Muneeb Akram

More about Muneeb Akram

Muneeb Akram joined Express Chambers in 2026 as a Barrister and Partner. He has the ability to assimilate complex evidence and to explain complex legal issues to his clients, in a readily understandable format. Muneeb has significant experience of drafting written, legal submissions in preparation for hearings. He has demonstrable experience of conducting advocacy before courts and tribunals, including conducting witness handling duties and making oral, legal submissions. Muneeb is adept at exercising resilience and responding calmly and flexibly, in challenging circumstances. He inspires the confidence of his clients and remains authoritative, even when challenged during trials or hearings.

Muneeb is an excellent communicator, both in relation to his verbal and his written communication skills. He is also experienced at advising clients promptly about errant court or tribunal decisions, which have a prospect of being successfully challenged. He maintains extensive and up to date knowledge of legislation, case law and guidance, in relation to his areas of practice.

Muneeb practised as a Solicitor from 2011 to 2017. During this time, he conducted personal injury ‘fraud rings’ work, as well clinical negligence claims. Muneeb prepared advisory reports for the NHS Litigation Authority, advising on liability, quantum, factual and expert evidence, alternative dispute resolution and costs. Muneeb conducted advocacy in the High Court before Masters, and conducted settlement negotiations, in high value clinical negligence claims.

Muneeb cross-qualified and practised as a self-employed Barrister, from 2017 to 2026. Muneeb is routinely instructed as a trial advocate, in relation to fast track, intermediate track, and multi-track cases. He conducts road traffic accident, occupiers liability, employers liability, holiday sickness, and fatal accident claims. He has a particular aptitude for advancing and defending arguments of fundamental dishonesty, as well as dealing with technical, credit hire points. Muneeb has conducted both claimant and defendant personal injury work. He has issued personal injury claims on behalf of claimants, drafting the Particulars of Claim in appropriate cases. For defendant clients, Muneeb has investigated personal injury claims suspected of forming part of a wider, organised fraud ring. He continues to enhance his demonstrable advocacy skills, by attending case management conferences and contested application hearings.

Muneeb has also conducted complex unlawful detention cases, including drafting statements of case and preparing advices in high value claims for damages for false imprisonment. He has conducted interlocutory hearings, Cost and Case Management Conferences, and trials of unlawful detention claims. One of Muneeb’s previous clients commented as follows: “He is excellent on his preparation and conduct of legal argument both orally and in writing, his advices have not simply been sufficient but are also detailed regarding facts of the cases he has handled for me. He has demonstrated both sound judgement and clear litigation strategy”.

Muneeb previously conducted work for the Government Legal Department (“the GLD”), having been appointed to the Attorney-General’s Civil Panel Counsel from 2020 to 2025. His expertise includes dealing with personal injury claims, Human Rights Act claims, Data Protection Act claims, Equality Act claims and appeals against penalties for illegal workers / clandestine entrants. For example, Muneeb defended a prison authority in a claim for damages, involving a prisoner-on-officer assault. He argued that whilst there was undoubtedly a duty on the defendant to take reasonable care to protect his employees against a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury, that duty extended only so far as the defendant taking steps that were reasonable and practicable. Muneeb relied on applicable, leading caselaw and argued that that the defendant was entitled to strike a balance “between the need for control of the risk posed by the prison population and what are considered reasonable and acceptable conditions of incarceration”: Hill v Ministry of Justice [2022] EWHC 370. He further contended that the offending prisoner had neither a known propensity to violence, nor any animosity towards the claimant. Muneeb expertly drew out the pieces of evidence and applied them to the applicable authorities (for example: Lloyd v Ministry of Justice [2007] EWHC 2475), in his skeleton argument.