Gary Oliver
Senior Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7325
David Pievsky’s practice encompasses Administrative and Public Law, Civil Liberties & Human Rights, Immigration & Nationality, Regulation and Professional Discipline, and Employment. He has substantial experience of appearing in the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court.
David took silk in 2020 and was appointed a Deputy High Court Judge in 2021.
As a junior, David was on the Attorney General’s panels of Civil Counsel to the Crown for over 10 years, and the A panel from 2013 onwards.
David is recognised for his expertise and ranked in both leading independent legal directories, Chambers and Partners and the Legal 500. Recent comments include:
Previous comments include:
David acts across a broad range of public law and regulatory areas, both for and against public bodies. His clients include Government Departments, regulatory bodies such as the General Medical Council and the Pensions Ombudsman, and companies and individuals acting as claimants in public law matters.
In recent years he has appeared in the Supreme Court in cases relating to Crown Immunity, the reach of positive human rights obligations, taxpayer confidentiality, and public order law; and in the Court of Appeal in cases about legal professional privilege, the human rights compatibility of legislation designed to discourage illegal immigration, and the regulation of professionals who work in more than one jurisdiction.
David’s current and ongoing cases raise issues about the boundaries of freedom of expression on social media, the fairness and appropriateness of Ofsted’s judgments about religious schools, and the fairness at common law and under the ECHR of regulators’ rules and procedures. David is currently instructed in an appeal to the Privy Council concerning an application for judicial review of aspects of the Anguillan government’s response to the financial crisis.
“He is incisive, insightful and calm in his advocacy.”
Chambers UK, 2023
“He's measured and a good strategist.”
Chambers and Partners, 2022
“He is meticulous, engaged, and full of legal insights. His work on the pleadings is literally extraordinary.”
Legal 500, 2022
“Very user-friendly.”
Chambers and Partners, 2021
“Tough and capable of standing his ground in difficult circumstances.”
Legal 500, 2021
“He has a quiet authority which causes everyone in the room to calm down and listen to him.”
Chambers and Partners, 2021
“His analysis was fantastic and I had great confidence in him as a first-rate legal mind.”
Chambers and Partners, 2020
“He demonstrated a most impressive grasp of all public law and judicial review issues.”
Legal 500, 2018
“Extremely bright and very responsive.”
Legal 500, 2017
“Very clever, hardworking and knowledgeable”
Legal 500, 2016
“Meticulous in his approach, with a calm and endearing manner in court.”
Legal 500, 2015
The Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal against the High Court’s conclusion that the “right to rent” scheme, set out in sections 20-37 of the Immigration Act 2014, is incompatible with Article 14 ECHR (read with Article 8). The case raised issues about the “ambit" requirement in Article 14 cases, the correct approach to justification in the context of social measures, and Parliament’s responsibility (or otherwise) for the acts of private citizens. David acted for the successful Secretary of State.
Acted as sole counsel against Hugh Mercer QC in high profile judicial review proceedings in the High Court, concerning the compatibility of UK Halal slaughter methods with European and domestic law animal welfare standards.
Acted (with James Eadie QC) for the Secretary of State. The Supreme Court considered the question of Crown Immunity and whether it applied to the prohibitions on smoking set out in Part 1 of the Health Act 2006. The Court accepted submissions made on behalf of the Secretary of State to the effect that the Crown is not bound by Statute unless that is made clear expressly or by necessary implication.
Acted for the intervening Secretary of State for Justice in this case concerning whether the state (through the police) had breached duties to conduct reasonable investigations into allegations of ill-treatment, derived from Article 3 ECHR, to women who were attacked by a private citizen (the multiple rapist John Worboys).
Acted (with Lord Pannick QC and Sam Grodzinski QC) for the London Mayor in litigation brought under the Riot Damages Act 1886 concerning the recoverability of damages for consequential loss. The Supreme Court allowed the Mayor’s appeal, ruling that such damages are not recoverable under the 1886 Act.
Acted for the (successful) General Medical Council, in judicial review proceedings concerning the proper interpretation of the Council’s rules about how to deal with the determinations of foreign regulatory bodies, and the ‘5 year rule’ applicable to allegations of impaired fitness to practise. The case also raised questions of principle relating to the procedural rules on delay in judicial review proceedings.
Successfully defended a judicial review claim concerning the challenge for the authorities of assessing a prisoner’s prospects of rehabilitation, where he continues to protest his innocence of the index offence.
Acted for the successful Home Office in a case about whether privileged legal advice concerning the admissibility of intercept evidence should be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Currently advising the government as sole counsel on a number of claims brought in the European Court of Human Rights relating to the list of individuals who are barred from working with children or vulnerable adults (2015 and ongoing).
Acted (with James Eadie QC) in proceedings arising out of HMRC’s treatment of film finance schemes.
Acted with James Eadie QC in this challenge to a Direction made under new legislative powers for regulating the publishing of publicity by local authorities. Case settled by consent.
Acted with James Eadie QC in an appeal to the Supreme Court raising jurisdictional issues under the European Convention on Human Rights; the reach of the substantive obligation to preserve life under Article 2 in the context of active military operations; and the common law doctrine of combat immunity.
Acted (with Monica Carss-Frisk QC) for the successful Applicant Police Commissioner, in a human rights dispute about the proper jurisdiction of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in a case raising allegations about the conduct of undercover police officers.
Appeared for the Secretary of State for Justice in a two week trial concerning a prisoner’s allegations of homophobic treatment at the hands of both prison officers and other prisoners.
Acted for the GMC in a case raising difficult questions about old allegations of child abuse, and whether they could be revisited in light of Rule 4(5) of the GMC’s Rules.
Acted (with Monica Carss-Frisk QC) in claims raising the status of the “neither confirm nor deny” approach to allegations made about alleged covert surveillance operations.
Acted (with Charles Bourne QC) in a case brought by Private Eye seeking disclosure of information relating to the MOD’s dealings with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Information Tribunal agreed with the MOD’s argument that release of the requested information would undermine international relations between the UK and Saudi Arabia, and dismissed the complaint.
Appeared for the CPS in a case concerning the so-called “Twitter joke trial”. The Tribunal accepted the CPS’s argument that the information sought by the claimant should not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, despite it being of interest, as it was exempt by virtue of s30(1)(c) of that Act.
Appeared for the Secretary of State for Justice in a dispute about the circumstances in which judicial review claimants should be entitled to anonymity.
David has appeared in a wide range of human rights and civil liberties cases, both for and against public bodies. For example, he has regularly acted for claimants seeking to exercise their right to protest, and others seeking to challenge a removal decision on human rights grounds. He also acts for a wide range of organisations, companies and public and charitable bodies in human rights cases. He is particularly interested in the boundary between free expression and legitimate state regulation, and is for example currently acting for a charity in a potential judicial review of a police decision not to prosecute racist and offensive comments on social media; and has advised the Government in cases concerning legislation which seeks to limit the frequency and extent of party political speech published by local authorities.
David has also advised in cases concerning the procedures used to identity and assist victims of modern slavery.
Prior to his silk appointment in 2020, David was a member of the Attorney General’s A panel, and regularly acted for the government in high profile cases brought by prisoners raising issues about the right to liberty, parole and rehabilitation opportunities, the conditions of detention, and freedom of expression; and for the police in high profile public order cases about maintaining public order (such as the “kettling/containment” litigation, and claims for riot compensation arising out of the London Riots in 2012).
“A strong, smart advocate.”
Chambers UK, 2023
“David is very clever and very thorough. He’s an exceptionally creative lawyer and he sees interesting points that others miss.”
Legal 500, 2023
“He is extremely thorough and really meticulous”
Chambers and Partners, 2022
“David has an incredible grasp of the detail and is able to eloquently articulate the response in written form.”
Chambers and Partners, 2022
“Really strong on the human rights elements of the case and knows more about legal professional privilege than anyone else.”
Legal 500, 2022
“He is meticulous, engaged, and full of legal insights.”
Legal 500, 2022
“Not only is he a good technical lawyer, he's a problem solver who achieves practical solutions.”
Chambers and Partners, 2021
“He is charm personified and excellent throughout.”
Chambers and Partners, 2021
“He is very user-friendly and obviously knows his stuff.”
Chambers and Partners, 2021
“Recommended for his strategic approach to cases.”
Legal 500, 2021
“He's excellent; a fantastic advocate with a very clear mind.”
Chambers and Partners, 2020
“Obviously very bright.”
Chambers and Partners, 2019
“A truly brilliant mind.”
Chambers and Partners, 2018
“Very bright, gets to the heart of the matter quickly and has an unflappable nature.”
Legal 500, 2018
“He's obviously very bright. He runs a wonderful practice and enjoys a sterling reputation.”
Chambers and Partners, 2017
“A high-class advocate.”
Legal 500, 2017
“He has a mastery of the law and his advice and drafting are timely, efficient and first-class.”
Chambers and Partners, 2016
The Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal against the High Court’s conclusion that the “right to rent” scheme, set out in sections 20-37 of the Immigration Act 2014, is incompatible with Article 14 ECHR (read with Article 8). The case raised issues about the “ambit" requirement in Article 14 cases, the correct approach to justification in the context of social measures, and Parliament’s responsibility (or otherwise) for the acts of private citizens. David acted for the successful Secretary of State.
Acted for the (successful) United Kingdom in an application brought in the European Court of Human Rights. The case concerns UK legislation designed to protect children and vulnerable people by creating lists of individuals who were not allowed to work in particular sectors (e.g. children’s barred list, adults barred list).
Acted (with James Eadie QC) for the Secretary of State. The Supreme Court considered the question of Crown Immunity and whether it applied to the prohibitions on smoking set out in Part 1 of the Health Act 2006. The Court accepted submissions made on behalf of the Secretary of State to the effect that the Crown is not bound by Statute unless that is made clear expressly or by necessary implication.
Acted for the MOD in proceedings brought concerning the MOD’s anti-piracy operations off the coast of Somalia. The case raised questions of domestic, ECHR and international law.
Acted for the intervening Secretary of State for Justice in this case concerning whether the state (through the police) had breached duties to conduct reasonable investigations into allegations of ill-treatment, derived from Article 3 ECHR, to women who were attacked by a private citizen (the multiple rapist John Worboys).
Acted for the government in a claim concerning how to achieve the rehabilitation of a prisoner who is in total denial of the index offence of which he was convicted. The claim was based on Article 5(4) of the ECHR and in particular the so-called Kaiyam duty.
Successfully defended a judicial review claim concerning the challenge for the authorities of assessing a prisoner’s prospects of rehabilitation, where he continues to protest his innocence of the index offence.
Currently advising the government as sole counsel on a number of claims brought in the European Court of Human Rights relating to the list of individuals who are barred from working with children or vulnerable adults (2015 and ongoing).
Acted (with James Eadie QC) in proceedings arising out of HMRC’s treatment of film finance schemes.
Acted with James Eadie QC in an appeal to the Supreme Court raising jurisdictional issues under the European Convention on Human Rights; the reach of the substantive obligation to preserve life under Article 2 in the context of active military operations; and the common law doctrine of combat immunity.
Acted (with Monica Carss-Frisk QC) for the successful Applicant Police Commissioner, in a human rights dispute about the proper jurisdiction of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in a case raising allegations about the conduct of undercover police officers.
Appeared for the Secretary of State for Justice in a two week trial concerning a prisoner’s allegations of homophobic treatment at the hands of both prison officers and other prisoners.
Acted (with Monica Carss-Frisk QC) in claims raising the status of the “neither confirm nor deny” approach to allegations made about alleged covert surveillance operations.
Appeared for the Secretary of State for Justice in a dispute about the circumstances in which judicial review claimants should be entitled to anonymity.
David has experience of conducting sensitive and confidential internal investigations, including in relation to complaints made by an employee at work, and to sensitive complaints made in the context of the work of government departments.
David covers many Immigration and Nationality cases.
The Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary of State’s appeal against the High Court’s conclusion that the “right to rent” scheme, set out in sections 20-37 of the Immigration Act 2014, is incompatible with Article 14 ECHR (read with Article 8). The case raised issues about the “ambit" requirement in Article 14 cases, the correct approach to justification in the context of social measures, and Parliament’s responsibility (or otherwise) for the acts of private citizens. David acted for the successful Secretary of State.
Advising and representing the Secretary of State in relation to Court of Appeal proceedings concerning the interests of the child as a primary consideration.
Advising as to citizenship issues under s4B of the British Nationality Act 1981, in light of erroneously issued UK passports.
David has substantial experience of acting in judicial review cases raising regulatory issues, and also in regulatory and/or disciplinary proceedings or appeals themselves.
“A good communicator and a polished advocate”
Legal 500, 2016
“He is calm, collected and a persuasive advocate.”
Legal 500, 2015
Currently advising the Financial Services Compensation Scheme as to public law issues arising out of the distinction between negligent investment advice (which is not covered by the scheme) and negligent mortgage advice (which is).
Acted for the (successful) General Medical Council, in judicial review proceedings concerning the proper interpretation of the Council’s rules about how to deal with the determinations of foreign regulatory bodies, and the ‘5 year rule’ applicable to allegations of impaired fitness to practise. The case also raised questions of principle relating to the procedural rules on delay in judicial review proceedings.
Appeared for the GMC in a case about the suspension of a doctor for the improper and dishonest use of prescriptions.
Acted (with Javan Herberg QC) for an individual who had referred a decision of the FCA to the Tribunal.
Acted for the GMC in a case raising difficult questions about old allegations of child abuse, and whether they could be revisited in light of Rule 4(5) of the GMC’s Rules.
Acted for the successful GMC in an appeal against a suspension decision arising out of complaints following two medical consultations.
Acted for the successful GMC in a case about dishonesty arising out of the alleged alteration of patient notes by a doctor.
Acted for the successful GMC in an appeal against a decision to erase a doctor for failing to maintain adequate professional standards.
Acted for the GMC, successfully resisting a doctor’s application to revoke an order imposing conditions on his registration, arising out of allegedly substandard treatment in relation to a number of patients.
David acts for employers and employees in cases raising a wide range of employment law issues.
He has acted in many statutory tribunal claims and has also worked on restrictive covenant cases including injunctive work.
David’s clients have included Barclays Capital, Commerzbank, the Law Society, Linklaters, Network Rail, Tesco, Carphone Warehouse, Vodafone, ABN AMRO, Barclays, the University of Warwick, Odeon Cinemas Limited, the National Association of Head Teachers, and Manchester Airport.
David is also a member of the ELAAS scheme (and has worked with the Bar Pro Bono Unit) and has appeared several times in the EAT on a pro bono basis.
“Exceptionally bright with strong technical knowledge”
Legal 500, 2016
“Extremely commercial, practical and hardworking.”
Legal 500, 2015
Acted (with Paul Goulding QC) in two whistleblowing claims brought in the Employment Tribunal. Claims settled during the trial.
Acted for the successful Respondent employer in this case about alleged age discrimination against an employee at the Wimbledon Tennis Championship.
Acted pro bono for the Claimant in an appeal to the Court of Appeal raising questions about disability discrimination (post-Malcolm, but pre-Equality Act) and about the proper exercise of the discretion to award costs in an Employment Tribunal.
BA in History (Cambridge University), 1st Class
MPhil in Political Thought (Cambridge University), Distinction
GDL (City University) and BPTC (ICSL)
David took silk in 2020, and was appointed a Deputy High Court Judge in 2021.
Before coming to the Bar, David graduated in History and then completed an M.Phil in Political Thought and Intellectual History at Cambridge University. He also worked as an employment lawyer for the Free Representation Unit (FRU) prior to joining Blackstone Chambers.
David has a strong background in music and plays in the leading non-professional orchestras in London.
VAT registration number: 798529358
Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board
Gary Oliver
Senior Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7325
Derek Sutton
Deputy Senior Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7327
Adam Sloane
Deputy Senior Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7326
Dean Tolman
Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7331
Billy Brian
Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7339
Marc Armstrong
Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7330
Adam Fuschillo
Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7329
Danny Compton
Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7338
Sophie Reeve
Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7324
Rio Sully
Clerk
+44 (0) 207 822 7299