Prior to coming to the Bar, Thomas worked for a number of well-known solicitor’s firms in Birmingham working predominantly in Family Law as well as gaining experience in Employment and Civil law.
In Family, Thomas focused on Children’s rights, both in Private Law, Care Proceedings and Public Law. He also gained experience in family property, both for married and unmarried couples as well as individuals who had suffered domestic abuse.
In Civil, Thomas’ particular focus was on Employment Law as well as tortious and contractual disputes. He represented individuals in a variety of court hearings, including contested hearings (up to five days) in the Employment Tribunal concerning matters such as Unfair Dismissal and discrimination.
During pupillage in 2016, Thomas gained vast experience in Family Law and with a busy practice in Public Law. Thomas spent the first three months shadowing members of chambers at all levels of experience in the Family Court, County Court, High Court and Court of Appeal. He gained valuable experience in complex Children and Finance matters dealing with issues including non-accidental injuries, sexual abuse, complex pension provisions and trust cases, as well as in Judicial Review Cases in the areas of Immigration and Landlord and Tenant.
- Representation of local authorities, parents, the children and interveners throughout proceedings in the Family Court and High court.
- Complex cases involving vulnerable individuals, interveners and the Official Solicitor, non-accidental injuries, county lines drug dealing, sexual abuse and cross-jurisdictional issues.
- Private and Public Law Proceedings including Fact Find Hearings and Final Hearings of up to ten days.
- Cross-examination of court-appointed experts including Psychologists, Consultant Paediatricians and Independent Social Workers.
- Applications under the Children Act 1989, Adoption and Children Act 2002 and Family Law Act 1986 and 1996.
- Applications under the Inherent Jurisdiction of the High Court and in relation to surrogacy arrangements under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and 2008.
- Contested Part 25 applications.
- Financial Remedy Proceedings up to and including final hearing stage.
- Applications under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996
- Injunction proceedings relating to the protests outside of a primary school in Birmingham arising out of the teaching of LGBT and equality issues
- Judicial Review as to whether the Government could give notice under Article 50 TUE to leave the European Union using the Royal Prerogative. (Brexit Litigation)
- Representation of the respondent to an appeal by the Secretary of State for the Home office (as sole counsel) in the Court of Appeal and at the substantive appeal being led by Mr Tony Muman.
- Applications for the re-instatement of a Judicial Review
- Judicial Reviews into refusals to grant asylum where no right of appeal exists or that have been certified.
- Advising on the merits of bringing Judicial Reviews and drafting grounds of Judicial Review
- Costs hearing before the High Court following Judicial Review Proceedings.
Thomas is authorised to accept instructions under the Direct Access scheme. Please contact Thomas’ clerk for more details.
Birmingham City Council v Afsar, Allman and Ors (High Court – Mr Justice Warby) – Instructed by the 5th defendant in the injunction proceedings brought by the Local Authority, and being led by Mr Paul Diamond, the court was concerned with the teaching of LGBT and equality issues at a primary school in Birmingham, coupled with the fundamental issues of free speech, including on the internet and social media, religious freedom and religious speech, discrimination, and issues arising under the Equality Act 2010. The 5th defendant succeeded in his challenge to the continuation of the term of the interim injunction relating to the use of social media and accordingly, that term of the interim injunction did not form part of the final injunction, nor was any injunction made specifically against Mr Allman.
SSHD v MS (Pakistan) & TD & X (Jamaica)  EWCA Civ 1776 – Being led by Tony Muman, the case concerned the issue of entry clearance and minimum income requirements. Thomas appeared as sole counsel at the permission hearing before Sir Ernest Ryder (Senior President of the Tribunals).
R (on the application of Miller & Another) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union with references  UKSC 5 – In what was described as one of the most important constitutional case for over 300 years, assisting Tony Muman of 43 Temple Row and being led by Manjit Gill QC and Ramby de Mello, Thomas appeared in the Divisional Court and the Supreme Court representing the interests of Children and EU Nationals (AB Parties) on the question of whether the Government could give notice under Article 50 TUE to leave the European Union using the Royal Prerogative.
Re S (a child)  EWCA Civ 495 – Court of Appeal– Assisting Suzanne Hodgkiss of 43 Temple Row, this reported case concerned the roll of CAFCASS in private law Children Act proceedings. The Court of Appeal made it clear that it was not the roll of a CAFCASS officer, when completing a report, to explore every aspect of a parent or child’s life, or to investigate matters not in issue.
Singh v Ahluwalia (2016) – Birmingham County Court (Chancery – unreported) – Assisting Mr Trevor Berriman in a five-day trial in which complex issues of trust law and family property were contested before His Honour Judge Worster in Birmingham.
Davisons v Nationwide  EWCA Civ 1626 – Court of Appeal – Prior to commencing pupillage, Thomas sat behind counsel in the Court of Appeal in this much reported case in which the Court of Appeal ruled that a solicitor cannot not liable for a building society’s losses after money was paid to an imposter posing as a solicitor.
Re D (a child)  EWCA Civ 1000 – Court of Appeal – Prior to commencing pupillage, Thomas sat behind counsel in the Court of Appeal. The case concerned whether the conclusions of a psychological assessment ought to prevail despite the absence of history of any significant ill treatment or harm and indeed over positive empirical evidence that mother and father had been observed to be coping sufficiently.