Childhood and Motivation to work in Litigation
Javed Patel is a solicitor who resides in Colchester, Essex.
Javed decided to become a lawyer at the tender age of 15 when he witnessed first-hand the torment and disappointment of innocent people at the hands of those who are unscrupulous and unjust. Javed promised to follow in his grandmother’s footsteps and become a lawyer who would help people and bring them justice. She decided to fund his later studies to help with his quest to bring justice.
Education and Studies
Having developed his ambition to become a litigator, Javed studied hard, aided all the while by his grandmother, going on from the National English High School to graduate with a B.A. from Elphinstone College University of Bombay in 1997; and then an L.L.B. from the Government Law College of Bombay in 2000.
Employment and Work in Litigation
- 1999 – 2002: Three years of training as a Junior Counsel in Bombay High Court on the Original Side, followed by practising civil and criminal litigation with Senior Solicitors and Senior Counsels.
- 2002: He moved to England, and worked for two and half years in the Keighley & District Citizens Advice Bureau. He then successfully completed his Qualified Lawyer’s Transfer Test at the College of Law, London.
- 2005: The Law Society of England and Wales recognised Javed officially and authorised his admission to the roll of Solicitors. He then commenced his legal practice as a solicitor working for Capita PLC. There, he began as a debt, welfare benefit and employment adviser, and later was promoted to a new role as a Senior Solicitor in the Legal Services Department within Capita PLC dealing with various Legal Expense Insurance Claims. There he advised and acted for several thousands of commercial policyholders on various claims.
- 2008: Javed moved to Bristol and commenced employment with Thompsons Solicitors, where he advised and liaised with Union Representatives, attended various seminars, drafted factsheets and letters to advise union members on employment related matters, and assisted other departments by assessing claims and rejecting cases that had no reasonable prospects of success.
- 2009 – 2010: Javed left Thompsons Solicitors to work for a law firm, Hull CLAC, as Supervisor of their Employment Department. He then moved back to Colchester and commenced his self-employment practice as a litigator with Black Stone Solicitors (Wimbledon Office). There he continued his fight as a litigator and attended several complex cases in various tribunals, county courts and High Court.
Setting up his own Law Firm
Javed’s ambition was finally achieved by setting up his own law firm, in October 2011. The name “Legal Comfort Solicitors” is recommended by one of his valuable clients. In 2012, he received approval that his company was recognised and authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Setting up another branch office in London
In order to consult with his clients who are based in London and take their instructions in order to facilitate and expand his legal services, Javed has opened another branch in London just opposite to Bayswater Tube Station at 68 Queensway.
Legal Comfort Solicitors
Javed enjoys his position as a Principal Solicitor and Director of Legal Comfort Solicitors. Legal Comfort Solicitors delivers high quality legal advice and litigation support to clients in order to protect their interest and obtain justice.
Javed is a very hard working individual who obtains many clients through recommendations from existing clients and his networking within the business community.
Javed may be described as industrious, energetic, enthusiastic, emphatic and clear with his legal techniques in advocacy. He will tell you in the first meeting if your case meets any reasonable prospects of success. He has enormous experience of vigorously defending and litigating over several million pounds worth of assets.
Javed enjoys using his personal litigation experiences so he can bring social awareness and enlighten the name of his firm at a corporate level in the field of Civil, Commercial, Criminal, Employment and Family Litigation.
He has also successfully represented government, member of royal family and charity organisations. He has enormous experiences of settling legal dispute between the parties and acted arbitrator in various matters.
He has completely defeated a magic circle law firm in three consecutive hearings and finally before fourth hearing he has proven to the District Judge that the value of their claim is ‘zero’.
He was invited to conduct a Moot Court Competition presiding as a Judge during Semi-Final between University of Essex and University of Sussex.
If you seek justice, look no further than Legal Comfort Solicitors.
1) Civil Litigation:
- In S -v- H O, he acted for the Defendant in the possession hearing and successfully put the Defendant back into possession even after the house was repossessed by the lender. The lender has written off six figures from the borrower’s mortgage due to loss and damage of the chattels.
- BC -v- MBS, he has represented the Defendant at the hearing and successfully defended the Part 8 Claim an Order for Sale that was struck out at the final hearing; and he recovered 100% costs of his attendance from the Claimant.
- DBM -v- LH & MH, he has successfully defended a misconceived claim of misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract claim. He gave initial advice to his client that set the bench mark of the entire defence; and majority of his advice was reflected in the judgement.
- PL –v- SE, he has successfully evicted the tenant on mandatory grounds.
- MKDP –v- MIA, he has successfully defended a claim at the final hearing by persuading the District Judge that his client has not entered into any credit card agreement and his client is innocent.
- LBB -v- Saber, he persuaded the District Judge that the Claimant is not entitled to an order for costs.
- Arrow -v- LM, he has persuaded the District Judge that the creditor is not entitled to Final Charging Order.
2) Commercial Litigation:
- In Q -v- B, he has recovered six figures sum by fiercely fighting against his opponents, in this case the opponent has betrayed family friend in order to get access to the funds.
- In A -v- B, he has successfully sued the bank and obtained six figures compensation, in this case bank has terminated the contract without following due process.
- In M -v- T, he has recovered over six figures sum by fiercely litigating with the opponents, in this case the opponent has continuously failed to pay the amount for past 10 years.
- In HP -v- LP M&D Ltd, he vigorously defended a claim of unlawful eviction claim that disappointed the tenant, his solicitor, and the Legal Services Commission to an extent that they abandoned the entire claim.
- BC –v- School, after thorough legal research he persuaded the Claimant that his client is entitle to full relief from business rates.
- K –v- IH, acted as a mediator and resolved the case amicably without having to spent money on litigation.
- Recently he is now developing his interest in cinema litigation.
3) Criminal Litigation:
- Re –v- WK, his client was accused of possession of knuckleduster. A reasonable defence was put forward by him and his client was acquitted with costs order to recover from Central Fund.
- Re –v- MH, his client was accused of common assault and resisting arrest. A reasonable defence was put forward by him and his client was acquitted with costs order to recover from Central Fund.
- Re –v- AS, his client was accused of failing to provide information i.e. name of the driver at the time of the offence. A reasonable defence was put forward by him and his client was acquitted with costs order to recover from Central Fund.
- SW -v- BR, his client was accused of travelling without a valid train ticket by British Railways. A reasonable defence was put forward by him and his client was acquitted with costs order to recover from Central Fund.
4) Employment Litigation:
- In G -v- M, he was instructed to contest a constructive dismissal claim. Javed’s skill in cross examination delivered significant compensation to his client. The Employment Judge literally quoted Javed’s whole cross examination in the judgement with the employer losing their credibility.
- In SB -v- LBN, he successfully won a claim of unfair dismissal and failure to make reasonable adjustment claim under Equality Act 2010. He drafted an ET1 claim form that set a bench mark of the entire proceeding.
5) Family Litigation:
- In B -v- B, he was assigned a task of clarifying the parties and the court including LSC that there is no money in the pot.
- In I -v- I, he was assigned a task of clarifying the parties and the court that the divorce petition was based on incorrect statements which was subsequently withdrawn.
- In DR –v- JR, he persuaded the District Judge in a Financial Relief Application that wife proposal was the best proposal in order to achieve a clean break.
- In MC -v- DMS, he persuaded the District Judge that his client is entitled to 50% equity. He demonstrated by various examples that the opponent is not a credible witness. Court has accepted Mr Patel’s submission and rejected other side defence (that there was an express Declaration of Trust).
5) Immigration Litigation:
- In MO -v- SSHD, he acted for the Appellant before the Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Woodcraft and demonstrated that the Appellant’s sponsor has a continuous period of 5 years employment. He has defeated the Home Office, who were arguing before the Upper Tribunal to allow their appeal because as per their legal submissions the Appellant could not qualify for a permanent residence card and the First-tier Tribunal Traynor erroneously allowed the appeal on the paper.
- BS v SS, he acted on behalf of the Appellant before First-tier Immigration Tribunal to point out breach of Human Rights committed by the Home Office. He invited the tribunal’s attention to the family law proceedings to demonstrate that the Appellant is in genuine and subsisting relationship with his partner. The tribunal also agreed with him that The Secretary of State is in breach of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 as it breaches Article 3 and Article 8 because the “situation in Iraq was a matter of public knowledge” and therefore any deportation of the Appellant is unlawful.