Jay Gajjar

Jay’s broad practice covers a range of areas including immigration, civil, employment, commercial and insolvency law with a particular focus on judicial reviews and wider public law. He is known for his dedication to cases and his forensic approach to evidence.

Jay is licenced to accept instructions under the direct access scheme and as a litigator.

Jay has successefully presented cases before the First-Tier Tribunal, Upper Tribunal, High Court and Court of Appeal covering all aspects of immigration and asylum law. He is known for his work in complex cases where his clients have faced allegations of dishonesty, deception and bad faith including the Government’s use of paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules in tax dishonesty cases.

Jay accepts instructions across a broad spectrum of civil litigation matters and has covered small claims, cryptocurrency fraud and appeared in high value, multitrack trials listed for several days. He is known for his forensic approach to cross-examination. His work also including landlord and tenant, building disputes and he has appeared in both trials and appeals.

Jay’s interest in employment law led him to becoming a barrister. He accepts instructions in all areas of employment law, has appeared before the Tribunals and is available to provide detailed and honest advice, both in writing and in conference.

Jay has represented both individuals and companies in insolvency and bankruptcy issues across the spectrum. His work has also involved attending mediation meetings with creditors whereby he has successfully negotiation substantial reductions in payments due.

His work has also involved representing companies faced with statutory demands and the risk of applications for the businesses to be wound up. He has successfully negotiated settlements that have protected these businesses from being wound up.

Jay specialises in business immigration. His work has involved advising and acting for businesses across several sectors, including care homes, mining companies, technology giants, and many more. He has recently been instructed on several judicial review claims challenging the revocation of sponsor licences and has secured consent orders through which the Home Office has agreed reinstate licences. His advice spans across the board to include initial applications, suspensions decisions and revocations. His knowledge of company and corporate law means Jay is on hand to provide advice in relation to restructuring and business planning.

Having completed two masters degrees in the corporate law arena, and with a background in company law, Jay provides extensive advice and assistance in all aspects of business life. His work has included representing directors facing disqualification under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, shareholder disputes, and unfair prejudice petitions.

Ahmadi v Guardian News & Media Ltd [2025] EWHC 1191 – Jay appeared in a case concerning an allegedly defamatory article published by the Guardian and removed within 24 hours.

Court of Appeal

Tazeem v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 347 – Having succeeded on the procedural unfairness case in the High Court [2023] EWHC 1828, Jay appeared, leading Stefanie Alvarez and Muhammad Zahab Jamali, also succeeded in convincing the Court of Appeal that the appellant had been unlawfully detained during the interview process and was successful in securing damages for his unlawful detention for less than 24 hours.

SA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 1064 – Jay, leading Ahmad Badar, appeared on behalf of SA and successfully opposed an application made by Associated Newspapers Limited (the Daily Mail) to lift a long-running anonymity order and to allow the media to report on a highly sensitive case. Jay successfully argued that the strong principle of open justice was outweighed by considerations under Article 8 of the ECHR.

SA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 357 – Jay, leading Stefanie Alvarez and Muhammad Zahab Jamali, appeared on behalf of the appellant in a case concerning the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in a revocation of protection case. The Court agreed with Jay’s submission that the Upper Tribunal’s approach procedurally unfair but considered the appeal and dismissed it substantively.

R (on the application of Khan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 1654 – this appeal challenged the Upper Tribunal’s substantive decision in a case under paragraph 322(5) whereby the applicant had been granted limited leave to remain but refused ILR on the basis of an allegation of dishonesty.

R (on the application of Dias) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 913 – Jay, leading Stefanie Alvarez and Muhammad Zahab Jamali, appeared before the Court of Appeal in an application for permission to appeal the High Court’s decision in a substantive judicial review claim in relation to the refusal of a visit visa at port.

Marepally v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 855 – appeal from the Upper Tribunal in relation to section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 and the validity of a refusal notice; Jay led Ahmed Badar of Counsel.

R (on the application of Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 439 – Jay, leading Aryan Stedman, represented Mr Amin in the Court of Appeal (Jay also appeared in the High Court). This case involved a refusal of an application to naturalise as a British citizen on account of bad character concerns arising from associations with a proscribed organisation.

R (on the application of Wahid) v ECO [2021] EWCA Civ 346 – Jay appeared before Lady Justice Carr and Lord Justices Henderson and David Richards in a successful challenge against a refusal of permission to bring judicial review proceedings in an entry clearance challenge involving an allegation of dishonesty.

Jallow v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWCA Civ 788 – Jay appeared as Lead Counsel before Lady Justice King and Lord Justices Lewis and Baker in a deportation appeal in which he was granted permission to appeal from the Upper Tribunal.

R (on the application of Akram) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 1072 – Jay appeared before Lord Justice Hickinbottom and Lady Justice Carr in an application to re-open an appeal under CPR 52.30 following a previous refusal of permission.

R (on the application of London St Andrews college) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 2496 – Jay obtained permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal before Lady Justice Arden as she then was and went on to be led at the substantive appeal.

High Court

R (on the application of APD) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 246; [2025] 1 WLR 2535 – Jay appeared, leading Ahmad Badar, in the first case to consider section 4L of the British Nationality Act 1981. The Court agreed with Jay’s submission that section 4L was not limited in the way the Secretary of State suggested. Jay has since secured permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law.

R (on the application of Zoto) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 2148 – Jay appeared, leading Muhammad Zahab Jamali, in a case concerning the scope of the old version of paragraph 333C of the Immigration Rules and the power to treat an asylum claim as implicitly withdrawn.

R (on the application of Gracegaurd Services Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 647 – Jay appeared, leading Ahmad Badar, in a case involving the question of whether the High Court of England and Wales, had jurisdiction to hear a judicial review challenge to a sponsorship revocation decision for a company based in Scotland.

R (on the application of Tazeem) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] WLR(D) 391; EWHC 1828 – Jay led Stefanie Alvarez and Muhammad Zahab Jamali in successfully challenging the decision to cancel a student’s leave whilst making allegations of deception. Jay convinced the Court that the decision-making process had been procedurally unfair.

R (on the application of Campos) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 3299 – Jay appeared at both the permission hearing before David Lock KC and the substantive hearing before Claire Padley challenging the cancellation of leave as a student on the basis of an allegation of illegal work and in a parallel claim for unlawful detention.

De Aquino v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 2730 – Jay appeared before Margaret Obi in the High Court in which he convinced the Court that the decision not to allow a migrant access to the internet during an interview was procedurally unfair.

Shah & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 3033 – Jay represented the linked claimants at the permission and substantive stage in a case where their leave had been cancelled upon an allegation they had been illegally working for longer than their student visas permitted.

Upper Tribunal

DK and RK (ETS: SSHD evidence, proof) India [2022] UKUT 112 (IAC) – a hearing before the Presidential Panel of the Upper Tribunal exploring the Secretary of State’s evidence in ETS appeals.

DK and RK (Parliamentary privilege; evidence) India [2021] UKUT 61 – a hearing before the President and Vice President in relation to the admissibility of an APPG report as evidence in statutory appeals.

Abbasi (rule 43; para 322(5): accountants’ evidence) Pakistan [2020] UKUT 27 – Jay appeared before the President of the Upper Tribunal, Mr Justice Lane and UTJ Lindsley instructed at the late stages of an appeal hearing after the Upper Tribunal had previously allowed a 322(5) appeal and then sought to reopen the matter following a tip off that the Appellant’s evidence was potentially forged.

R (on the application of Ahmedi) [2020] UKAITUR JR058632019 – a successful substantive judicial review claim before UTJ Keith (permission was granted on Jay’s written grounds by UTJ Norton-Taylor) challenging a decision that an individual was not a genuine entrepreneur.

R (on the application of Dommati) [2019] UKAITUR JR032732018 – a successful substantive judicial review claim before UTJ Jackson following a permission hearing before UTJ Allen. Jay appeared for the Applicant on both occasions in relation to an allegation of dishonesty.

Ejiogu (Cart cases) Nigeria [2019] UKUT 395 – a hearing in the Upper Tribunal following a Cart judicial review application in the High Court.
R (on the application of Hoxha and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (representatives: professional duties) [2019] UKUT 124 – representation of an OISC firm at a Hamid hearing.

R (on the application of Vida Nsiah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (CO/3227/2018) – a successful substantive judicial review claim challenging the lawfulness of detention. Jay appeared before David Edwards QC at the substantive stage and Alex Bailin QC at the permission stage.

R (on the application of Habib) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JR/1638/2018) – a successful substantive judicial review decision regarding paragraph 322(5) of the Rules before Mr Justice Lane and UTJ Perkins.

R (on the application of Khan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dishonesty, tax return, paragraph 322(5)) [2018] UKUT 384 – a successful substantive judicial review claim regarding dishonesty in tax declarations vis-à-vis paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules. Jay appeared before UTJ Finch at the permission stage and Mr Justice Martin Spencer at the substantive hearing.

R (on the application of Modi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JR/3645/2018) – a successful substantive judicial review against a decision under paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules before UTJ King.

R (on the application of Shaik) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JR/8324/2017) – a successful substantive judicial review challenge to an allegation of dishonesty under paragraph 322(5) of the Rules before UTJ Canavan.

R (on the application of Omaththage) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (JR/3399/2018)– a successful substantive judicial review challenge UTJ Blum under paragraph 322(5) of the Immigration Rules

High Court

National Community Homes v The Regulator for Social Housing [2023] EWHC 3171 – Jay appeared in the first case of its kind before Mr Justice Cavanagh under section 121 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 whereby the Regulator made a decision to remove the appellant from the register of social housing providers.

Midland Living v WMF – Jay appeared before Mr Justice Johnson in the Chancery Division of the High Court and secured an interim freezing order against a company’s own bank accountants after a takeover wherein the former director and shareholder refused to provide access to the accountants.

SM v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] – Jay successfully represented the Appellant in obtaining permission to appeal to the High Court against an adverse costs decision made by a Master.

County Courts

AS v AA – Jay appeared in a civil trial where he successfully argued on behalf of the claimant that the sale of cryptocurrency had been conducted through fraudulent misrepresentation.

NQB v MH and others – Jay represented the claimant in a multitrack trial in the Central London County Court where he argued that the defendants had harassed the claimant, breached a contractual agreement for the payment of dowry and caused her pain, suffering an personal injury. The Court found in favour of Jay’s client following a week-long hearing and awarded damages and costs.

AM v LE Ltd – Jay defended a car garage being sued for a substantial sum following a dispute arising from the repair of a van. Jay’s submissions convinced the Court to reduce the damage awarded by 90%.

2014  Bar Professional Training Course (BPP Holborn) – Very Competent

2013  Master’s in International Commercial Law (UCL) – Distinction

2012  Master’s in International Trade Law  (The University of Sussex) – Distinction

2008  LLB From The University of Sussex

Gajjar, J. ‘Your Dominion or Mine? A Critical Evaluation of the Case Law on Freedom of Establishment for Companies and the Restrictions’, (2013) 24(2) International Commercial and Company Law Review 50.

Gajjar, J. ‘The Doctrine of Insurable Interest in Life Insurance’ (2013) 127 British Insurance Law Association 1.

Gajjar, J. ‘The Carrot and the Stick: The Issue of Directors’ Remuneration and the Scope for Employee Participation, a Comparative Analysis’ (2014) 25(1) European Business Law Review 103

Gajjar, J. ‘High Court intervention in the Lebanese Banking Crisis: Glimmers of Hope?‘ Barrister Magazine, 2023 Trinity Term, 34-35.