Bushra Ahmed

Call date: 2001

Areas of Practice


Commercial Work

Bushra has appeared in both the County Court and Commercial Court as well as overseas.  Bushra has particularly experience in the Dubai International Financial Centre, Dubai where she is currently based whilst on secondment with a local law firm dealing with a wide range of commercial disputes and has particular experience in multi-jurisdictional mis-selling cases.

Current & Recent Work

Rafed Al Khorafi & Others v Sarasin Alpen (ME) Limited (1) Bank Sarasin (2): Representing the Al Khorafis, in the DIFC against two financial institutions and part of the Sarasin Group of companies. Bank Sarasin Alpen (ME) Limited, the First Defendant was incorporated in the DIFC and regulated by the DFSA and the Second Defendant a Swiss bank, incorporated in Switzerland.  Involved complex legal and factual issues relating to serious regulatory breaches by the First Defendant involving dealing in investments on behalf of the Claimants as agents without regulatory permission to do so, and advising the Claimants on investments notwithstanding the fact that those investments were not suitable for the Claimants and that it acted in breach of duty to the Claimants.  The claim against the Second Defendant was that it was carrying on unauthorised financial services business in the DIFC in dealing with the Claimants, and that it acted in breach of duty to the Claimants in giving negligent advice.  The value of the claim was in the region of US$40 million.

Corinth Pipeworks LLC v Barclays Bank v Afras Ltd (1) Mr Nanda Kumar (2): Bushra is being led by William McCormick QC in representing the Part 21 (Part 19) Defendants in this tri-partite action in the DIFC Court.  The Claimant, Corinth Pipeworks SA, is a Greek manufacturer of pipes used in the oil and gas industry. The Defendant, Barclays Bank PLC, represented by Clifford Chance LLP is an English bank, which made banking facilities available to the Part 21 Defendants. The Claimant’s claim is that the Defendant, principally through a former employee, participated in a fraud upon the Claimant perpetrated by Mr Kumar on behalf of Afras LLC and Afras Limited, the Afras companies carrying on business as representatives of those involved in the oil and gas industry. As a result of the alleged fraud, which it is alleged could not have succeeded without the participation of the Defendant, the Claimant has suffered loss in excess of US$24 million. The Defendant has issued a Part 21 Claim against the Part 21 Defendants on the basis that if it is found liable to Corinth, it claims from Afras and Mr Kumar an indemnity or a contribution in order to compensate it for any amount that is found to owe to Corinth.

Mustafa Al Hendi v Dubai Aerospace Engineering Ltd Bushra, represents the Claimant who was a senior employee in the Defendant organisation that in a claim arising out of various breaches of his contract of employment.  The Defendant has counterclaimed for breach of fiduciary duty and deceit. The matter is set down for trial on 19 January 2014.

Aida Dagher v CII (UAE) Ltd:  A breach of contract claim in arising out of an employment agreement in the DIFC.

Rahman (1)/Iftikhar (2) and Dattani (1)/Jobhanputra (2) v Damac Instructed on behalf of four Claimants in a claim for damages for breach of contract arising out of two separate Sales Purchase Agreements.  Dealing with issues of delay, completion, and liquidated damages.

Kisan International Trading FZE v BNP Paribas, Dubai:  Advising the Claimant in relation to injuncting the Defendant Bank prohibiting it from making payment to a Chinese seller under a letter of credit pursuant to a shipping contract.

Employment Work

Bushra undertakes work on behalf of both employers and employees and is regularly instructed by a number of Trade Unions including GMB, Unite, PCS and NUJ.

Her client base also consists of the Metropolitan Police, the Probation Service, BskyB and a number of Local Authorities such as Camden, Islington and Hackney.  She has appeared in Employment Tribunals, the High Court, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal.

Some of her recent cases include:

Yoyoh Binti Salim Uddin v Mr and Mrs Chamsi Pasha:  Central London Employment Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal. Bushra represented the Respondents in this very complex case that touched on areas of law outside the sphere of employment law; such as human rights law, immigration law and consideration of trafficking laws.  The employment issues in this case surrounded worker status of a domestic worker, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, the exemption under regulation 2(2) of the National Minimum Wage Regulations, direct race discrimination, indirect race discrimination, harassment on the grounds of race, victimisation on the grounds of race and unfair dismissal.  The Claimant was a domestic worker who alleged that she drank bleach due to the mistreatment at the hands of her employers.  This claim was heard over a period of 15 days.  During the hearing interlocutory applications were also made on almost every day of the hearing.  One application in particular had to be made informant of a separate Tribunal to determine whether a document was disclosable or not.  All the claims were dismissed save for part of the Claimant’s claim under the National Minimum Wage legislation.  The Tribunal was split by a two to one majority of whether the Claimant was caught by the exemption under Regulation 2(2) of the National Minimum Wage Regulations.  It was further argued by the Claimant at appeal in a Preliminary Hearing in the Employment Appeal Tribunal before Underhill. P that the reg. 2(2) “family worker” exemption was both ultra vires the 1998 Act and incompatible with Article 157 TFEU and Directive 2006/54/EC. This was on the basis, it was contended, that women are disproportionately disadvantaged by the exemption. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills sought to intervene in the appeal. Ms Uddin’s challenges dismissed as they were new points of law not raised at first instance (per Jones v Governors of Burdett Coutts School [1998] IRLR 521).  The matter then went to the Court of Appeal where it was dismissed.

Lobo v London Underground Limited: Central London Employment Tribunal, Bushra represented the Respondent public body in a 14-day hearing involving issues of sex and race discrimination, harassment, victimisation and unfair dismissal claim, of significant value, so the consequences were potentially far-reaching for the Respondent.

Martins-Taylor v London Borough of Camden: Central London Employment Tribunal, Bushra represented the Respondent against various claims of sex discrimination and breach of contract by a very senior employee within the London Borough of Camden in a 14-day hearing.

Hubah v British Midland:  Watford Employment Tribunal, Bushra successfully represented the Claimant in his claim for unfair dismissal and automatically unfair dismissal applying section 152(1)(b) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.


Bushra has prepared and advised on submissions as well as appearing in arbitrations governed by the rules of Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and the LCIA.

Some of her recent arbitrations include:

Fadi Ghazzawi v Wissam Nizar Azhari & 1 Or: Involving a breach of a joint venture agreement between parties based in Saudia Arabia and Dubai.

Raahil Bengaali v Al Barari:  Property dispute arising out of the delayed completion of a property purchased off plan.

Professional Negligence

Bushra has wide experience in acting for claimants, defendants and their indemnity insurers in relation to claims brought against a variety of professionals including solicitors, surveyors and planning consultants.

Some of her recent cases include:

Cox v Chapmans Solicitors:  Represented the Claimant in a claim against a solicitor for failing to register a notice against the matrimonial home in a matrimonial dispute thereby allowing the husband to abscond with the proceeds of sale from the matrimonial home.

Pearson v Georgiou Nicholas Solicitors Represented the Claimant in a claim against a surveyor for failing to advise the purchaser as to the contents of a local authority search which revealed that planning permission had been given for a block of flats, which was a potential nuisance.

Thorp & Miller v Anthony Gold Solicitors   Represented the Claimant in a claim against solicitors for failing to advise the claimant purchasers of a notice to remedy against the property.  The property had been dividing into a block of flats without the requisite planning permission.


March 2009: Barrister Member of the Bar Standards Board Disciplinary Tribunal