David Mitchell

David is an outstanding advocate and has a fantastic manner when advising lay clients. – Defamation / Privacy – Chambers & Partners 2025

"David is an exceptional barrister. He really fights his client's corner and his submissions are delivered brilliantly" – Data Protection - The Legal 500 2025

In his media practice, David acts in libel, slander, malicious falsehood, breach of confidence/misuse of private of information, contempt of court and data protection matters. His clients include journalists, MPs, political parties, free speech organisations, central and devolved government departments, corporate bodies, regulators, NGOs and charities.

David is regularly instructed in interim injunctions involving privacy, online harassment (including blackmail) and data protection claims as well as in applications for Norwich Pharmacal Orders.

He has advised the Bar Standards Board on the operation of the open justice principle in BTAS Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings and advised the Solicitors Regulation Authority on application of its warning notice on Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPPs).

In his information law practice, David advises in respect of regulatory matters involving the Information Commissioner's Office and acts in private law data protection claims in the civil courts and public law judicial review claims in the Administrative Court. David appears before the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal in Freedom of Information Act appeals.

David was shortlisted for “Technology and data junior of the year” at The Legal 500 Bar Awards 2022. He hosts 39 Essex Chambers’ AI and the Law podcast with Katherine Apps KC.

Cases of note:

• Nicholas & Ors v Thomas & Or [2025] EWHC 752 (Ch) – successful for claimants in obtaining damages of £258,500 arising the from defendants’ nuisance, negligence and harassment (including by publication) following a bitter neighbour dispute in which the defendants’ nuisance caused the death of three high-value falcons bred by the claimants. Reported in The Daily Mail, The Independent and The Telegraph 
• RBT v YLA [2024] EWHC 1855 (KB) – successful in obtaining interim injunction for businessman who was the subject of an online harassment and blackmail campaign orchestrated from the UK and Middle East. RPC’s summary here.
• Gotti v Holland - successful for defendant medical whistleblower in publication harassment case against owner of cosmetic surgery clinic. Application for interim injunction and claim certified as totally without merit. Court applied SRA’s guidance on ‘strategic lawsuits against public participation’ (SLAPPs). Reported in The Times and on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour.
• Sahota v MATV [2021] EWHC 3363 (QB) - Libel damages following trial of £60,000 plus indemnity costs and injunctions for claimant political activist. 
• Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office v Information Commissioner, Lownie & Ors (Sections 23 and 24) [2021] UKUT 248 (AAC); [2022] 1 W.L.R 1132 - Successful appeal against release of papers of Cambridge Spy, Guy Burgess, under FOIA. Leading authority on national security exemptions (led by Sir James Eadie KC). 
• Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Kevin Spacey QB/2021/00367 - Without notice worldwide interim injunction for destruction of confidential information concerning the right to anonymity under s1, Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. Conflict of laws with US. 
• Sivier v Riley [2021] EWCA Civ 713; [2021] 4 W.L.R. 84 ; [2021] E.M.L.R. 22 (CA) - Leading authority concerning publication on a matter of public interest defence (s4 Defamation Act 2013). Successful for appellant journalist. 
• RPB v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2019] EWHC 3852 (QB) - Successful for defendant in transferring misuse of private information and DPA claims from High Court to County Court under s.40(2) County Courts Act 1984. Transfer upheld upon claimant’s appeal. 
• Dhir v Saddler [2018] 4 W.L.R. 1; Times, 2 January 2018 - Successful for claimant following five-day slander trial concerning defendant’s statement that claimant had threatened to slit her throat. Authority on serious harm in the context of slander. 

“An excellent junior.” – Employment – The Legal 500 2024 
“David is an outstanding advocate and his ability to grasp complex areas of law second to none.” Employment - The Legal 500 2023 

David regularly acts in employment disputes concerning data protection, libel, privacy, freedom of expression and/or reporting issues. In the commercial context, David acts in disputes involving breach of confidence, restrictive covenants, trade secrets and bonus entitlements.

Before the Employment Tribunal, David acts for employees and employers in the full range of statutory claims with a particular emphasis on complex discrimination, whistleblowing and working time cases. He has been involved in various appellate cases concerning the jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal compared to the civil courts.

David has particular experience claims involving belief discrimination and academic freedom in the education sector, acting for and against universities.

David authors the chapter on “Employment Contracts and Compromise” in Foskett on Compromise (10th ed.)

Outside the employment arena David acts in discrimination cases involving sports clubs, political parties and GP partnerships. 

Cases of note:

• Professor James Hughes v London School of Economics - for claimant Professor of Comparative Politics who was subject to academic censorship for his publications on Israel / Palestine. The LSE apologised to Professor Hughes for discriminating against him based on his anti-Zionist philosophical beliefs.
• Benedict Dybowski v The Bishop of Llandaff Church In Wales High School - successful defence against claimant teaching assistant’s claims of belief discrimination based on his Christian beliefs. Case reported in The Telegraph, the Daily Mail, The Independent and sky news.
• Yorke v Glaxosmithkline Services Unlimited EA-2019-000962-BA - Successful for employer in complex disability discrimination appeal. Employment Appeal Tribunal guidance on list of issues in case management of disability discrimination claims. 
• Irwell Insurance Company Ltd v Watson [2021] I.C.R. 1034; [2021] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 145; Times, March 10, 2021 (CA) - Jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal to hear claims under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010. For appellant insurer. 
• Gemini Europe Ltd v Sawyer [2020] EWHC 3377 (QB) - Non-compete and confidential information interim injunction. For employee (led by William McCormick KC). 
• Hopkins v HMRC [2020] EWHC 2355 (QB) - Employer’s strike out of data protection claims concerning investigation of alleged serious criminality by senior civil servant. 
• London Underground Ltd v Amissah & Ors [2019] I.C.R. 1155, [2019] I.R.L.R. 545 (CA) - Successful for agency workers in group action concerning compensation under Agency Worker Regulations. 
• Thompson v Ark Schools [2019] I.C.R. 292 - Successful appeal for claimant concerning time limits in pregnancy / maternity discrimination (instructed by Equality and Human Rights Commission). 
• Robert Newbound v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2015] I.R.L.R. 734 (CA): - Successful for employee in appeal concerning apparent bias of Employment Appeal Tribunal. 

David acts and advises in commercial litigation involving contractual claims, partnership disputes, civil fraud, directors’ disputes and breaches of fiduciary duties. 

David is used to acting on short notice in urgent injunction proceedings involving misappropriation of confidential information and in applications for Norwich Pharmacal orders.

He also acts in arbitration proceedings.

Recent work includes:

• Reid & Reid v Warner Music UK Ltd - acting for the founding members of The Jesus and Mary Chain in a royalty dispute with the defendant recording company.
• Kea Investments Limited v Eric John Watson (Fladgate LLP intervening) [2023] EWHC 1768 (Ch) & [2023] EWHC 1830 (Ch) - for LLP in application to protect commercial confidentiality of settlement agreement.
• Pharmacosmos A/S v The University of Glasgow - pharmaceutical manufacturer’s claim concerning the commercial exploitation of clinical trial data. For defendant university. 

David advises and acts for sports bodies and individuals in regulatory matters and disputes concerning confidentiality, privacy, defamation and data protection. 

He has acted in a number of claims for and against unincorporated associations including in injunction proceedings concerning suspension and expulsion from clubs and the issuing of fines. 

David was a guest speaker at the LawInSport inaugural Motorsport Law Conference discussing “Trusting your team and protecting sensitive data”.

David has a litigation and advisory practice acting for regulators and individuals, principally in the legal and healthcare professions. 

Recent work includes:

• PSA v NMC & Namusisi [2023] EWHC 1230 (Admin); (2023) 194 B.M.L.R. 144 - for Authority in appeal against sanction. NMC’s 12-month suspension order substituted with erasure from register. 
• Advising the BSB on the open justice principle derogations from open justice in BTAS Disciplinary Tribunal proceedings.
• Advising the SRA on application of its warming notice concerning Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPPs)

“Able to grasp complex cases quickly. Great advocacy skills.” Administrative Law and Human Rights - The Legal 500 2023

“David is a charming but robust advocate and is an asset to his clients.” Immigration (including business immigration) - The Legal 500 2023

David is experienced in a broad range of judicial review litigation: 

Cases of note:

• R. (Alliance of Turkish Businesspeople) v SSHD [2020] 1 W.L.R. 2436; [2020] Imm. A.R. 1148; [2020] I.N.L.R. 564 (CA) - Successful cross-appeal concerning whether ECAA immigration guidance was capable of giving rise to a substantive legitimate expectation (led by Sir James Eadie KC). 
• R. (Karagul & Ors) v SSHD [2019] EWHC 3208 (Admin) - Replacement of statutory appeal by administrative review for ECAA applicants did not breach principle of effectiveness under EU law (led by Deok Joo Rhee KC). 
• Home Office v JA [2019] EWHC 49 (QB) - Successful appeal against finding of unlawful detention concerning eight-month-old child who had not proven his British nationality under the British Nationality (Proof of Paternity) Regulations 2006. 
• Soner Kotuk v Entry Clearance Officer, Warsaw [2019] 4 W.L.R. 10 [2019] Imm. A.R. 735 (CA) - The Court of Appeal confirmed “standstill clause” in the additional protocol to the Ankara Agreement did not apply to right of establishment. Successful for respondent (led by Deok Joo Rhee KC) 
• R. (Fire Brigades Union) v South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority [2018] EWHC 1229 (Admin); [2018] I.R.L.R. 717; [2018] 3 C.M.L.R. 27 - For defendant fire authority in judicial review concerning compliance of firefighters’ shift system with Working Time Regulations. 
• R. (Talpada) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 841 (CA): - Successful for SSHD concerning points based system (PBS) challenge based on evidential flexibility and legitimate expectation. 
• NE-A (Nigeria) & HM (Uganda) v SSHD [2017] EWCA 239; Imm. A.R. 1077; [2018] INLR 88 (CA) - Successful in joined appeals concerning article 8 claims of foreign national offenders resisting deportation.