Julian Milford KC

Julian undertakes public and constitutional law work for local authorities, central government, NHS authorities, individuals, public interest groups and others. That work includes general public law judicial review claims at all levels of Court up to the Supreme Court, including high- value commercial judicial review claims, and claims connected in particular with discrimination issues of all kinds; information rights; surveillance; and education. He has appeared on a number of occasions before the European Court of Human Rights. He also undertakes investigations and inquiries (for example, acting as an independent investigator or legal adviser in recent cases concerning pensions and allegations of bullying and harassment). He is recommended in the directories for Administrative and Public Law, Chambers and Partners stating: “he is excellent on his feet” and “he is a formidable and dogged opponent”; and Legal 500 stating: “Julian is an excellent barrister, with extensive experience and is excellent to work with, he is an excellent all rounder”. His recent and current work includes:

• Acting for HMG in current judicial review proceedings challenging the compatibility of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and the legal framework for governmental surveillance powers generally with human rights and EU law (R(Liberty) v (1) SSHD (2) SSFCO [2022] 1 WLR 4929, [2020] 1 WLR 243, and [2019] QB 481).
• Acting in various Covid-19 related challenges, including R(Adiatu) v HMT and SSWP [2020] IRLR 658 (judicial review of the Government’s Job Retention Scheme on Human Rights and EU law grounds by the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain); JR challenges to Care Allowance rules and provision for the self- employed who have taken maternity leave (see e.g. R(Motherhood Plan) v HM Treasury [2022] 3 All E. R. 727); and a JR challenge to the Covid-19 related appointments of Dame Kate Bingham and Baroness Harding (R(Good Law Project Ltd) v The Prime Minister [2022] EWHC 298 (Admin)).
• Acting for HMG in judicial review proceedings supported by the campaign group BackTo60, challenging changes to the state pension age for women (R(Delve) v SSWP [2021] ICR 236).
• Acting for Rhondda Cynon Taf CBC in a challenge to a major school reorganization, which was the first case in which the CoA considered the proper interpretation of bilingual Welsh/English legislation: R(Driver) v Rhondda Cynon Taf CBC [2021] ELR 193.
• Acting in judicial review proceedings challenging the lawfulness of guidance to Local Government Pension Scheme administrators on boycotts, divestments and sanctions (R(Palestine Solidarity Campaign) v SSHCLG [2020] UKSC 16, [2020] 1 WLR 1774).
• Acting in discrimination challenges concerning welfare benefit schemes including Universal Credit and State Pension Credit – see e.g. R(TP) v SSWP [2020] EWCA Civ 37.
• Acting for the Labour Party in internal disciplinary proceedings concerning Ken Livingstone and issues of anti-Semitism. Julian also acted for the Labour Party in proceedings challenging the Labour Party’s right to determine the eligibility of members to vote in the 2016 leadership election: Evangelou v McNicol [2016] EWCA Civ 817.
• Acting for the Prime Minister in proceedings challenging the make-up of the panel for the Grenfell Tower Inquiry.
• Acting before the European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber concerning alleged breaches of the ECHR and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, arising from disclosures made by Edward Snowden (Big Brother Watch and ors v United Kingdom, 10 Human Rights Organisations v UK, Bureau of Investigative Journalism v UK (2022) 74 EHRR 17. Julian has acted in a number of other recent ECtHR cases concerning alleged state surveillance, including Lucas and Jones v United Kingdom (a claim that the UK’s legal regime concerning state surveillance of parliamentarians breaches the ECHR) and Wieder and Guarnieri v United Kingdom (a claim that the UK has breached human rights by surveillance of persons overseas).
• Acting in judicial review proceedings alleging discrimination within the Local Government Pension Scheme concerning the provision of survivor’s benefits to cohabitees: R(Harvey) v (1) Haringey LBC (2) SSCLG [2019] Pens LR 3.
• Acting for the Metropolitan Police in judicial review proceedings before the High Court and CA challenging their power to question foreign nationals on their immigration status: R(Centre for Individual Rights in Europe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and anr [2019] 1 WLR 3002.
• Acting on behalf of the Attorney General in a judicial review of the Attorney General’s decision to veto the release of letters between The Prince of Wales and Government Ministers ((R(Evans) v Attorney General).
• Cases in the European Court of Human Rights about subject-matter including complaints about the stop and search powers in the Terrorism Act 2000; sexual orientation discrimination in the armed forces; and changes to the state pension age.

Julian has acted in a number of high-profile cases concerning freedom of information, data protection, and data/privacy rights more generally. That includes data breach cases (where he has acted for data controllers and the Information Commissioner); cases raising significant questions about the interpretation of the GDPR, Data Protection Act 2018 and Data Protection Act 1998, Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Environmental Information Regulations 2004; and challenges to surveillance or information sharing on human rights or EU law grounds. He is recommended in the directories for data protection/information law, Chambers and Partners stating: “he is calm, insightful, intelligent and approachable” and Legal 500 stating: “he is a very good, clear, clever advocate and knows his stuff”. Recent and current work includes the following:

• Acting for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in Webster v HMRC, a major current High Court claim in which the claimant challenges the system for the automatic transfer of tax data between the UK and the USA as being contrary to the GDPR and Data Protection Act 1998.
• Cases for HMG in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal concerning the activities of the Intelligence Agencies in connection with large-scale collection of data under warrants or authorisations, and data sharing with foreign intelligence See e.g. current proceedings against MI5 (Liberty and Privacy International v (1) Security Service (2) SSHD IPT/20/01/CH). Julian has also acted in a number of cases both domestically and in the ECtHR concerning the Intelligence Agencies, arising out of allegations made by Edward Snowden. Those include current proceedings against HMG in the Divisional Court challenging the compatibility of all the ‘bulk’ powers in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 with human rights and EU law: R(Liberty) v (1) SSHD (2) SSFCO [2022] 1 WLR 4929, [2020] 1 WLR 243, and [2019] QB 481; and in the ECtHR, Big Brother Watch v United Kingdom (2022) 74 EHRR 17.
• Acting as Counsel to the Tribunal in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in cases concerning vetting by the Security and Intelligence Agencies, and proceedings concerning the acquisition of communication data.
• Acting for the Information Commissioner in proceedings concerning the Information Commissioner’s investigation into AdTech and targeted advertising on the internet (Veale and Killock v Information Commissioner [2022] 1 WLR 2241).
• Acting for the Information Commissioner in current High Court proceedings raising the issue of when the UK GDPR applies to data controllers outside the UK (Soriano v Forensic News LLP).
• Acting for HMG in proceedings in the ECtHR brought by Privacy International, challenging the exclusion of GHCQ from the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as being contrary to Article 10 ECHR.
• Ittihadieh v Cheyne Gardens RTM Co Ltd/Deer v University of Oxford [2018] QB 256. Cases concerning the meaning of “personal data” under the DPA 1998, the ambit of the duty to comply with subject access requests under the DPA, and the scope of the court’s remedial discretion.
• Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2016] QB 1003. A case concerning the use of “browser generated information” held by Google to target adverts at persons using the internet. The case concerns issues regarding (i) the scope of “personal data” under the DPA 1998; and (ii) the availability of a remedy under the DPA for breaches involving no financial loss.
• The release of letters between The Prince of Wales and Government Ministers including the Prime Minister (Evans v Information Commissioner and Cabinet Office, and subsequent proceedings concerning the use of the veto).
• Issues as to whether water companies, the Sovereign or the Royal Household are public bodies for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (Fish Legal and Shirley v Information Commissioner and ors [2015] UKUT 52; Cross v Information Commissioner and ors [2016] UKUT 0153).
• FOIA proceedings concerning the release of records of conversations between Tony Blair and George Bush related to the Iraq War (Plowden v Information Commissioner and FCO); the release of telephone conversations between Lord Lawson and George Osborne; and the release of documents held by the Cabinet Office related to the Hillsborough football disaster.

Julian regularly acts for both claimants and respondents in a wide range of employment tribunal disputes, where his clients include major national and international companies, banks, local authorities, police forces, unions, and healthcare providers. He has appeared before the High Court, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal on behalf of clients in employment cases. He has wide experience across the employment tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction and in High Court employment issues, including industrial action cases. He is recommended in the directories for his employment practice, Chambers and Partners most recently stating: “He is exceptionally bright; he is articulate and he strikes the perfect balance of being technically on top of every detail while being a pleasure to work with” and “he is a go-to person and a formidable barrister; he is not somebody you would want to be against” , while the Legal 500 states: “ Julian is exceptional – supportive, approachable, able to keep a clear head, and calm and eloquent in even the most testing of situations”. His recent and current experience includes:

• Current or recent Employment Tribunal cases include acting for Sainsburys in ongoing mass equal pay claims by retail staff (also currently on appeal to the Court of Appeal); acting for the BBC in equal pay cases brought by claimants including the presenter Samira Ahmed; and acting for London Heathrow Airport in large-scale holiday pay litigation addressing issues of holiday pay calculation in light of Bear Scotland, British Gas v Lock and Dudley MBC v Willetts.
• Strike injunctions in the High Court on behalf of British Airways, Virgin Atlantic Airlines, Thomas Cook Airlines, and Govia Thameslink Railway (the franchise holder for the Southern Rail network): see e.g. British Airways v BALPA [2020] IRLR 43, Virgin Atlantic Airlines v PPU [2018] EWHC 3645, Thomas Cook Airways v BALPA [2017] IRLR 1137, Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd v ASLEF [2016] IRLR 686, [2016] EWHC 1320 and Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd v ASLEF [2016] EWHC 985. Julian acts regularly in cases involving industrial action/union recognition issues.
• Acting for the Royal Parks in current discrimination proceedings in the EAT concerning the comparability of terms and conditions for employees and contract worker
• Complex employment tribunal discrimination/whistleblowing claims including a claim in which he obtained for a client what was at that time the highest employment tribunal award for disability discrimination.
• Test cases concerning the National Minimum Wage, including the largest mass NMW employment tribunal claim yet brought, concerning around 50 claimants in the care sector (Henry and ors v Sevacare).
• A number of large-scale equal pay employment tribunal claims. Julian has extensive experience in equal pay claims, and has been instructed both by individuals and on behalf of local authorities, unions, NHS Trusts, non-departmental public bodies, and large outsourcing companies.
• In the version attached to your email, a stray bullet appears in the middle of this sentence so that the sentence is separately in two by mistake. But I can’t get the formatting right when I bring the 2 bullet points together!

Julian has recently developed an education practice, with a particular focus upon the higher education sector. He acted successfully for Oxford University in the first full trial in the Courts of England and Wales of negligent teaching allegations at a higher education institution: Siddiqui v University of Oxford [2018] ELR 320. In addition:

• Julian acted for Rhondda Cynon Taff CBC in proceedings in the Court of Appeal concerning the proper interpretation of the School Organisation (Wales) Act 2013 in the context of a major school reorganization (R(Driver) v Rhondda Cynon Taf CBC [2021] ELR 193).
• Julian acted for a Welsh local authority in several recent judicial review claims involving the interpretation of the Welsh School Organisation Code in the context of rural school closures.
• Julian is acting for Anglia Ruskin University in current High Court proceedings challenging its termination of franchise arrangements with an education partner in Malaysia.
• Julian recently acted for an Oxford College in breach of contract and disability discrimination proceedings.
• Julian has recently acted for Essex University in the Employment Appeal Tribunal in a claim raising questions about the interpretation of the university’s ordinances (Korthals-Altes v University of Essex).
• Julian acts on behalf of a higher education institution in current proceedings challenging alleged race discrimination in the curriculum.
• Julian acted on behalf of the London Oratory School in a successful challenge to the Schools Adjudicator’s finding that the school’s admission arrangements were unlawful: R(Governors of London Oratory School) v Schools Adjudicator .