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 has extensive experience in cases with a national security element, including cases in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. 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”. He has been shortlisted by Legal 500 for public law barrister of the year for 2024. His recent and current work includes:

• Acting successfully for HMG in a high-profile challenge to the Secretary of State for Health’s emergency ban on the supply/sale of puberty blockers to under 18s: R(TransActual CIC and YY) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2024] EWHC 1936 (Admin).
• Acting for HMG in current major 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 [2023] EMLR 22, [2022] 1 WLR 4929, [2020] 1 WLR 243, and [2019] QB 481).
• Acting in Higher Court proceedings involving pension rights, including Robins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2023] EWCA Civ 890 (rights of guaranteed minimum pension recipients); R(Delve) v SSWP [2021] ICR 236 (challenge by the campaign group BackTo60 to changes in the state pension age for women); R(Harvey) v Haringey LBC [2019] ICR 1059 (challenge to the rules in the Local Government Pension Scheme for cohabitees).
• Acting in proceedings concerning human rights/discrimination challenges to welfare provision: see for example R(Kelly) v SSWP [2024] EWCA Civ 613 (compatibility of bereavement benefit legislation with human rights); R(Motherhood Plan) v HMT [2022] 3 All ER 727 (Covid support payments and human rights); R(TP) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2022] PTSR 1092 (Universal Credit challenge); R(Adiatu) v SSWP [2021] 2 All ER 484 (Covid support); R(Jackson) v SSWP [2020] 1 WLR 1441 (bereavement benefit and cohabitees).
• Acting 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
• 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 Guanieri v United Kingdom (a claim that the UK has breached human rights by surveillance of persons overseas).

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 information gathering or sharing on human rights or EU law grounds. He has appeared in many significant cases in the area, including Vidal-Hall v Google LLC [2016] QB 1003 (recoverability of damages for distress), Ittihadieh v Cheyne Gardens RTM Co Ltd [2018] QB 256 (meaning of personal data), and FOIA proceedings involving Prince Charles (the “spider letters” case). He frequently advises clients on issues connected with state surveillance, including issues arising under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and the Computer Misuse Act 1990. He is recommended as a Band 1 Silk for data protection in the Legal 500, which states that he is “outstanding” and a “very good, clear, clever advocate who knows his stuff”. Chambers and Partners states: “he is calm, insightful, intelligent and approachable”. Recent and current work includes the following:

• Acting for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in Webster v HMRC, a major High Court claim in which the claimant challenged 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. recent proceedings against MI5 (Liberty and Privacy International v (1) Security Service (2) SSHD [2023] HRLR 5). 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 [2023] EMLR 22, [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 a major international technology company in connection with law enforcement access to data.
• Advising a major international bank on cross-border transfer of data under the UK GDPR.

Julian regularly acts for both claimants and respondents in a wide range of employment 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:

• Acting for The Royal Parks in current proceedings concerning claims by contract workers for pay-related discrimination, raising novel questions about the scope of contract worker discrimination, currently on appeal to the Supreme Court: see most recently Boohene v The Royal Parks [2024] IRLR 668.
• Current or recent Employment Tribunal cases include acting for Sainsburys in ongoing mass equal pay claims by retail staff; 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.
• Acting as independent investigator in complaints by partners in major law firms alleging harassment and bullying.
• 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). Julian acts regularly in cases involving industrial action/union recognition issues.
• Acting for the Royal Parks in current discrimination proceedings in the Court of Appeal concerning the comparability of terms and conditions for employees and contract workers.
• 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.

Julian’s education law practice continues to grow, 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 acted for Anglia Ruskin University in recent 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 seminars and tuition, raising issues of free speech within the curriculum.
• Julian has advised education institutions on policy issues of current importance, including free speech and transgender rights.