Admas Habteslasie

Property

Admas is a commercial property specialist with significant experience in broader commercial litigation, in particular civil fraud disputes. He has a busy trial and advisory practice, with a focus on heavyweight commercial trials, property disputes raising cross-cutting public law (including planning law), international law or fraud issues. His caseload over the past 12 months includes the following:

• Acting for a commercial tenant in a high-value dispute regarding a commercial lease raising issues of the scope of an expert determination clause.
• Acting for the developer in a 5-week trial concerning a right of way dispute over the largest brownfield site in Europe, raising issues of proprietary estoppel and acquisition of easements by implication and prescription: South Tees Development Corporation and another v PD Teesport Limited [2024] EWHC 214 (Ch).
• Acting in a number of disputes regarding whether a commercial lease permitted the use of a property for the purpose of accommodating asylum seekers raising, inter alia, issues under the Equality Act 2010.
• Acting for a defendant to civil fraud proceedings brought by the administrators of London & Capital Finance Plc in 14-week Commercial Court trial.
• Acting as sole counsel for an employer in an appeal arising from civil fraud proceedings on the basis of deceit and unjust enrichment and involving issues relating to the grant of pre-action search and delivery-up orders.

Other notable cases include:

• Fanning v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2023] EWCA Civ 263: Appearing for the defendant in an appeal regarding the effectiveness of a SLDT avoidance scheme involving the grant of an option to acquire a property.
• Aviva Investors v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities: Defending a number of judicial review claims challenging the Building Safety Act 2022 and secondary legislation made thereunder.
• Jones v Ministry of Defence: Acting for the defendant in an 8-day nuisance trial (led by David Elvin KC), regarding the question of whether jets flying over to a complainant’s land constituted a nuisance or a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR.
• Windmill Holdings SPV Ltd v Adams [2021] UKUT 228 (LC): Appearing for respondent in Upper Tribunal appeal following 2-day adverse possession trial raising issues of scope of without prejudice rule.
• AEW UK REIT plc v Sportsdirect.com Retail Limited [2021] EWHC 1013 (QB): representing a commercial tenant resisting a claim for rent on the basis that government measures imposed in the wake of COVID-19 suspended or nullified the obligation to pay rent under the lease (led by Katharine Holland KC).
• Nathwani & Anor v Kivlehan & Ors [2021] UKUT 84 (LC) (22 April 2021): Appearing for an objector in a two-day hearing of an application to modify a restrictive covenant in relation to residential property, raising issues of amenity impact.
• Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Brent v Johnson and others [2020] EWHC 2526 (Ch): appearing for the claimant local authority in a 2-week trial in the Chancery Division (led by Katharine Holland KC) raising issues of constructive and charitable trust, locus to enter a restriction and whether an unincorporated association could be a beneficiary under a private trust.

Admas regularly advises on and acts in cases in the following areas of property litigation:

• Property disputes with a contractual or quasi-contractual focus, e.g. overage disputes, misrepresentation claims, and disputes arising from the interpretation of contractual documents
• Disputes relating to trusts of property
• Nuisance claims
• Forfeiture and relief from forfeiture
• Easements
• Land registration disputes, particularly applications based on claims of adverse possession
• Applications to discharge/modify of restrictive covenants before the Upper Tribunal
• Professional negligence (particularly in a property litigation context)
• Dilapidations disputes
• Disputes regarding historic transfers of publicly owned land subject to statutory/charitable obligations including in relation to the complex statutory scheme governing school playing fields
• Judicial review claims brought against the Chief Land Registrar in relation to discharge of functions under the Land Registration Act 2002
• Acting for landlords and tenants in opposed and unopposed 1954 Act proceedings, including on behalf of a local authority landlord seeking possession on ground (f), in the context of a broader major development raising politically sensitive issues
• The Building Safety Act 2022, both through advisory work and through acting for the former Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in a number of judicial reviews challenging the legislation and regulations thereunder.

• Edwards v Kumarasamy [2016] UKSC 40: a disrepair case concerning the application of section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as between a tenant and subtenant, and the question of when a landlord is liable under a repair covenant despite not having had notice of the disrepair.
• Lynn Shellfish v Loose and another: a case concerning a dispute as to the boundaries of a fishing right acquired by prescription.
• Marks & Spencer v BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Company: construction of a commercial lease, implication of terms.
• McDonald v McDonald: an appeal concerning the question of whether Article 8 of the ECHR applied in the context of possession claims in relation to tenancies granted by private landlords.
• Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Investment Trust Companies (In Liquidation) and others; Bank of Cyprus v Menelaou [2015] UKSC 66: claims in unjust enrichment.

Public and Administrative

Admas is a judicial review specialist with a broad public law practice acting for claimants and interveners. He has particular expertise in cases raising issues of nationality law, foreign relations, national security, public international law, NHS disputes (particularly in relation to charging for NHS services), as well as of advising on and litigating public law issues that arise in the context of private law disputes.

Notable public law experience includes:

• R (World Uyghur Congress) v National Crime Agency: A challenge to the failure of the NCA to commence an investigation into the importation of cotton products produced in slave labour conditions into the UK and the resultant risk of money laundering offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
• R (Shashikanth) v NHS England and the NHS Litigation Authority: A challenge to the termination of a GP’s contract and adjudication of the ensuing dispute with NHS England, raising the issue of the amenability of an adjudicator’s decision to judicial review and the applicability of the Arbitration Act 1996 to such proceedings.
• Acting in judicial review proceedings challenging whether a financial institution’s procedures and practices constitute a breach of its statutory duties in relation to money laundering, raising issues of the applicability of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to business practices in another jurisdiction, and the oversight of the Financial Conduct Authority.
• HF and MF v France 24384/19 44234/20 (ECtHR, Grand Chamber): Acting for the intervener Reprieve in application to the European Court of Human Rights by French nationals detained by Syrian Democratic Forces camps in north-eastern Syria following their capture in territory controlled by Islamic State, with the applicants arguing that the ECHR requires their repatriation to France.
• R (Roehrig) v SSHD: Acting for the claimant in a judicial review claim raising the issue of whether an applicant who was born in the UK to a parent exercising EU free movement rights is entitled to British citizenship (with Jessica Simor KC and Adrian Berry).
• R (Campaign Against the Arms Trade, Mwatana intervening) v Secretary of State for International Trade: Acting for the intervener, a Yemeni NGO, in a claim challenging whether the export of arms by the Secretary of State involved a breach of domestic policy and international humanitarian law (with James McClelland KC).
• R (Hoareau and others) v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs: acting for Chagos Islanders expelled to the Seychelles in the 1960s and 70s in claim challenging the UK government’s decision to refuse to allow resettlement of the Chagos Islands, including in light of an Advisory Opinion of the ICJ which concluded that the UK’s continued administration of the Chagos Islands was unlawful as a matter of international law (with Ben Jaffey KC and Paul Luckhurst).
• R (NB and others) v SSHD: acting for intervener Liberty in multiple claims challenging the adequacy of asylum accommodation at Napier Barracks.
• Mohamed v Abdi: appearing as the Advocate to the Court in a case concerning the status in English law of foreign marriages celebrated in unrecognised states (with Deepak Nagpal).
• Acting for a number of claimants who were born and spent their entire lives in the UK challenging failures by the Home Office to register them as British citizens and/or attempts to deport them.
• Acting in/advising on challenges to NHS data policy.
• Advising a number of NGOs on issues arising from the Covid Inquiry.
• AB v SSHD: Acting for the claimant in a judicial review claim and human rights/Equality Act damages claim arising from the failure of the Home Office to provide adequate accommodation for a severely disabled child asylum seeker.
• RHE v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Brent: Acting for a victim of trafficking in a human rights damages claim (Articles 3 and 4) against the Metropolitan Police and local authority.
• Acting for a vulnerable claimant challenging her eviction from NRPF accommodation on human rights grounds.
• Antonio v SSHD: Acting for the claimant in an application to the European Court of Human Rights challenging the compatibility of the bail provisions in the Immigration Act 2016 with Article 5 of the ECHR (with Alex Goodman KC).
• MAZ v SSHD: Acting for the claimant in a judicial review claim challenging the operation of the Home Office’s Rwanda scheme in relation to victims of trafficking (with Shu Shin Luh).
• Carrington v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2021] EWCA Civ 1724: Appearing for a child benefit claimant in an important appeal regarding the scope of Regulation 883/2004 and the application of the CJEU’s judgment in Tolley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to family benefits.
• R (on the application of OK) v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWHC 3165 (Admin): Appearing for the intervener Doctors of the World in a challenge to the NHS charging regime.
• Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens & O v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Court of Appeal): acting for one of the claimants in a challenge to the Home Secretary’s mandatory fee of £1,012 for children to register as British citizens (with Richard Drabble KC and Jason Pobjoy).
• A & B v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (Supreme Court): acting for the interveners in appeal challenging provisions of the criminal injuries compensation relating to victims of trafficking on the basis of incompatibility with Article 4 ECHR, and raising the relevance of Articles 15 and 26 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking (with Karon Monaghan KC and James Robottom).
• R (KK) v Tavistock & Portman NHS Foundation Trust (Court of Appeal): acting for the appellant transgender prisoner in their challenge to a decision by a NHS trust to refuse to recommend gender reassignment surgery, raising Article 8 ECHR issues (with David Lock KC).
• R (SHU) v Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care and the Home Department: acting for the claimants in a challenge to the NHS charging regime (on the basis of Art.8 and 14 of the ECHR) and the vires/rationality of Immigration Rules provisions requiring NHS debts to be taken into account in applications for leave to remain (with Samantha Broadfoot KC).
• R (ERA) v Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Secretary of State for Health and Social Care intervening): acting for a vulnerable claimant challenging the decision of two NHS trusts to charge her for life-saving treatment (with Stephen Knafler QC).
• Acting for a number of victims of trafficking challenging decisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority on, inter alia, grounds that refusals to grant compensation are contrary to EU law and the ECHR.

Admas is the co-author of the chapter on judicial review procedure in Judicial Review (Supperstone, Goudie and Walker); the chapter on Article 10 of the ECHR in Human Rights Practice (Simor); and a contributing author to Children’s Social Care Law (LAG, 2018) and Adult Social Care Law (LAG, 2019). Complementing his public law practice, Admas also has a significant public international law practice and is a member of the Attorney-General’s Public International Law C Panel of Counsel.

Prior to joining Chambers, Admas spent a year as the judicial assistant to Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court and worked in Syria and Jordan for the UN Refugee Agency. Admas speaks fluent Arabic and has experience of working with Arabic-language documents and legal sources in the context of both litigation and advisory work. He takes a particular interest in matters relating to the Middle East and East Africa.

International

Admas is appointed to the Attorney-General’s Public International Law C Panel of Counsel. He has a varied practice in public and private international law, both in the context of domestic litigation and disputes governed by international law, and a busy advisory practice, with a particular focus on issues arising from counter-terrorism policies and practices. He has undertaken work for NGOs, individuals, commercial entities and governments.

Notable experience:

• HF and MF v France (ECtHR, Grand Chamber): acting for intervener Reprieve in application to the ECtHR by French nationals detained by Syrian Democratic Forces camps in north-eastern Syria following their capture in territory controlled by Islamic State, with the applicants arguing that the ECHR requires their repatriation to France (due to be heard before the Grand Chamber in September 2021).
• Advising commercial entities and public bodies on a range of international law issues arising from the siting of offshore installations.
• Mohamed v Breish: acting for the respondent (with Shaheed Fatima KC) in Commercial Court proceedings in respect of the dispute over the chairmanship of the Libyan Investment Authority, raising questions of Libyan law and the scope of the one-voice doctrine. Carried out extensive work on expert evidence regarding Libyan law.
• Advising an NGO on public international law issues arising out a complaint to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
• Advising Transparency International on the design and implementation of anti-corruption measures
• Advising private entities on commercial arrangements that raise issues under the law of the sea and the law of armed conflict.
• Advising an NGO on possible liability in UK domestic law for certain breaches of international criminal law in the Middle East.

Admas is regularly instructed in domestic public law proceedings that raise public international law issues:

• R (Hoareau and others) v Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs: (with Ben Jaffey KC and Paul Luckhurst) acting for the claimant in a challenge to the UK government’s 2016 decision to refuse to allow resettlement of the Chagos Islands, raising issues of the relationship between the lawfulness of the UK’s administration of overseas territory and Art.56 of the ECHR, and the domestic effect of ICJ advisory opinions.
• Mohamed v Abdi: appearing (led by Deepak Nagpal) as the Advocate to the Court in a case concerning the status of foreign marriages celebrated in unrecognised states in English law, raising the issue of the scope of the exception to the principle of non-recognition of the laws of unrecognised states/governments.
• A & B v Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (Supreme Court): acting for the interveners in this Supreme Court appeal regarding the interplay of Article 4 ECHR, Articles 15 and 26 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking and the criminal injuries compensation scheme (with Karon Monaghan KC and James Robottom).

Admas takes a particular interest in international law issues relating to the Middle East and the Horn of Africa. He speaks fluent Arabic and has extensive experience of working in Arabic, including with Arabic-language documents and working closely with experts in Arabic, particularly in relation to foreign law expert reports.

Admas also worked on public international law issues in the context of domestic appellate litigation as a judicial assistant at the Supreme Court, in particular in the following appeals:

• Serdar Mohamed v Ministry of Defence: legal basis for detention powers in non-international armed conflicts.
• Youssef v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2016] UKSC 3: a challenge to the United Kingdom’s decision to allow the appellant’s name to be added to the United Nations Security Council’s list of people subject to asset freezing asset-freezing.
• Ministry of Defence v Iraqi Civilians [2016] UKSC 25: a claim concerning the application of conflict of laws principles on the determination of the correct limitation period to claims applying Iraqi law.

Prior to commencing practice at the Bar, Admas worked as a caseworker for the UN Refugee Agency focusing on exclusion issues, carrying out determinations of whether applicants were excluded from protection on the basis of involvement in war crimes or crimes against humanity, and interviewed applicants in Arabic. Admas’ other international law experience prior to commencing practice includes:

• As a legal assistant to the Legal Adviser to a state party to an inter-state post-war claims arbitration, carrying out legal research, assisting with the production of sworn declarations by witnesses and drafting sections of the state party’s memorials.
• Carrying out legal research into developing areas of public international law and international human rights law pertaining to the conflict in Syria (with a focus on the powers of the UN Security Council) for the Legal Adviser to the Joint Special Envoy of the UN and Arab League to Syria.
• Advising non-governmental organisations in Haiti on the procedure and principles underpinning the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review process.

Admas has published a number of articles on the interplay between public international law principles and the development of ECHR jurisprudence domestically and in the ECtHR (see articles). As an LLM student at the University of Pennsylvania, Admas graduated with the joint highest Distinction in his year, carried out research on public international law for a number of professors, and was awarded a discretionary A+ in his public international law examination.

Rating and Valuation

Admas has a busy rating practice advising and appearing for billing authorities, private entities and central government in a range of courts and tribunals. 

In assisting his clients on rating matters, Admas is able to draw on his expertise in property law, including in property disputes involving charitable bodies/charitable trust issues.

Notable rating experience includes:

• Appearing in the Upper Tribunal on valuation disputes for ratepayers and for the Valuation Officer
• Advising on rates mitigation schemes, including in the context of charitable relief
• Advising ratepayers on various issues arising from the effects of government restrictions imposed in response to COVID-19
• Advising and appearing in the Magistrates’ Court for ratepayers seeking to challenge the imposition of liability orders on a variety of grounds.
• Appearing in the Valuation Tribunal for ratepayers in valuation disputes and completion notice appeals
• Advising on a range of rating issues, including: exemptions from unoccupied rates; state aid issues; transitional relief; valuation tribunal practice and procedure; the VOA’s powers and duties; and a wide range of business rates liability issues relating to the occupation of office buildings.

As a pupil to Dan Kolinsky KC, Admas assisted on appeals in the Upper Tribunal, Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court (Woolway (VO) v Mazars).

Cross-practice

Landmark's barristers often work at the intersection of our core practice areas; bringing a wide range of skills, knowledge and experience to bear on a particular dispute or issue facing a client.

Our focus is always on achieving the best possible outcome for our client. By viewing the client's objectives in a holistic way - and not purely through the lens of one rigidly-defined legal area - we deliver the best possible advice and representation in complex matters that engage multiple specialist areas of law. 

Whether it's providing support as an individual cross-practice barrister or a cross-disciplinary team of Landmark counsel, we are able to draw on an outstanding array of complementary skillsets and knowledge bases. This often achieves a better result than instructing multiple barristers from different specialist sets. This also improves the quality of client care through increased levels of communication, quicker response times, and a coordinated approach to clerking and fees, made possible by our team-based cross-practice approach.

Please contact our practice management team for more information.

EU Law post-Brexit

Public Interest Litigation