and Michael Fordham QC). 

Naina acted for JUSTICE/Liberty intervening in this appeal from [2010] EWCA Civ 482 and [2009] EWHC 2959 on the question of whether the Government may withhold sensitive evidence from several former victims of extraordinary rendition and torture in civil claims for damages but rely on that evidence in closed proceedings (with John Howell QC).  Acted for individual claimants below (with Michael Fordham QC).

Naina represented UNHCR in this landmark case on the rights of gay asylum seekers where the Supreme Court held that such individuals could not be expected to seek to protect themselves from persecution in their home country by concealing sexual identity (with Michael Fordham QC)

Naina acted for Adidas UK in this claim for breaches of the Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 prohibition in the arrangements for the supply of Newcastle United Football Club replica kit (with Kieron Beal KC).

Naina represented the CMA in this appeal in which the Competition Appeal Tribunal, in a unanimous decision, upheld the CMA’s finding that Motorola was able to charge prices above the level expected in a competitive market for providing communications network services to the UK emergency services (with Josh Holmes KC).

Naina acted for the Appellant British Gas in this appeal against the High Court’s refusal to grant judicial review in this challenge to the government’s sale of the collapsed energy firm Bulb, one of only two subsidy control cases brought before the UK courts since the UK left the European Union. Naina acted for one of the Claimants, Scottish Power in the High Court.

Naina represented Mastercard in this important appeal in the ongoing Multilateral Interchange Fees litigation concerning the effect of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 on decisions of the CJEU delivered after 31 December 2020.

Naina acted as Advocate to the Court in a case concerning the UK-wide jurisdiction of the Competition Appeal Tribunal (“CAT”) to grant warrants to search business and domestic premises under ss.28-28A of the Competition Act 1998.

Naina acted for Deckers in this in this claim alleging infringements of the Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 prohibitions in respect of a refusal to permit Up & Running to sell excess stock of Hoka running shoes at a discount on a new website with a different name.

Naina represented the CMA in this judicial review of its decision to impose a price cap on Motorola following its market investigation into the supply of the communications network for emergency personnel via the “Airwave network” which found that features of the market cause an adverse effect on competition and result in the charging of supernormal profits by Motorola.

Naina represented Mastercard in this highly significant hearing in the interchange fee litigation addressing the effect of a post-Brexit judgment of the ECJ on rights which are said to have ‘accrued’ under EU law prior to Brexit. The hearing addressed whether C-267-20 Volvo AB and DAF Trucks NV v RM was authority for the proposition that as a matter of EU law, a limitation period in competition cases can only start to run from the time when the infringement ceased, and if so whether Volvo was binding in relation to proceedings that involved infringements which began pre-Brexit. The Tribunal found, agreeing with Mastercard, that the answer to both questions was no (with Tim Otty KC and Matthew Cook KC).

Naina represented Scottish Power in this highly expedited judicial review of the subsidy granted to Octopus Energy to enable it to acquire the customers of Bulb which had entered into energy administration, one of only two subsidy control cases brought before the UK courts since the UK left the European Union (with Kieron Beal KC).

Naina acted for Jaguar Land Rover in this damages claim brought in the High Court and transferred to the CAT against members of the DENSO Group following a European Commission Decision in respect of a cartel relating to alternators and starters for automobiles.

Naina acting for a software company against another software company in relation to a claim for injunctive relief and dominance arising out of the alleged abuse of a dominant position in the relevant market manifested in the adoption of a new trading model containing anti-competitive terms.

Naina represented members of the Renault Group in a hybrid follow-on and stand-alone damages claim brought in the High Court against members of the DENSO Group following a European Commission Decision in respect of a thermal systems cartel.  Made the first application for early specific disclosure (before issue but before service of the claim) in this type of cartel damages claim.

Naina defended Ofcom in this appeal brought by CityFibre against a commercial offer from Openreach concerning the rollout of fibre to the premises (FTTP) broadband (Equinox) (with Monica Carss-Frisk QC).

Naina represented the Competition Market Authority in the first ever judicial review of the making of a market investigation reference.  The investigation concerned Motorola’s Airwave network, the mobile radio network used by all emergency services in Great Britain (with Josh Holmes QC).

Naina represented members of the Jaguar Land Rover Group in a follow-on damages claim brought in the High Court against various manufacturers of automotive bearings following a European Commission Decision about a bearings cartel.

Naina acted for Her Majesty's Treasury and Revenue in Customs in this judicial review of a decision to abolish the abolition of the VAT Retail Export Scheme in Great Britain and the extra-statutory concession for airside shopping in the United Kingdom following the exit of the UK from the EU.  One of The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2021, the case was the first to consider the justiciability of WTO law domestically post-Brexit .

Naina acted for Star Pubs & Bars Limited in the first ever appeal to the High Court against a financial sanction imposed by the Pubs Code Adjudicator (with Catherine Callaghan QC).

Naina represented a utility provider in this potential challenge to a regulator relating to changes in the regulatory regime, including a price control mechanism.

Naina represented the Claimants in this cartel damages action arising out of the European Commission's Bearings decision (CAT).  Settled shortly before trial.

Naina represented Stagecoach in proceedings before the Quality Contracts Board regarding the proposed Quality Contracts Scheme for buses in Tyne and Wear. 

Naina advised the OFT in pre-litigation relating to the OFT’s crack down on airlines applying payment surcharges for standard modes of payment.   The case raised significant questions under the relevant EU consumer Directives and instruments (with Tom de la Mare QC).

Naina represented Mastercard in this important appeal in the ongoing Multilateral Interchange Fees litigation concerning the effect of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 on decisions of the CJEU delivered after 31 December 2020.

Naina acted for the Kingdom of Spain in appeal proceedings arising from the long-running litigation concerning the loss of the M/T ‘Prestige’ off the coast of Spain in November 2002 and its attempt to register the resulting Spanish judgment against the insurers in England (with Timothy Young KC). The Kingdom successfully defended a claim that the judgment should not be enforced due to alleged breaches of human rights in unincorporated treaties, said to tender it incompatible with public policy.

Naina acted for the Independent Monitoring Authority as intervener in the Upper Tribunal in an important challenge to the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s approach to decision-making on applications for settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme, raising issues of interpretation relating to the Withdrawal Agreement.

Naina represented members of the Renault Group in a hybrid follow-on and stand-alone damages claim brought in the High Court against members of the DENSO Group following a European Commission Decision in respect of a thermal systems cartel.  Made the first application for early specific disclosure (before issue but before service of the claim) in this type of cartel damages claim.

Naina represented members of the Jaguar Land Rover Group in a follow-on damages claim brought in the High Court against various manufacturers of automotive bearings following a European Commission Decision about a bearings cartel.

Naina acted for Her Majesty's Treasury and Revenue in Customs in this judicial review of a decision to abolish the abolition of the VAT Retail Export Scheme in Great Britain and the extra-statutory concession for airside shopping in the United Kingdom following the exit of the UK from the EU.  One of The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2021, the case was the first to consider the justiciability of WTO law domestically post-Brexit .

Naina represented the Claimants in this cartel damages action arising out of the European Commission's Bearings decision (CAT).  Settled shortly before trial.

Naina advised the OFT in pre-litigation relating to the OFT’s crack down on airlines applying payment surcharges for standard modes of payment.   The case raised significant questions under the relevant EU consumer Directives and instruments (with Tom de la Mare QC).

Naina advised in relation to the legislative implications of the Technical Standards Directive in the domestic context (with David Pannick QC and Tom de la Mare).

Naina acted for Anti-Slavery International in this case concerning the Secretary of State’s approach to the imposition of Public Order Disqualification decisions on a victims of trafficking and its compatibility with the Anti-Trafficking Convention. Significant parts of the Secretary of State’s Modern Slavery Act Guidance were found to be unlawful.

Naina acted pro bono as lead junior counsel for Ukraine in this inter-state case against Russia before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the Ukrainian Government’s allegations of “human rights violations committed by the Russian Federation in its military operations on the territory of Ukraine since 24 February 2022”. The merits judgment was delivered on 9 July 2025, unanimously finding violations by Russia.

Naina acted for the Kingdom of Spain in appeal proceedings arising from the long-running litigation concerning the loss of the M/T ‘Prestige’ off the coast of Spain in November 2002 and its attempt to register the resulting Spanish judgment against the insurers in England (with Timothy Young KC). The Kingdom successfully defended a claim that the judgment should not be enforced due to alleged breaches of human rights in unincorporated treaties, said to tender it incompatible with public policy.

Naina acted for the Independent Monitoring Authority as intervener in the Upper Tribunal in an important challenge to the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s approach to decision-making on applications for settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme, raising issues of interpretation relating to the Withdrawal Agreement.

Naina advised in relation to language used in relation to a major international treaty and its implications for policy and practice.

Naina acted for the Maduro Board in this important judgment on head of state recognition and foreign act of state in the ongoing battle for control over Venezuelan gold reserves worth nearly $2 billion and held at the Bank of England (with Jeffrey Jowell QC and Nick Vineall QC).

Naina acted for Her Majesty's Treasury and Revenue in Customs in this judicial review of a decision to abolish the abolition of the VAT Retail Export Scheme in Great Britain and the extra-statutory concession for airside shopping in the United Kingdom following the exit of the UK from the EU.  One of The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2021, the case was the first to consider the justiciability of WTO law domestically post-Brexit .

Naina represented the Kingdom of Spain in this appeal against the registration of a Spanish judgment, raising the issue of whether alleged breaches of ECHR or ICCPR rights can constitute a manifest breach of English public policy (with Timothy Young QC). The Kingdom successfully defended a claim that the judgment should not be enforced due to alleged breaches of human rights in unincorporated treaties which rendered it incompatible with public policy.   

Naina acted for the QFC in this first-of-its-kind application to enforce the financial penalty stipulated in one of its Decision Notices against the First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC.  The application involved questions relating to service in the context of the diplomatic blockade of Qatar by the UAE and the test the Court should apply to deciding whether to permit enforcement of the QFC's Decision Notice (with Ben Jaffey QC).

Naina advised a government in relation to a WTO-related dispute raising complex issues concerning the interplay between domestic and international law in the context of international trade.

Naina advised the Government of the Cayman Islands on the lawfulness of the Order in Council proposed under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to introduce public registers of beneficial interests in the jurisdiction (with Lord Pannick QC and Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC).

Naina advised on issues under the Diplomatic and Consumer Premises Act 1987 relating to the sale of a property.

Naina successfully sued on USD50 million United States judgment for losses from terrorist destruction of aircraft in a claim raising issues of service absent diplomatic relations, state immunity, submission to the jurisdiction and frozen assets (with Tim Otty QC).

Naina represented the SSHD in interlocutory proceedings relating to a mother's application for a declaration that committal findings against the father (who had removed her three children to Nigeria) constituted criminal offences so as to achieve his extradition to the UK.

Naina advised on whether the UK Government's giving notice of the UK's intention to leave the EU under Article 50 TFEU is revocable and whether it requires prior Parliamentary consent (with Professor Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC).

Naina represented the Appellant in this appeal from AA/03394/2006 on remittal from the Court of Appeal following its decision in AH (Algeria) [2012] EWCA Civ 395 regarding the application of the exclusion clauses in Article 1F of the Refugee Convention.

Naina advised a state corporation in relation to possible inter-state claims and claims under a Bilateral Investment Treaty relating to a failed joint venture with companies in another state (with Michael Beloff QC).

Naina acted for the Department in this challenge to its process of assessing the Government of Ethiopia’s compliance with its Partnership Principles (in particular its commitment to respecting human rights and other international obligations) for the purposes of making continued aid disbursements to the country (with James Eadie QC).

Naina provided support to the Myanmar national consultation process on the Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar 2008 through a Constitutional Bus Tour that travelled the country raising awareness of the current Constitution and assisting individuals who wished to submit recommendations to the Joint Committee for Reviewing the Constitution.  Also provided technical assistance to Parliamentarians as they considered and debated amendments (with Professor Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC).

Naina advised the EBRD on legal barriers to women’s access to credit in both Morocco and the Kyrgyz Republic.

Naina advised the Libyan Progress Initiative on constitutional options for the new Libya (with Professor Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC).

Naina acted for the Claimants in this appeal from [2007] UKHL 26; [2007] 3 WLR 33 concerning the extra-territorial application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to killings by British soldiers in post-war Iraq (with Rabinder Singh QC and Michael Fordham QC). 

Naina acted for JUSTICE/Liberty intervening in this appeal from [2010] EWCA Civ 482 and [2009] EWHC 2959 on the question of whether the Government may withhold sensitive evidence from several former victims of extraordinary rendition and torture in civil claims for damages but rely on that evidence in closed proceedings (with John Howell QC).  Acted for individual claimants below (with Michael Fordham QC).

Naina acted for the Governor of the Cayman Islands in this challenge to the acquisition of beachfront land on the grounds that the acquisition did not fulfil the necessary statutory purpose, was irrational and had been procedurally unfair.

Naina acted for the QFCA in this appeal against Decision Notices which alleged contraventions by individuals employed by a QFC registered company which raised questions concerning the proper notification of decisions by the QFCA to individuals and the power of the Regulatory Tribunal to extend the time limit for an appeal.

Naina acted for the Appellant in this appeal concerning the proper interpretation of an agreement for the exclusive supply of fuel and the application of the doctrine of waiver by election.  The judgment is of particular significance to the law on remedies for final orders for specific performance which are found on appeal to have been wrongly made.

Naina advised the Government of the Cayman Islands on the lawfulness of the Order in Council proposed under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to introduce public registers of beneficial interests in the jurisdiction (with Lord Pannick QC and Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC).

Naina acted for the Respondent in this appeal against the decision of the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal (British Virgin Islands) that the Commissioner's seizure of Delta's fuel storage tank and its contents was unlawful, the fuel not having been liable to forfeiture under the Customs Management and Duties Act No 6 of 2010.

Naina acted for the Governor of the Cayman Islands in this challenge to the constitutionality of various provisions of the Cayman Islands Constitution Order 2009 relating to judicial independence pursuant to section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833 (with Lord Pannick QC and Professor Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC).

Naina acted for the Claimant in this vires and fairness challenge to the conduct of the Commission of Inquiry into corruption in the government and legislature of the Islands (with Lord Pannick QC and Javan Herberg QC).

Naina acted for Anti-Slavery International in this case concerning the Secretary of State’s approach to the imposition of Public Order Disqualification decisions on a victims of trafficking and its compatibility with the Anti-Trafficking Convention. Significant parts of the Secretary of State’s Modern Slavery Act Guidance were found to be unlawful.

Naina has acted or is acting in a number of judicial reviews brought by Afghans in relation to their eligibility to relocate to the UK pursuant to the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Programme. These follow previous cases she was involved in which challenged the UK Government’s policy of ceasing to use bridging hotels to accommodate such individuals on arrival in the UK, which led to thousands being stranded in third countries like Pakistan awaiting relocation, leading to the expiry of their Pakistani visas and the threat of imminent deportation back to Afghanistan following Pakistan’s announcement that it would relocate those without present without Pakistani visas after 1 November 2023. The Government withdrew the challenged policy in October 2023.

Naina acted for an individual in an appeal against the strike out of an Article 4 ECHR claim bought against local police and a local council in relation to their failure to refer the individual into the National Referral Mechanism. The failure resulted in the re-trafficking of the individual and them coming to harm at the hands of their trafficker.

Naina acted for the Independent Monitoring Authority as intervener in the Upper Tribunal in an important challenge to the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s approach to decision-making on applications for settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme, raising issues of interpretation relating to the Withdrawal Agreement.

Naina represented the Secretary of State leading a team of three Counsel in this country guidance case considering risk on return to Sri Lanka arising from sur place activities.

Naina represented the Claimant charity in its challenge to the lawfulness of Guidance by which the norm of oral appeal hearings was replaced with a default of paper determinations of statutory asylum and immigration appeals during the Covid-19 pandemic. The President has, in response to the judgment, withdrawn the unlawful guidance.  (With Charlotte Kilroy QC and Rachel Jones).

Naina represented the Claimant in this Article 4 ECHR claim for damages for breach of the protective obligation to protect against trafficking and forced labour by virtue of entry clearance procedures in place and properly operated. Successfully defended strike out application.

Naina represented the Respondent in this second appeal against an entry clearance decision relating to a minor seeking to join his mother on the basis of an error concerning serious and compelling circumstances. 

Naina acted for the Claimant in this Article 4 ECHR claim for damages for breaches of the protective obligation to protect against trafficking and forced labour by virtue of operating the join ship visa scheme.

Naina acted for the Claimant company in this judicial review and related applications [2017] EWHC 255 (Admin) and [2017] EWHC 2482 (Admin) challenging various decisions of the SSHD and SSJ relating to a foreign criminal convicted of stealing their confidential investment strategies, including his proposed deportation to China where there was a real risk of his being reunited with the fruits of his crime.

Naina represented the Claimant in this complex unlawful detention claim where, following 3 interlocutory hearings, the Claimant was released on bail pending the expedited hearing of his claim for judicial review.  

Naina acted for the Appellant in this claim concerning the demands of procedural fairness in an interview with a victim of human trafficking.

Naina represented the Secretary of State in this unlawful detention claim where the Court accepted the submission that the Secretary of State was entitled to a period of time to consider a change of circumstances and decide whether to release.

Naina acted for the successful Respondent in this case concerning whether the Secretary of State's use of a second deportation order to deport following a successful appeal against a first order constituted an abuse of process.

Naina acted for the Respondent in this contested application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal raising issues as to the status of an undertaking given by a Home Office Presenting Officer to the Tribunal regarding route of return and whether a Tribunal is entitled to decide the question of Article 3 ECHR risk on return by reference to events eg. documentation of an individual which has not yet taken place.

Naina acted for the Defendant in this judicial review of the refusal to treat further submissions as a fresh claim in the context of a Claimant who raised Article 3 and Article 8 ECHR issues arising from his claimed Christianity and his return to Afghanistan – where the Claimant had been returned and he sought to rely on evidence consequential upon his return.

Naina acted for the Claimant in this judicial review of the unlawfulness of his detention given the improbability of obtaining an Emergency Travel Document within any reasonable period of time.

Naina acted for UNHCR in this case concerning the application of HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 31 to cases concerning imputed political opinion, where individuals are politically apathetic but be persecuted for being perceived to be politically opposed to a particular regime (with Michael Fordham QC).

Naina represented UNHCR in this landmark case on the rights of gay asylum seekers where the Supreme Court held that such individuals could not be expected to seek to protect themselves from persecution in their home country by concealing sexual identity (with Michael Fordham QC)

Naina advised the Immigration Law Practitioner’s Association on the legality of performance standards introduced by the Legal Services Commission for franchised immigration and asylum solicitors in the context of the Government’s detained fast-track scheme (with Michael Fordham QC).

Naina advises and has advised extensively in relation to a range of issues relating to a variety of individual sanctions designations under a variety of different sanctions regimes and the issues such designations through up for third parties. Naina also advises in relation to changes in sanctions regimes and how they affect entities and their reporting obligations.

Naina advised a private company how to respond to changes to a particular sanctions regime relating to cross-border data transfer, including what to communicate to the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and HM Revenue and Customs.

Naina represented the Secretary of State in relation to what became the first reported challenge to a designation under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, here in relation to the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

This landmark case concerns whether the UK Government has recognised Interim President Guaido as Head of State of Venezuela and if so, whether any challenge to his appointments to the Board of the Central Bank of Venezuela – for the purposes of assessing whether that Board had control over gold held in the Bank of England’s vaults – were justiciable in an English Court. The gold has assumed a particular significance given the sanctions in place in relation to Venezuela. Naina acted for the Maduro Board.

Naina successfully sued on USD50 million United States judgment for losses from terrorist destruction of aircraft in a claim raising issues of service absent diplomatic relations, state immunity, submission to the jurisdiction and frozen assets (with Tim Otty QC).

Naina acted for AM in this challenge to the decision to refuse an export licence for the export of industrial generators to the UAE.

Naina acted pro bono as lead junior counsel for Ukraine in this inter-state case against Russia before the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the Ukrainian Government’s allegations of “human rights violations committed by the Russian Federation in its military operations on the territory of Ukraine since 24 February 2022”. The merits judgment was delivered on 9 July 2025, unanimously finding violations by Russia.

Naina acted for the Maduro Board in this important judgment on head of state recognition and foreign act of state in the ongoing battle for control over Venezuelan gold reserves worth nearly $2 billion and held at the Bank of England (with Jeffrey Jowell QC and Nick Vineall QC).

Naina advised a government in relation to a WTO-related dispute raising complex issues concerning the interplay between domestic and international law in the context of international trade.

Naina advised the Government of the Cayman Islands on the lawfulness of the Order in Council proposed under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to introduce public registers of beneficial interests in the jurisdiction (with Lord Pannick QC and Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC).

Naina advised OSF on available models of sustainable and scalable basic legal service provision for the developing world, giving particular thought to cost, financing options and political economy considerations.

Naina advised a state corporation in relation to possible inter-state claims and claims under a Bilateral Investment Treaty relating to a failed joint venture with companies in another state (with Michael Beloff QC).

Naina advised OSF on approaches to measuring access to justice and taxation employed in the UK for guidance on approaches to measuring progress against the new Global Goals.

Naina advised DFID on the design of its new programme designed to harness the provision of pro bono legal and judicial expertise to assist with rule of law assistance in development programming around the world.

Naina provided support to the Myanmar national consultation process on the Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar 2008 through a Constitutional Bus Tour that travelled the country raising awareness of the current Constitution and assisting individuals who wished to submit recommendations to the Joint Committee for Reviewing the Constitution.  Also provided technical assistance to Parliamentarians as they considered and debated amendments (with Professor Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC).

Naina advised the EBRD on legal barriers to women’s access to credit in both Morocco and the Kyrgyz Republic.

Naina advised DFID on a new rule of law policy and programming options in light of the Prime Minister’s “golden thread” agenda.

Naina advised the Libyan Progress Initiative on constitutional options for the new Libya (with Professor Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC).

Naina spent a sabbatical year leading justice sector reform in Helmand province, including conducting trial observations, mentoring prosecutors and civil mediators and capacity-building local NGOs.