David Pievsky

Acted (with James Eadie QC) for the Secretary of State. The Supreme Court considered the question of Crown Immunity and whether it applied to the prohibitions on smoking set out in Part 1 of the Health Act 2006. The Court accepted submissions made on behalf of the Secretary of State to the effect that the Crown is not bound by Statute unless that is made clear expressly or by necessary implication.

Successfully represented DEFRA in a judicial review application

concerning the domestic and European rules relating to halal slaughter.

Acted (with Lord Pannick QC and Sam Grodzinski QC) for the London Mayor in litigation brought under the Riot Damages Act 1886 concerning the recoverability of damages for consequential loss. The Supreme Court allowed the Mayor’s appeal, ruling that such damages are not recoverable under the 1886 Act. 

Acted for the General Medical Council, in judicial review proceedings concerning the proper interpretation of the Council’s rules about how to deal with the determinations of foreign regulatory bodies, and the ‘5 year rule’ applicable to allegations of impaired fitness to practise.  The case also raised questions of principle relating to the procedural rules on delay in judicial review proceedings. Judgment currently awaited from the Court of Appeal.

Successfully defended a judicial review claim concerning the challenge for the authorities of assessing a prisoner’s prospects of rehabilitation, where he continues to protest his innocence of the index offence.

Acted for the successful Home Office in a case about whether privileged legal advice concerning the admissibility of intercept evidence should be released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Currently advising the government as sole counsel on a number of claims brought in the European Court of Human Rights relating to the list of individuals who are barred from working with children or vulnerable adults (2015 and ongoing).

Acted (with James Eadie QC) in proceedings arising out of HMRC’s treatment of film finance schemes.

Acted with James Eadie QC in this challenge to a Direction made under new legislative powers for regulating the publishing of publicity by local authorities. Case settled by consent. 

Acted with James Eadie QC in an appeal to the Supreme Court raising jurisdictional issues under the European Convention on Human Rights; the reach of the substantive obligation to preserve life under Article 2 in the context of active military operations; and the common law doctrine of combat immunity.

Acted (with Monica Carss-Frisk QC) for the successful Applicant Police Commissioner, in a human rights dispute about the proper jurisdiction of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in a case raising allegations about the conduct of undercover police officers.

Appeared for the Secretary of State for Justice in a two week trial concerning a prisoner’s allegations of homophobic treatment at the hands of both prison officers and other prisoners. 

Acted for the GMC in a case raising difficult questions about old allegations of child abuse, and whether they could be revisited in light of Rule 4(5) of the GMC’s Rules.

Acted (with Monica Carss-Frisk QC) in claims raising the status of the “neither confirm nor deny” approach to allegations made about alleged covert surveillance operations.

Acted (with Charles Bourne QC) in a case brought by Private Eye seeking disclosure of information relating to the MOD’s dealings with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Information Tribunal agreed with the MOD’s argument that release of the requested information would undermine international relations between the UK and Saudi Arabia, and dismissed the complaint.

Appeared for the CPS in a case concerning the so-called “Twitter joke trial”. The Tribunal accepted the CPS’s argument that the information sought by the claimant should not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, despite it being of interest, as it was exempt by virtue of s30(1)(c) of that Act.

Appeared for the Secretary of State for Justice in a dispute about the circumstances in which judicial review claimants should be entitled to anonymity.

Acted for the government in a claim concerning how to achieve the rehabilitation of a prisoner who is in total denial of the index offence of which he was convicted. The claim was based on Article 5(4) of the ECHR and in particular the so-called Kaiyam duty. 

Successfully defended a judicial review claim concerning the challenge for the authorities of assessing a prisoner’s prospects of rehabilitation, where he continues to protest his innocence of the index offence.

Currently advising the government as sole counsel on a number of claims brought in the European Court of Human Rights relating to the list of individuals who are barred from working with children or vulnerable adults (2015 and ongoing).

Acted (with James Eadie QC) in proceedings arising out of HMRC’s treatment of film finance schemes.

Acted with James Eadie QC in an appeal to the Supreme Court raising jurisdictional issues under the European Convention on Human Rights; the reach of the substantive obligation to preserve life under Article 2 in the context of active military operations; and the common law doctrine of combat immunity.

Acted (with Monica Carss-Frisk QC) for the successful Applicant Police Commissioner, in a human rights dispute about the proper jurisdiction of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in a case raising allegations about the conduct of undercover police officers.

Appeared for the Secretary of State for Justice in a two week trial concerning a prisoner’s allegations of homophobic treatment at the hands of both prison officers and other prisoners. 

Acted (with Monica Carss-Frisk QC) in claims raising the status of the “neither confirm nor deny” approach to allegations made about alleged covert surveillance operations.

Appeared for the Secretary of State for Justice in a dispute about the circumstances in which judicial review claimants should be entitled to anonymity.

Advising and representing the Secretary of State in relation to Court of Appeal proceedings concerning the interests of the child as a primary consideration.

Advising as to citizenship issues under s4B of the British Nationality Act 1981, in light of erroneously issued UK passports.

Currently advising the Financial Services Compensation Scheme as to public law issues arising out of the distinction between negligent investment advice (which is not covered by the scheme) and negligent mortgage advice (which is). 

Acted for the General Medical Council, in judicial review proceedings concerning the proper interpretation of the Council’s rules about how to deal with the determinations of foreign regulatory bodies, and the ‘5 year rule’ applicable to allegations of impaired fitness to practise.  The case also raised questions of principle relating to the procedural rules on delay in judicial review proceedings. Judgment currently awaited from the Court of Appeal.

Appeared for the GMC in a case about the suspension of a doctor for the improper and dishonest use of prescriptions. 

Acted (with Javan Herberg QC) for an individual who had referred a decision of the FCA to the Tribunal.

Acted for the GMC in a case raising difficult questions about old allegations of child abuse, and whether they could be revisited in light of Rule 4(5) of the GMC’s Rules.

Acted for the successful GMC in an appeal against a suspension decision arising out of complaints following two medical consultations.

Acted for the successful GMC in a case about dishonesty arising out of the alleged alteration of patient notes by a doctor.

Acted for the successful GMC in an appeal against a decision to erase a doctor for failing to maintain adequate professional standards.

Acted for the GMC, successfully resisting a doctor’s application to revoke an order imposing conditions on his registration, arising out of allegedly substandard treatment in relation to a number of patients.

Acted (with Paul Goulding QC) in two whistleblowing claims brought in the Employment Tribunal. Claims settled during the trial.

Acted for the successful Respondent employer in this case about alleged age discrimination against an employee at the Wimbledon Tennis Championship.

Acted pro bono for the Claimant in an appeal to the Court of Appeal raising questions about disability discrimination (post-Malcolm, but pre-Equality Act) and about the proper exercise of the discretion to award costs in an Employment Tribunal.