The secure CJSM email is:

“Clients feel that Nick is really fighting their corner”

Chambers & Partners 2019

“Gives very detailed and full advice and leaves no stone unturned”

Chambers & Partners 2019

“A rising star in housing law”

Chambers & Partners 2020

Nick Bano specialises in representing homeless people, residential occupiers, and destitute & migrant households in both public law and private law disputes.

Nick has particular expertise in cases where equality rights and social entitlement overlap.  He has been involved in bringing some of the significant recent challenges in this area, including Forward v Aldwyck and London & Quadrant v Patrick (on the applicability of the Public Sector Equality Duty in housing possession claims) and Adesotu v Lewisham (on the County Court’s jurisdiction to consider discrimination challenges in homelessness cases).

Chambers & Partners recommends him as an ‘up and coming’ talent in the social housing field saying ”his thriving practice takes in homelessness appeals, disrepair claims and possession proceedings, among others”.


Nick specialises in representing homelessness applicants and residential occupiers. He has an excellent knowledge of possession, disrepair and unlawful eviction, and has a special interest in running technical defences to Section 21 claims.

He also has a busy homelessness practice in county court appeals and judicial reviews.

Before becoming a barrister Nick worked as a housing caseworker at Brixton Advice Centre and Brighton Housing Trust, and as a volunteer at South West London Law Centres.  He was a duty adviser at Lambeth County Court.  Through his involvement in local housing campaigns and work at law centres Nick has direct experience of the housing office, and is well-placed to advise on practical considerations in homelessness cases.

Nick’s background in criminal defence work makes him an excellent trial advocate. His experience of the criminal courts also gives him a particular advantage in committal applications.

He provides training to housing solicitors and caseworkers and is very happy for firms and law centres to approach him with requests for seminars.

Recent cases

  • Adesotu v Lewisham [2019] EWCA Civ 1405 – a homelessness appeal raising an important point of principle or practice: the extent of the County Court’s jurisdiction under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 (sole counsel on the first appeal and led by Liz Davies of Garden Court Chambers in the Court of Appeal);
  • Forward v Aldwyck [2019] EWCA Civ 1334 – first instance counsel and led by Toby Vanhegan (4-5 Gray’s Inn Square) on the first and second appeals in a case concerning the consequences of a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty;
  • James v Hertsmere Borough Council – upcoming Court of Appeal case on local authorities’ schemes of delegation and the scope of the County Court’s jurisdiction in homelessness appeals;
  • London & Quadrant v Patrick [2019] EWHC 1263 (QB) – an appeal on summary disposal of possession claims against disabled occupiers where a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty was alleged;
  • Anon v Lewisham (2018) – section 204 appeal about whether there is a separate suitability test for short-term homelessness accommodation, and the council’s duties to children (commentary here);
  • R (Lindsay) v Watford [2018] EWHC 722 (Admin) –  judicial review about whether hotel accommodation had been a lawful performance of the section 188(1) duty (case digest here);
  • Thomas v Lambeth (2017) – a homelessness appeal in which the court criticised NowMedical for its inadequate reports, which (wrongly) based their advice on the fact that the applicant didn’t suffer from more serious forms of mental ill-health (commentary here);
  • Bali v Manaquel Company Limited (Legal Action June 2016), Central London County Court – a novel technical defence to a possession claim that succeeded on appeal (commentary here).

Community care

Nick is frequently involved in bringing claims relating to children’s rights and adult social care. He has an excellent grasp of the eligibility criteria and substantive rights under the Children Act and Care Act, as well as a strong tactical insight into local authority decision making.

Recent cases

  • R (AA) v Essex CO/5058/2018; R (CO) v Essex  CO/534/2019 – two simultaneous challenges to Essex Council’s ‘no recourse to public funds’ policy on the grounds that it made no provision for Zambrano carers, imposed unlawful residence criteria and provided unlawfully low rates of subsistence. The claims were settled (after interim relief and permission were granted) when Essex withdrew its policy. Led by Stephen Knafler QC;
  • R (FA) v Redbridge & SSHD [2018] EWHC 2189 (Admin) – succeeded in two contested interim relief applications concerning the application of section 122 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (whether the local authority had reasonable grounds for believing that the Home Office could be required to provide asylum support).  Interim relief ordered against both the local authority and the Home Office. Case summary here;
  • R (CW) v Redbridge (2018) – emergency claim brought by a child in youth detention who stood to be homeless on his release date, but could not be released until accommodation had been arranged (settled after interim relief granted);
  • R (MS) v Wandsworth (2017) – rationality challenge to a Care Act assessment where contemporaneous notes from the Claimant’s support worker contradicted the answers recorded by the social worker (settled after permission granted);
  • R (AO) v Lambeth and Wandsworth (2017) – both local authorities had refused to assess a homeless child who spent the days at school in one borough, and the nights on the floor of an office in the other (settled after issue);
  • R (O) v Lewisham (2016) – advising a ‘no recourse to public funds’ family on whether new information provided had ‘triggered’ a new urgent assessment in the last few hours before the local authority’s offices closed for Christmas;
  • R (MM) v Lambeth (2016) – application for interim relief (assessments under the Care Act and Children Act and interim accommodation) granted on the papers;
  • R (TJ) v Lambeth (2016) – advising in a ‘Windrush generation’ case: a complex inter-connected immigration, welfare benefits, housing and community care case where the family had lost its eligibility for mainstream benefits;
  • R (AN) v Lambeth (2016) – advising in a proposed judicial review concerning the local authority’s power to use s.17 of the Children Act to prevent eviction where a family was subject to the benefits cap.

Employment & discrimination

Nick acts in unfair dismissal and discrimination claims in the Employment Tribunal, where he often appears for low-waged workers in the cleaning sector and other services industries. He works closely with a number of trade union branches and gives talks about legal developments at branch meetings.

Nick has particular expertise in trade union law: he previously worked at the UN’s International Labour Organization in Geneva where he researched and reported on national systems of social dialogue and labour inspection; and at the International Centre for Trade Union Rights (ICTUR) monitoring labour rights violations and giving technical advice and legal guidance to trade unions and NGOs.

In 2011 Nick was awarded an LLM with distinction in labour & employment law. His research focused on the causes of the poor legal protection of labour rights in the UK. He has written about employment law for the journal ‘International Union Rights‘ and ‘Socialist Lawyer‘ magazine (of which he is now the editor) and delivered a paper at the International Association of Democratic Lawyers’ congress in Brussels.

Recent cases

  • F & ors v The AA (2018), Southampton ET – representing the lead claimants in a holiday pay claim brought by AA patrol workers (trade union announcement);
  • RA v ISS UK Ltd (2017), London Central ET – a claim based on what the tribunal described as the “ingenious proposition” of bringing a Wages Act claim against the ‘parent company’ of a corporate structure where the worker was out-of-time to claim unfair dismissal but had ongoing employment in one of the group’s other sectors (i.e. treating the dismissal as an ongoing unlawful deduction from wages);
  • AG v Julius Rutherfoord (2017), London Central ET – three-day race discrimination final hearing;
  • HL v BMG Properties (2017), London Central ET – succeeded in an out-of-time application to set aside an ‘unless order’ that had resulted in strike-out.

Pro bono

Nick is an experienced Free Representation Unit representative.


  • BA (Hons) Law with Politics, University of Manchester
  • LLM in Labour Law (distinction), King’s College London
  • BPTC, Kaplan Law School


  • French (proficient)


  • Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers (executive committee)
  • Housing Law Practitioners Association
  • International Centre for Trade Union Rights