What Judges Say
 
  • “... And here come the sting in the tail ... Little did she [Secretary of State for the Home Department] know that representing this appellant was not one who would be prepared to lie down on the basis of the success of his particular client, but one who had the interests of those who practiced in the field and others like him very must at heart, namely Mr Zane Malik ...”: Lord Justice Moses in LB (Jamaica) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 1420.

 

  • "Mr Zane Malik ... made two principal points and did so with characteristic clarity and conciseness": Lord Justice Aikens in R (Islam) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 312.

 

  • "Mr Malik put his submissions attractively and concisely": Lord Justice Beaton in Khan v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 137.

 

  • "... commendably concise and focused ...”: Lord Justice Richards in MA (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 901.

 

  • "We were greatly assisted ... by Mr Malik, whose submissions on behalf of the respondent were succinctly and clearly made": Lord Justice Moore-Bick in Ize-Iyamu v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWCA Civ 118.

 

  • "Mr Malik in his succinctly and well-expressed skeleton argument took three points: Lord Justice Underhill in R (Islam) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 312.

 

  • “... helpful and well focused arguments”: Lord Justice Underhill in Universal Solicitors v Legal Ombudsman [2013] EWCA Civ 1848.

 

  • “... as skilled as Mr Zane Malik ...”: Lord Justice Moses in R (Mirza) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2002 (Admin).

 

  • “I would express my gratitude to Mr Malik for once again presenting the court with a very clear skeleton and making his submissions in the most economical way possible”: Lord Justice Sullivan in JO v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 377.

 

  • “... Mr Malik has put his finger on an issue of principle ...” “... I reiterate my gratitude to him for the interesting arguments”: Lord Justice Sedley in Dhami v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 1185.

 

  • “The submissions have been presented very clearly and cogently in writing and with commendably succinct follow-up in oral hearing”: Lord Justice Richards in AH (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 1564.

 

  • Mr Malik has attractively advanced the argument ... Mr Malik advanced his case with his usual clarity and persuasiveness”: Lord Neuberger MR in AK (Nepal) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 943.

 

  • “Mr Malik’s crisp and economic submissions ...”: Lord Justice Laws in AH (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWCA Civ 1460.

 

  • Mr Malik [] has presented the appeal very well”: Lord Neuberger MR in Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 741.

 

  • “... very careful and succinct ...”: Lord Justice Maurice Kay in AM (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 916.

 

  • "The issue which arises [ ] is quite a technical one and it requires some legal experience and training to understand ... Fortunately, however, this court has the benefit of the presence and submissions of Mr Zane Malik of counsel. With his help, I was able to get to the bottom of the issues": Mr Justice Kay in R (Mohammad Ali v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 4393 (Admin). 

 

  • “Mr Mohammad made a bold submission that the decision of Richard LJ was wrong. He said the Court probably did not have the advantage of a fully argued case at a permission stage. It is apparent, however, that applicant in AH was represented by very experienced counsel, namely Mr Z Malik, and we just do not accept the proposition that the case on behalf of the applicant was not fully argued”: Lord Bannatyne in Kamran (UK NARIC – incorporation in the Rules) [2012] UKUT 00058 (IAC).

 

  • “... extremely well and succinctly argued ... I meant what I said, [the argument] was very well put”: Mr Justice Foskett in R (Maitra) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 1618 (Admin).

 

  • “Mr Malik has put [the argument] clearly and succinctly”: Lord Justice Stanley Burnton in Miah v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 261.

 

  • “... careful and impressive ...”: Mr Justice Silber in R (Khan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 1499 (Admin).

 

  • “... attractive ...”: Mr Justice Keeneth Parker in R (Otoo) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 2021 (Admin).

 

  • "Mr Malik has advanced [the argument] with characteristic persuasive quality ...": Mr Justice Foskett in R (Midlands College and others) v Secretary for State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 1145 (Admin).

 

  • “... persuasive ...”: Lord Justice Pill in ZM (India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 403.

 

  • “... helpful and tenacious submissions”: Lord Justice Laws in Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 792.

 

  • “If I may say so, you [ ] presented this case with great economy and efficiency, and I thank you [ ] very much”: Mr Justice Calvert Smith in M v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2010] EWHC 2129 (Admin).

 

  • “... well-argued skeleton ...”: Lord Justice Sedley, while granting permission in RS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 434.

 

  • “... the skeleton argument is an elegantly written document setting out both the pros and cons ...”: Lord Justice Longmore in IW (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 1221.

 

  • “... ingenious argument”: Judge Mckee in MU (‘statement of additional grounds’ - long residence - discretion) Bangladesh [2010] UKUT 442 (IAC).

 

  • "... conspicuously well-argued ...": Judge Peter Lane in R (Khairdin) v Secretary of State for the Hoe Department (NIA 2002: Part 5A) (IJR) [2014] UKUT 566 (IAC) 

 

  • “... so experienced an advocate as Mr Malik ...”: Mr Justice Cranston in the initial decision in R (Syed) and Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 1059.

 

  • “... excellent arguments of Mr Malik”: Mr Justice Mostyn in R (Thebo) v Entry Clearance Officer [2013] 146 (Admin).

 

  • “... I ... congratulate ... Mr Malik on his submissions”: Mrs Justice Rafferty in R (Dhugana) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWHC 3408 (Admin).

 

  • “Mr Malik ... has argued his point with great concision”: Charles George QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, in R (Javed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 2058 (Admin).

 

  • “Mr Malik ... has appeared on behalf of Universal Solicitors and, if I may say so, has presented the case in a focused and persuasive way”: HHJ Jarman, sitting as a High Court Judge, in R (Universal Solicitors) v Legal Ombudsman [2013] EWHC 1453 (Admin).