Contact clerking team

Download Vikram's CV

Choose the Expertise to be included in the CV download:

Select all

Add to shortlist

Choose the Expertise to be included in the shortlist profile:

Select All

Privacy notice

Vikram Sachdeva KC

“Vikram is meticulous in his preparation, commercially astute, supremely intelligent and charming with clients and judges alike.” 
“He is outstanding both on his feet and on paper.” 
“He is an excellent advocate; he is very calm under pressure…”
“[He] has got a brilliantly strategic mind. He spots points no one else can at an early stage…”
“A once in a generation talent.”

Vikram is a highly accomplished and multi-talented advocate who specialises in Administrative & Public Law, Civil Liberties & Human Rights, Healthcare, Commercial Law, Regulatory & Disciplinary, Tax, Media Law, and Costs & Litigation Funding. He is known for creatively pushing the boundaries of the law, and has appeared in a number of important cases in all of these fields up to the Supreme Court. He is often brought in for high profile cases outside his primary fields when a different perspective is needed.

Vikram is recommended in the legal directories in Administrative and Public law, Civil Liberties and Human Rights, Regulatory and Disciplinary law, Court of Protection (Welfare), and Costs and Litigation Funding.

In March 2013, whilst still a Junior, he was named The Times' Lawyer of the Week.
Vikram acts for both Claimants and Defendants in Public Law and Human rights cases in approximately equal measure, and was until recently the Chair of the Constitutional and Administrative Law Bar Association. Vikram sits in the Administrative Court as a Deputy High Court Judge. He was one of only two members of the Bar to be chosen to be a member of Lord Faulks’ Independent Review of Administrative Law.

Vikram studied Undergraduate Medicine and Law at Cambridge, then obtained the one year BCL at Oxford, before completing Clinical Medical course at Oxford. 

He then taught Administrative law at Cambridge University, and Tort and Criminal law at Oxford University, for several years. On coming to the Bar, Vikram was awarded the Queen Mother Scholarship, the Harmsworth Entrance Exhibition, and an accommodation scholarship by Middle Temple.

Before taking silk, Vikram spent many years on the Attorney General’s A, B and C panels. He has acted in four cases in the Supreme Court, 49 cases in the Court of Appeal, and more than a hundred in the High Court. His cases are often high profile, concern fundamental questions of principle, and attract national media attention, for instance the Supreme Court cases of Tigere (student loans and the right to education), Aintree v James (definition of "futile" medical treatment), NHS v Y (whether court application needed to withdraw CANH if family agrees); and JB v A Local Authority (whether capacity to engage in sexual relations requires an understanding that the other person must consent throughout). He also acted in the Skripal case (whether blood samples could be taken for the OPCW); the Interchange Fee Litigation (whether parties had settled after expiry of the relevant period); advice during the VW and Mercedes Emissions litigation; Smith v Lancashire (declaration of incompatibility against the Fatal Accidents Act leading to a change in the legislation in  causing the right to bereavement damages to be extended to cohabitees of 2 years); Ashya King (whether proton radiotherapy should be performed in Czech Republic); Tafida Raqeeb (whether breach of TFEU article 56 not to permit travel to Italy for medical treatment); and the reinterpretation of the Mitchell principles concerning relief against sanction in Denton v White.

As well as appearing in most of the important medical treatment cases of the last decade, Vikram was a founder member and Chair of the Court of Protection Bar Association. He sits as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Family Division and often hears medical treatment cases. Vikram has a thriving commercial and arbitration practice ranging from general commercial law, to civil fraud, to banking, to international supply contracts.

He also practices in Regulatory & Disciplinary (often providing strategic advice to Regulators), Tax (most recently appearing in the Court of Appeal in a £1 billion direct tax case), Media law (particularly in relation to medical treatment cases) and Costs and Litigation Funding.

Vikram was nominated for The Legal 500 Bar Awards for Government and Third Sector Silk of the Year in 2022, and for Court of Protection and Community Care Silk of the Year in 2023.

Areas of expertise

Public Law and Human Rights

Vikram's busy public law practice covers a large number of areas, including Mental Health, National Security and Immigration, Prisons, Financial Services Regulation, Local Government, Civil Liberties and Human Rights, and appears on behalf of a wide range of clients including individuals, companies, local authorities, and central government.


  • R (Shashikanth) v NHSLA (forthcoming, CA) – whether SSH’s Adjudicator’s decision over non NHS contract is amenable to judicial review.
  • R (Dawson) v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust [2021] EWHC 928 (Admin) [2021] PTSR 1474 – successful consultation challenge under s242(1B) NHS Act to attempt to close Grantham A&E.
  • R (Thomson) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2021] EWHC 478 (Admin) – whether SSHSC in breach of s2 Civil Contingencies Act 2004 or Article 8 in failing to formulate a national ITU triage policy in order to manage Coronavirus patients.
  • R (Wallpott) v Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee [2021] EWHC 3291 (Admin) [2022] ACD 27 – whether Defendant entitled to reject Claimant’s individual patient request for funding for cancer treatment.
  • R (Gossip) v NHS Surrey Downs CCG [2019] EWHC 3411 (Admin) [2020] PTSR 1239 – whether the claim should be against the CCG's decision or to the subsequent appeal to the Independent Review Panel; and whether exceptional circumstances were required for a CCG to differ from an assessment panel.
  • R (Nettleship) v NHS South Tyneside CCG [2020] EWCA Civ 46 [2020] PTSR 928 – whether CCG in breach of its consultation duties in deciding to downgrade the services at South Tyneside Hospital 
  • R (Tafida Raqeeb) v Barts NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 2531 (Admin) [2020] 3 All ER 663 – whether breach of TFEU article 56 not to permit travel to Italy for medical treatment. 
  • R (YZ) v Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 203 [2017] 1 WLR 3518 – whether transfer of restricted detained mental health patient to high secure psychiatric hospital breached rights under A3 and/or A8.
  • Smith v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 1916 [2018] QB 804 – whether omission of bereavement damages for cohabitees rendered Fatal Accidents Act 1976 s1A incompatible with A8 and A14.
  • Djaba v West London Mental Health Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 436; [2018] 1 WLR 1333 – whether mental health tribunals have jurisdiction to determine issues under A5 and/or A8.
  • R (Tigere) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] UKSC 57 [2015] 1 WLR 3820 – whether it was a breach of Article 14 read with Article 2 of the First Protocol to deny student loans to those who did not possess Indefinite Leave to Remain.
  • R (Tracey) v Secretary of State for Health [2014] EWCA Civ 822 [2015] QB 54

Healthcare/Medical Treatment

Vikram's busy healthcare practice is wide-ranging and he acts for Trusts, the Official Solicitor and for individuals. He has appeared in many of the important medical treatment cases of the last 15 years (in particular, he is the only barrister to have appeared in and won both Supreme Court cases concerning medical treatment). 

Cases of note:

  • University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust v ST [2023] EWCOP 40 (forthcoming, CA) – meaning of impairment or disturbance in functioning of mind or brain in MCA; whether there is an implicit requirement of belief in the veracity of the “information relevant to the decision”.
  • Clitheroe v Bond [2021] EWHC 1102 (Ch) [2021] P & CR DG14 and [2022] EWHC 2203 (Ch) – whether the test for testamentary capacity should be the common law test in Banks v Goodfellow or whether the test in the MCA should be adopted.
  • A Local Authority v JB [2021] UKSC 52 [2022] AC 1322 – overall approach to assessment of mental capacity, including definition of “information relevant to the decision”
  • Re Knight (A Child) [2021] EWCA Civ 362 [2021] Med LR 323 – whether physical harm to an unconscious patient was properly regarded as harm.
  • Z v University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust [2020] EWCA Civ 1772 – whether just entitled to find that continuation of life-sustaining treatment was not in the best interests of a patient in a coma
  • NHS Trust v Y [2018] UKSC 46; [2019] AC 978 – Whether it was a breach of A2 to fail to seek permission from court before withdrawing CANH in a Prolonged Disorder of Consciousness.
  • In re Briggs (Incapacitated Person) [2017] EWCA Civ 1169 [2018] Fam 63 – Whether s21A MCA 2005 permitted the determination of withdrawal of CANH from a patient in a Prolonged Disorder of Consciousness.
  • M v N [2015] EWCOP 83 [2015] COPLR 88 – first case in which the court ordered withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from a patient in a minimally conscious state
  • Re Ashya King (A Child) [2014] EWHC 2964 (Fam) – whether parents entitled to take child to Prague for proton beam radiotherapy
  • Aintree v James [2013] UKSC 67 [2014] AC 591 – the leading case which defines “best interests” in medical treatment cases, including the meaning of “futility” as applicable to medical treatment
  • In re M (Adult Patient) (Minimally Conscious State – Withdrawal of Treatment) [2011] EWHC 2443 (Fam) [2012] 1 WLR 1653 – whether the court had jurisdiction to order withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from patients in a minimally conscious state.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Vikram has a very successful commercial litigation practice covering commercial dispute resolution, banking, fraud, energy, insurance/reinsurance, procurement, construction, and media and entertainment.
Vikram is a member of COMBAR, the Chancery Bar Association, and LCLCBA.

  • Domestic Arbitration (2022) (Arbitrator)
  • Domestic Arbitration (2019, ongoing) (Arbitrator)
  • Commercial Arbitration (2022) – dissolution of GP Practice
  • NHS v A Turkish Company (2020) – dispute over supply of 400,000 surgical gowns to the NHS
  • SPI North v Swiss Post International (UK) Ltd and Asendia UK Ltd – multimillion pound claim for damages for breach of exclusive distribution contract against two national postal services ; [2019] EWCA Civ 7 [2019] 1 WLR 2865 (whether non-admission in Defence requires reasonable enquiry into facts); [2019] EWHC 2004 (Ch) (amendment to statements of case and summary judgment); [2020] EWHC 3268 (Ch) (application for summary judgment)
  • Chief Constable A v Chief Constable B (2019) – whether one of the parties to a demerger of certain police facilities including IT facilities could claim a mandatory injunction after expiry of the notice period for the continued provision of IT facilities.
  • An NHS Foundation Trust v A Company (2018) – dispute as to whether Payment by Results applied to two subcontracts
  • Domestic Arbitration (2018) (Arbitrator)
  • Application in Private [2017] EWHC 3606 (Comm) [2018] 6 Costs LR 1203 – whether a group of Defendants in the Interchange Litigation were entitled to withdraw a Part 36 offer while a trial was in progress.
  • Jones v NHS Commissioning Board [2017] EWHC 3557 (QB) – Whether claimant GPs entitled to interim injunction restraining termination of GMS contract.
  • EMW Law LLP v Halborg [2017] EWHC 1014 (Ch); [2017] 3 Costs LO 281 - Whether solicitor obliged to disclose to agent without prejudice negotiations with the other side, or whether a new exception to without privilege principle should be recognised.
  • International Arbitration (2016) (Counsel)
  • Westscott Financial Services Ltd v Financial Ombudsman Service [2014] EWHC 3972 (Admin) – Whether, in refusing a stay of the complaints, the FOS had failed to take account of the FSCS litigation in the Commercial Court.
  • Blankley v Central Manchester & Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 18; [2015] 1 WLR 4307 – Whether supervening mental incapacity frustrates a solicitor’s contract of retainer.
  • Domestic Arbitration (2015) (Counsel)
  • Jowhari v NHS England [2014] EWHC 4197 (QB) – Whether NHS England owes a statutory duty or a duty in negligence to compensate dentists for economic loss arising out of negligent use of its powers.
  • Denton v T H White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906; [2014] 1 WLR 3926 – Reinterpretation of the Mitchell case on noncompliance with court orders.
  • Parker v Shoreham Port Authority (2013, TCC) – Contractual debt claim for expenses of referring dispute to expert determination.
  • Armstrong v Pope & Co (2011) – Professional negligence claim against a solicitor and barrister.
  • Discain v Opecprime [2000] BLR 402 – whether an Adjudicator’s award was vitiated by breach of natural justice 

Regulatory and Disciplinary

Vikram is a "renowned" (Chambers and Partners) regulatory silk who has appeared in a very wide range of tribunals, for Applicants and Respondents – for instance, the General Dental Council, General Medical Council, Immigration Services Tribunal, Care Standards Tribunal, and General Social Care Council. He has also acted in a number of appeals to the High Court from disciplinary bodies.

Vikram was for many years a member of the Executive Committee of ARDL, and head of the Seminar Committee.

Legal Clerk to the independent Appeals Body to Phoneypayplus, the premium rate regulator.


  • Advice to various Care Homes 2023 – 4 re CQC assessments
  • Advice SRA 2023
  • Advice RIBA 2022
  • JK v MK and E-Negotiation Ltd [2020] EWFC 2 [2020] 1 FLR 1234: whether assistance with preparing a divorce petition and financial remedy order breached Legal Services Act Sch 2 para 4 or para 5.
  • Advice (2020); whether a UK firm was entitled to withdraw from domestic litigation based on the relationship between a linked firm and a member of the Royal family in that country.
  • A Regulator (2019): advised on proper procedure where a complaint is made against a member of a disciplinary committee.
  • Alves v General Dental Council (2018); whether GDC had power to impose sanctions that result in expenditure to the registrant.
  • VW Emissions litigation (2017): advice to a firm on its regulatory position.
  • R (Pym) v General Dental Council (2017): whether the evidence justified the GDC decision to hold a substantive disciplinary hearing.
  • A Regulator (2016): whether litigation privilege applies to certain documents, and whether the iniquity exception was engaged.
  • A Doctor (2014 – 6): whether defence union entitled to terminate membership without giving reasons.
  • R (Andersons Solicitors) v SRA [2012] EWHC 3659 (Admin): whether SRA entitled to publish allegations significantly in advance of public disciplinary hearing.
  • Bass & Ward v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2012] EWHC 2012 (Admin): An appeal against a finding that solicitors had breached Rule 5 of the Code of Conduct 2007 (supervision).
  • Bass & Ward v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2012] EWHC 2457 (Admin); [2013] 5 Costs LO 651: Whether the costs on an appeal from the SDT should be determined by CPR 52 or by Baxendale-Walker v Law Society [2008] 1 WLR 426.


Vikram has an interesting advisory and litigation practice for both taxpayers and HMRC covering a broad range of direct and indirect tax.


  • Knibbs v Revenue & Customs Commissioners; Astley v Revenue & Customs Commissioners [2019] EWCA Civ 1719 [2020] 1 WLR 731: whether the prescriptive scheme for calculation of tax liability in the Income Tax Act 2007 Part 2 Chapter 3 had to be construed as excluding from its ambit the operation of the Taxes Management Act 1970 Schedule 1B para 2(6) where a carry-back claim for trade loss relief had been made by the taxpayer.
  • Sinclair v HMRC [2016] EWHC 2820 (Ch): Whether Claimant entitled to act as a Representative within CPR 19.6 in respect of carry back claims.
  • R (Golding) v General Commissioners of Income Tax [2011] EWHC 2435 (Admin) [2012] STC 381: Whether decision not to issue closure notice tainted by bias against a tax inspector and the chairman of the tribunal.
  • Lower Mill Estate Limited v HMRC [2010] UKUT 463 (TCC) [2011] STC 636: Whether companies in common ownership supplied leases of land and building services to construct holiday homes could be treated as a single supply for VAT purposes and whether they resulted in a tax advantage contrary to EU law under the Halifax doctrine.
  • R (Golding) v General Commissioner of Income Tax [2011] EWHC 2435 (Admin) [2012] STC 381: Whether tax inspector and/or chairman of General Commissioners had exhibited apparent bias.

Media Law

Vikram has wide experience of the clash between freedom of expression and Article 8 and has appeared in leading cases in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, Mental Health Review Tribunal, and the Court of Protection.


  • Abbasi v Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Foundation Trust [2021] EWHC 1699 (Fam) [2022] Fam 180 – whether balance of Article 10 and Article 8 rights means that clinicians should be named after children’s deaths
  • Re C [2016] EWCOP 21 [2016] COPLR 236: Reporting restriction orders in the Court of Protection in serious medical treatment cases could extend beyond the death of the subject of the proceedings.
  • A Healthcare NHS Trust v P [2015] EWCOP 15 [2015] COPLR 147: In applications for reporting restriction orders the applicant should identify the parties including the adult in question when notifying the press.
  • Andersons Solicitors v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2012] EWHC 3659 (Admin): Whether SRA's policy of publishing details of complaints far in advance of the hearing was a proportionate interference with Respondents' Article 8 rights.
  • W v M (by her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) & a NHS Hospital Trust [2012] 1 WLR 287: The earliest case on reporting restriction orders in the Court of Protection.
  • AH v West London Mental Health Trust [2010] UKUT 264 (AAC) [2010] MHLR 326; [2011] UKUT 74 (AAC) [2011] MHLR 85: Whether a mental health review tribunal should, for the first time, be heard in public.

Costs and Litigation Funding

Vikram has a busy practice in Costs and Litigation Funding. He now specialises in Commercial Costs, and is one of Lord Justice Jackson's assessors, appointed to give advice in relation to his review into fixed recoverable costs in 2017.


  • Bushby v Galazi [2022] EWHC 136 (Ch) [2022] Costs LR 519 - whether a NPCO should be made against a litigation friend 
  • Akers v Kirkland [2019] EWHC 2176 (QB) [2019] Costs LR 1797: whether judge correct to recuse himself when assessing the fee of a barrister who by then had become a district judge in a nearby court.
  • Mattia Corrado Ubbi and Gabriele Corrado Ubbi v Susan Elizabeth Ubbi [2019] EWHC 2333 (Ch): whether an appeal involving a bundle that contained details of Part 16 and without prejudice save as to costs offers (and which potentially breached CPR 52.22) should be held in two stages.
  • Maugham v Uber London Ltd [2019] EWHC 391 (Ch) [2020] STC 496: whether a Protective Costs Order can be obtained in private law proceedings.
  • Halborg v EMW Law LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 793; [2018] 1 WLR 52: Whether an LLP which was a solicitors firm acting for itself in litigation was properly regarded as a litigant in person.
  • EMW Law LLP v Halborg [2017] EWHC 1014 (Ch); [2017] 3 Costs LO 281: Whether solicitor obliged to disclose to agent without prejudice negotiations with the other side.
  • Hyde v Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 399; [2018] 1 WLR 597: Whether CFA lawful when entered into while legal aid certificate still valid; CA appeal listed for hearing in 2017.
  • Spencer v Jones SCCO 6 January 2017: Whether the claimant, who was a solicitor, had proved loss in his costs claim equal to his normal hourly rate for the hours spent.
  • Griffith v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd (Sheffield County Court, 17 October, 2016): Whether a Conditional Fee Agreement is assignable in law.
  • Weatherford Global Products Ltd v Hydropath Holdings Ltd [2014] EWHC 3243 (TCC): Whether non party costs order should be made against controller of companies who were parties to litigation.
  • Heron v TNT (UK) Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 469; [2014] 1 WLR: Whether mere negligence is sufficient to justify a non party costs order against a solicitor.
  • Jones v Caradon Catnic Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1821 [2006] Costs LR 427 – whether claiming more than 100% success fee rendered the CCFA unenforceable


  • “Exceptionally on the ball and quick to provide strategic and commercial advice.” Chambers & Partners
  • “A charming and eloquent advocate with an almost unique background of medicine and law.” Legal 500
  • “A very forceful and very well-liked advocate.” Chambers & Partners
  • “[O]f note for his niche expertise in medical human rights.” – Civil Liberties and Human Rights, Legal 500 2019
  • “Is very responsive and has a particular expertise in complex medical treatment cases.” – Court of Protection and
  • Community Care, Legal 500 2019
  • “One of the best-established practitioners in the area and a man with wide-ranging knowledge.” – Costs, Chambers
  • & Partners 2019
  • “A very forceful and very well-liked advocate.” – Costs, Chambers & Partners 2019
  • “Vikram is a leading silk for Court of Protection welfare cases. He has a strong intellect, attention to detail and a real
  • depth of knowledge.” – Court of Protection: Health & Welfare, Chambers & Partners (2019)
  • “He is outstanding both on his feet and on paper.” – Court of Protection: Health & Welfare, Chambers & Partners
  • (2019)
  • “He is incisive, well balanced and really goes the extra mile for his clients.” – Court of Protection: Health & Welfare,
  • Chambers & Partners (2019)
  • “Exceptionally on the ball and quick to provide strategic and commercial advice.” – Administrative & Public Law,
  • Chambers & Partners (2019)
  • “A guru on anything to do with the medical treatment field. He’s very good at explaining things in a very succinct way because he has so much experience and knowledge as a former doctor.” – Administrative & Public Law Chambers & Partners (2019)
  • “He gives incredibly pragmatic and risk-based advice. He was a qualified medical professional, which gives him great insight into the work of a medical regulator. His written advice is very clear and we can share it with clients without ‘translation’. He is approachable and always gets back to us.” – Professional Discipline, Chambers & Partners (2019)
  • “Meticulous in his preparation and will always go the extra mile for the client.” – Civil Liberties and Human Rights, Legal 500 (2018)
  • “Has great knowledge of costs law and its practical application.” “Vikram is a good advocate, who is energetic and hard-working.” – Costs Litigation, Chambers & Partners (2018)
  • “Has an effective and persuasive advocacy style.” – Costs, Legal 500 (2018)
  • “He’s very methodical, calm and controlled.” “Vikram is at the top of his game, he’ll be brought in for any challenging, high-level case.” – Court of Protection: Health & Welfare, Chambers & Partners (2018)
  • “A persuasive advocate.” – Court of Protection and Community Care, Legal 500 (2018)
  • “Very personable, easy to communicate with and very quick to explain. He’s very calm and his advocacy skills are excellent.” – Administrative & Public Law, Chambers & Partners (2018)
  • “Extremely knowledgeable on healthcare judicial review – he always makes things easy for us.” Administrative & Public Law, Chambers & Partners (2018)
  • “The man you want to instruct in difficult litigation – determined and robust, while remaining a calm personality.” – Professional Discipline and Regulatory Law, Legal 500 (2018)
  • “Very personable and very approachable.” – Professional Discipline, Chambers & Partners (2018)