Nikolaus is ranked as a leading competition junior and acts in a range of major cases, including antitrust investigations, mergers, challenges to regulatory decisions, and damages actions. He has significant expertise in cross-jurisdictional claims and benefits from his technical public law knowledge and his extensive litigation experience in the appellate Courts.

Nikolaus has particular experience in the field of merger control, being described as “one of the few lawyers who understands merger control” (Chambers Global 2022). He has been instructed in many key mergers in recent years, such as Microsoft /Activision; Sabre/Farelogix; Comcast/Sky; Sainsbury’s/Asda; Stars/Sky Betting and Gaming; Rentokil Initial/Cannon Hygiene; and HID Global/De La Rue.

He is a contributing author of Bellamy & Child “European Union Law of Competition” (8th Edition).

Cases

Significant cases include:

• Microsoft/Activision v CMA – Acted for Microsoft in the successful $69bn merger with Activision, and the court challenge to the CMA’s initial decision to block the transaction: [2023] CAT 40; [2023] CAT 41.
• Allergan and ors. v CMA – Acted for the CMA in a successful defence of a decision regarding excessive and unfair pricing of hydrocortisone tablets: [2023] CAT 56.
• Roberts v Severn Trent and ors – Acting for the PCR in opt-out collective in relation to discharges of untreated sewage and wastewater into rivers, streams and coastal waters by water companies.
• Pollack / Arthur v Google – Acting for the PCR in a collective proceedings claim alleging that Google abused its dominant position in online advertising markets to the detriment of online publishers; in [2023] CAT 34 the Tribunal gave guidance on how to handle carriage disputes.
• JJH Enterprises v Microsoft – Acting for Microsoft in defending an abuse of dominance claim alleging interference with the resale of pre-owned software licences [2023] CAT 36.
• Gormsen v Meta – Collective proceedings against Meta for an alleged abuse of dominance in relation to users’ data: [2023] CAT 10.
• LePatourel v BT – Acted for the class representative in opt-out collective proceedings on behalf of over 2 million landline customers for alleged excessive pricing by BT: [2021] CAT 30; [2022] EWCA Civ 593.
• Trucks competition damages litigation – Acting for DAF Trucks; see e.g. [2023] EWCA Civ 875.
• GibFibre v Gibtel ­– Acting for the Defendant in a major competition claim in the Supreme Court of Gibraltar.
• Forrest Fresh Foods v Coca-Cola EP – Acted for Coca-Cola in a successful strike-out / summary judgment application in relation to an abuse of dominance claim [2021] CAT 29.
• Royal Mail v Ofcom – Acted for Ofcom in an appeal against a fine imposed under its competition powers [2019] CAT 19; [2019] Cat 27; [2021] EWCA Civ 669.
• Sabre v CMA – Challenge to the CMA’s decision to block the Sabre/Farelogix merger [2021] CAT 11.
• Sainsbury v Competition and Markets Authority – Successful challenge to the fairness of the CMA’s procedures in the Sainsbury’s/ASDA merger [2019] CAT 1.
• T-38/11 Cathay Pacific v European Commission – Acted for Cathay Pacific in the air cargo surcharges appeal. [2016] 4 CMLR 7; EU:T:2022:184.
• PHS v Competition and Markets Authority – Challenge concerning remedies in the Rentokil/Cannon merger.
• R (Actegy Ltd) v Advertising Standards Authority [2019] EWHC 2374 (Admin) – Advising on competition points raised in the context of a challenge to an Advertising Standards Authority ruling.
• British Telecommunications v Office of Communications (WMO) – Acted for BT in the “pay TV litigation”: [2016] CAT 25 (substantive) and [2016] CAT 1 (confidentiality ring).

Consistently ranked as a leading junior in the legal directories, Nikolaus has a wide-ranging public and regulatory practice. He appears for and advises claimants and defendants, including individuals, companies, central government, regulators, local authorities, and public interest groups.

He has particular expertise in major commercial public law and regulatory disputes, often with a competition angle, as well as in claims involving human rights and international law issues.

Cases

Significant cases include:

• R (AAA and ors.) v SSHD [2023] EWCA Civ 745 – Acted for Freedom from Torture in the successful appeal against the government’s policy to relocate certain asylum seekers to Rwanda
• R (MKA) v Secretary of State for Defence [2023] EWHC 1164 (Admin) – Successful irrationality challenge against the Secretary of State for Defence following the refusal to relocate an Afghan national who had worked at British military camps and the British Embassy in Afghanistan.
• Microsoft/Activision v CMA – Acted for Microsoft in the successful $69bn merger with Activision, and the court challenge to the CMA’s initial decision to block the transaction: [2023] CAT 40; [2023] CAT 41
• R (the3million and Open Rights Group) v SSHD and SSDCMS – Acted for the successful Claimants: In [2021] EWCA Civ 800, the Court of Appeal held that the the UK Government’s attempt to enact statutory restrictions on data protection rights in the context of immigration control was incompatible with retained EU law, but suspended relief ([2021] EWCA Civ 1571) pending new legislation; the High Court subsequently found that the UK Government’s second attempt to enact such an Immigration Exemption under the Data Protection Act 2018 was also unlawful ([2023] EWHC 713 (Admin)).
• Sky v Ofcom (end-of-contract notifications) – Acted for Ofcom, defending a challenge to its decision that that Sky was contravening its obligations to provide end-of contract notifications to its pay TV customers.
• Gambling Act consultations – Acting for a major betting and gambling operator in responding to proposed changes to the legal framework regulating gambling.
• Review of the FCA’s supervisory intervention on interest rate hedging products (IRHP) – Acted as counsel to the Review and appeared before the Treasury Select Committee.
• R (Western Sahara Campaign) v Secretary of State for International Development – Challenge concerning the legality of a UK’s trade agreement with Morocco [2022] EWHC 3108 (Admin).
• R (Pan United) v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – Challenge concerning the administration of the UK’s tariff-rate quotas for the import of garlic.
• R (Corner House Research) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs & CDC Group – Successful challenge to a failure to investigate serious allegations of corruption in the context of UK development aid.
• R (AZ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – Acted for an Afghan national who worked as a patrol interpreter alongside British forces in Helmand, in challenging the Home Office’s refusal to allow him and his family to relocate to the UK on national security grounds.
• R (Campaign Against Arms Trade) v Secretary of State for International Trade – Representing the interveners Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Rights Watch (UK) in a challenge to the licensing of UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia [2019] EWCA Civ 1020.
• R (Hauret and ors.) v HMRC – Challenge to the legality of the Loan Charge, a tax charge on so-called “disguised remuneration loan schemes”.
• R (JCWI) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – Acted for the Claimant in a successful claim that the Home Office’s use of an algorithm to categorise visa applicants was discriminatory.
• Sainsbury v Competition and Markets Authority – Successful challenge to the fairness of the CMA’s procedures in the Sainsbury’s/ASDA merger [2019] CAT 1.
• R (OmegaFlex) v British Standards Institution & R (Ventcroft) v British Standards Institution – Acting for The British Standards Institution, the UK’s national standards body, in two separate judicial review claims concerning the setting and withdrawal of product standards.
• R (PICAT) v Attorney General – Acted for the Attorney General in a challenge to the UK’s policy on the nuclear deterrent.
• R (Bail for Immigration Detainees) v Cabinet Office – Acted for the Claimant in a challenge concerning the designation strategic suppliers, in the light of evidence of serious and systemic failings in their operation of detention facilities.
• PHS v Competition and Markets Authority – Challenge concerning remedies in the Rentokil/Cannon merger.
• R (Ul Haq) v Walsall – Claim under Article 9 ECHR regarding the burial arrangements in a Muslim cemetery [2019] EWHC 70 (Admin).
• R (Actegy Ltd) v Advertising Standards Authority– Acted for the Advertising Standards Agency in a successful defence of a challenge to a ruling that an advertisement for a medical device contained claims that were unsubstantiated and misleading [2019] EWHC 2374 (Admin).
• R (Coulter) v Independent Press Standards Organisation – The first judicial review claim against the independent press regulator IPSO [2018] EWHC 1017 (Admin).
• Sharkproject v Marine Stewardship Council – Challenge to a scheme certifying fisheries as ‘sustainable’.
• R (British American Tobacco & ors.) v Secretary of State for Health – Judicial review by several major tobacco companies, seeking the or the annulment of the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015. Court of Appeal: [2016] EWCA Civ 1182; High Court: [2016] EWHC 1169 (Admin).
• Wang Yam v Attorney General / R (Wang Yam) v Central Criminal Court – Challenge regarding the power of the UK to restrict individuals from bringing secret material before the European Court of Human Rights. Supreme Court: [2015] UKSC 76; [2016] AC 771.
• British Telecommunications v Office of Communications (WMO) – Acted for BT in the “pay TV litigation”: [2016] CAT 25 (substantive) and [2016] CAT 1 (confidentiality ring)
• R (Hotak and AL) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Secretary of State for Defence and the Attorney General – Representing locally employed staff serving the UK Government in Afghanistan in a discrimination challenge alleging that the protection and benefits offered to them remain more limited than what was offered to comparably placed staff in Iraq. [2016] EWCA Civ 438, [2016] 1 WLR 3791; [2015] EWHC 1953 (Admin).
• Evangelou v McNicol and The Labour Party – Claim concerning the right of recent members of the Labour Party to vote in the party leadership election. [2016] EWHC 2058 (QB).
• R (AI and XH) v Secretary of State for the Home – Judicial review claim challenging the Secretary of State’s decision purporting to withdraw the Claimants’ passports under the Royal Prerogative. Court of Appeal judgment pending [2016] EWHC 1898 (Admin), [2016] ACD 117.
• Maxter Catheters SAS v Medicina Ltd. – Jurisdictional dispute regarding the proper application of Article 30 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (the Judgments Regulation) in the context of a claim concerning a medical devices distribution agreement. [2015] EWHC 3076 (Comm).
• R (O) v Secretary of State for International Development – Judicial review of DFID’s failure properly to investigate the apparent use of UK aid money for human rights abuses in Ethiopia. [2014] EWHC 2371 (QB).
• R (GC and C) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis – A decision of the Supreme Court that a blanket policy allowing the continued retention of DNA and fingerprint data by the police was unlawful. [2011] UKSC 21.
• Acting and advising in a range of sanctions cases, including individual delisting applications, e.g. in respect of the Iran, Iraq, Libya and terrorism sanctions regimes.

Ranked as a leading junior, Nikolaus represents and advises individuals, companies, public interest groups, and government bodies in a wide range of high-profile human rights cases, including public and private law claims in the domestic courts as well as cases before international courts and bodies.

He has particular expertise in matters involving issues of national security, armed conflict and international relations and regularly deals with complex and sensitive claims against the police, military and security and intelligence services.

Cases

Significant cases include:

• R (AAA and ors.) v SSHD – Acted for Freedom from Torture in the successful appeal against the government’s policy to relocate certain asylum seekers to Rwanda [2023] EWCA Civ 745.
• R (MKA) v Secretary of State for Defence – Successful irrationality challenge against the Secretary of State for Defence following the refusal to relocate an Afghan national who had worked at British military camps and the British Embassy in Afghanistan [2023] EWHC 1164 (Admin).
• C2 v Secretary of State for the Home Department – Acting for the Claimant in a citizenship stripping appeal in SIAC.
• Jagtar Singh Johal v Attorney General and ors. – Acting for the Claimant in a claim that unlawful intelligence sharing by UK intelligence agencies caused or contributed to him facing arbitrary detention, torture and death penalty proceedings in India.
• R (AZ) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – Acted for an Afghan national who worked as a patrol interpreter alongside British forces in Helmand, in challenging the Home Office’s refusal to allow him and his family to relocate to the UK on national security grounds.
• R (the3million and Open Rights Group) v SSHD and SSDCMS – Acted for the successful Claimants: In [2021] EWCA Civ 800, the Court of Appeal held that the the UK Government’s attempt to enact statutory restrictions on data protection rights in the context of immigration control was incompatible with retained EU law, but suspended relief ([2021] EWCA Civ 1571) pending new legislation; the High Court subsequently found that the UK Government’s second attempt to enact such an Immigration Exemption under the Data Protection Act 2018 was also unlawful ([2023] EWHC 713 (Admin)).
• Alzouabi v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis – Acting for the claimant in a successful claim for damages arising out of his unlawful stop and detention under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, while travelling to attend his father’s funeral. The case involved the first successful application for a CMP by a Claimant.
• TOEIC claims – Acting for multiple individuals who were falsely accused by the Home Office of cheating in English tests (TOEIC), taken in support of their immigration applications and, as a result, lost their leave to remain, faced immigration detention and/or deportation, and suffered severe reputational and other damage.
• Catalan separatist cases – Acted for several members of the Catalan separatist movement / administration in various challenges before the European Court of Human Rights regarding criminal charges they are facing in Spain
• R (Campaign Against Arms Trade) v Secretary of State for International Trade – Acted for the interveners Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Rights Watch (UK) in a challenge to the licensing of UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia [2019] EWCA Civ 1020
• Rahmatullah v Ministry of Defence & Foreign and Commonwealth Office – Damages claim arising out of the UK’s role in the Claimant’s capture to Iraq and subsequent rendition to a US base in Afghanistan where he was detained for some eight years. Supreme Court: [2017] UKSC 1 and [2017] UKSC 3; [2019] EWHC 3172 (QB)
• R (BID) v Cabinet Office – Judicial review of the Government’s procurement policy in respect of whether G4S should be designated a ‘high risk’ supplier following abuses in immigration detention facilities
• AW v United Kingdom – Acting for the Claimant in an ECtHR challenge to the compatibility of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 with Article 8 ECHR
• R (Ul Haq) v Walsall MBC – Challenge under Article 9 ECHR regarding the burial arrangements in a Muslim cemetery [2019] EWHC 70 (Admin)
• Abdule v Foreign and Commonwealth Office ­– Damages claim concerning alleged collusion by the UK intelligence services in the torture and unlawful detention of a British national in Somalia [2018] EWHC 3594 (QB)
• Dixon v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trusts – Acted for the relatives of a man attacked and murdered by another patient while in NHS care in a successful claim for damages.
• Rabbani v DPP – A Case Stated appeal by the international director of the campaign organisation Cage, following his conviction for a terrorist offence after refusing to hand over passwords to his mobile phone and laptop during a Schedule 7 stop [2018] EWHC 1156 (Admin).
• Mohammed v Ministry of Defence – Test litigation challenging the extent of the UK’s power to detain individuals captured by British forces in Afghanistan. Supreme Court: [2017] UKSC 1 and [2017] UKSC 2.
• Stewart v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis – Multi-week jury trial in the High Court regarding claims for multiple incidents of false imprisonment, assault, trespass and breaches of Article 8 ECHR: [2017] EWHC 921 (QB), [2017] EWHC 1307 (QB), and [2017] EWHC 2843 (QB)
• Wang Yam v Attorney General / R (Wang Yam) v Central Criminal Court – Challenge regarding the power of the UK to restrict individuals from bringing secret material before the European Court of Human Rights. Supreme Court: [2015] UKSC 76; [2016] AC 771.
• R (AI and XH) v Secretary of State for the Home – Judicial review claim challenging the Secretary of State’s decision purporting to withdraw the Claimants’ passports under the Royal Prerogative. Court of Appeal judgment pending [2016] EWHC 1898 (Admin).
• Evangelou v McNicol and The Labour Party – Claim concerning the right of recent members of the Labour Party to vote in the party leadership election. [2016] EWHC 2058 (QB)
• R (Hotak and AL) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Secretary of State for Defence and the Attorney General – Representing locally employed staff serving the UK Government in Afghanistan in a discrimination challenge alleging that the protection and benefits offered to them remain more limited than what was offered to comparably placed staff in Iraq. [2016] EWCA Civ 438, [2016] 1 WLR 3791; [2015] EWHC 1953 (Admin)
• Al Waheed v Ministry of Defence – Test case in the litigation brought by Iraqi civilians against the Ministry of Defence for damages arising out of their arrest, detention and ill-treatment during the occupation of Iraq and while the British army remained in Iraq until 2009. Supreme Court: [2017] UKSC 2
• R (O) v Secretary of State for International Development – Judicial review of DFID’s failure properly to investigate the apparent use of UK aid money for human rights abuses in Ethiopia. [2014] EWHC 2371 (QB)
• Kololo v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis – Acting for a death row prisoner in Kenya in a DPA claim that succeeded in obtaining potentially exculpatory evidence held by the Metropolitan Police. [2015] EWHC 600 (QB), [2015] 1 WLR 3702
• Zaw Lin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis – Acting in a DPA claim for two death row prisoners in Thailand; on the facts the Court found that nothing in the data would be of real value to the Claimants’ criminal trial. [2015] EWHC 2484 (QB)
• BA v Ministry of Defence – A claim by an eleven-year-old suspected pirate who was captured by British naval forces in the Indian Ocean and transferred to the Seychelles where he was acquitted on account of his age
• R (DPP) v Stratford Youth Court – Judicial review by the DPP of a Youth Court sentencing decision. [2016] EWHC 2047 (QB)
• R (Kenyi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – Successful challenge of the Claimant’s lengthy immigration detention pending deportation to South Sudan following its independence from the Sudan
• R (PK) v Harrow LBC – ECHR Article 8 challenge to a local authority’s decision to provide accommodation for two young children but not their mother [2014] EWHC 584 (Admin)
• R (L) v Youth Justice Board – A judicial review of the placement of a vulnerable 16-year-old remand prisoner [2013] EWHC 3083
• R (Serdar Mohammed) v Secretary of State for Defence – A successful challenge to the practice of transferring British-captured detainees to the Afghan security and intelligence services [2012] EWHC 3282 (Admin); [2012] EWHC 3454 (Admin) and [2012] EWHC 3946 (Admin)
• R (RH) v HM Treasury – Challenging the lawfulness of the EU sanctions regime on Iraq in relation to the failure to provide for licenses for reasonable legal expenses.
• R (GC and C) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis – A decision of the Supreme Court that a blanket policy allowing the continued retention of DNA and fingerprint data by the police was unlawful [2011] UKSC 21.
• Death penalty cases in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Pakistan, Thailand, Singapore and Somalia.

Ranked as a leading junior in data protection and information law cases, Nikolaus regularly advises and represents the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as well as companies, individuals, government bodies and not-for-profit organisations in relation to complex data protection issues.

Cases

Significant cases include:

• TikTok v Information Commissioner – Acting for the Information Commissioner in defending a £12.7 million fine on TikTok for a number of breaches of data protection law, including failing to use children’s personal data lawfully.
• R (the3million and Open Rights Group) v SSHD and SSDCMS – Acted for the successful Claimants: In [2021] EWCA Civ 800, the Court of Appeal held that the the UK Government’s attempt to enact statutory restrictions on data protection rights in the context of immigration control was incompatible with retained EU law, but suspended relief ([2021] EWCA Civ 1571) pending new legislation; the High Court subsequently found that the UK Government’s second attempt to enact such an Immigration Exemption under the Data Protection Act 2018 was also unlawful ([2023] EWHC 713 (Admin)).
• Gormsen v Meta – Collective proceedings against Meta for an alleged abuse of dominance in relation to users’ data: [2023] CAT 10
• Lloyd v Google [2021] UKSC 50 – Acted for the Information Commissioner in a Supreme Court intervention in a large representative action against Google.
• DB v BSM – Acting for the Claimant in claim for a data privacy breach by a medical clinic.
• Killock v Information Commissioner [2021] UKUT 299 (AAC) – Acting for the complainants in a complaint to the Information Commissioner regarding the Ad-tech industry. The Upper Tribunal gave judgment on the proper interpretation of s 166 DPA 2018 and the scope of the Information Commissioner’s obligations to keep complainants informed / involved in complaints of this nature.
• R (JCWI) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – Acted for the Claimant in a successful claim that the Home Office’s use of an algorithm to categorise visa applicants was discriminatory.
• Information Commissioner v Moss [2020] UKUT 174 (AAC) – Acted for the Respondent in an Upper Tribunal guidance case in which the Upper Tribunal held that the Tribunal has the power to enforce its own decisions rather than having to rely on the Information Commissioner to do so.
• R (Coulter) v Independent Press Standards Organisation – The first judicial review claim against the independent press regulator IPSO [2018] EWHC 1017 (Admin).
• Prof David Carroll v Cambridge Analytica & SCL ­– Represented Prof Carroll in his claim against Cambridge Analytica
• Equifax data breach investigation – Acted for the ICO
• Veale & Killock v Interactive Advertising Bureau & Google Ad Exchange – A complaint to the ICO regarding the real-time bidding adtech industry
• Moss v ICO – A test case concerning the enforcement of Information Tribunal decisions
• Advising clients on various GDPR / DPA compliance issues, such as controller / processor relationships; lawful bases for processing; and international data sharing arrangements
• North Lincolnshire Council v ICO – Acted for the local authority in a successful challenge against an ICO decision ordering the Council to disclose certain information under the Environmental Information Regulations
• Alzouabi v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis – Challenge to a national policy against DPA disclosure relating to Terrorism Act enquiries
• Kololo v the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis – acting for a death row prisoner in Kenya in relation to his DPA claim against the Metropolitan Police. [2015] EWHC 600(QB), [2015] 1 WLR 3702
• Zaw Lin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis – Acting for two death row prisoners in Thailand in relation to their DPA claim against the Metropolitan Police. [2015] EWHC 2484 (QB)
• ZZZ v Ministry of Justice and Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis – Complex challenge regarding failures in the handling of personal data of an individual on a witness protection programme.
• Trushin v National Crime Agency – DPA claim in relation to the NCA’s processing of personal data as the national contact point for INTERPOL [2014] EWHC 3551 (Admin)
• Powell v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police – A successful damages claim against the police arising out of the unlawful publication of personal information.
• X v Foreign and Commonwealth Office – a request for information by the family of a UK national killed in a drone strike abroad.
• Shepphard v Foreign and Commonwealth Office – represented a family in a successful attempt to obtain information concerning the death of their son abroad, which had been provided by a foreign Government.
• R (AW) v Secretary of State for Justice – a case concerning the disclosure of past criminal cautions and convictions. [2013] EWCA Civ 25
• R (GC and C) v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis – A decision of the Supreme Court that a blanket policy allowing the continued retention of DNA and fingerprint data by the police was unlawful [2011] UKSC 21.

Nikolaus works on a wide range of international matters, both in an advisory / consultancy capacity and in litigation before domestic and international courts (see human rights & civil liberties section). He is a member of the UK Attorney General’s Public International Law C Panel of Counsel.

Nikolaus benefits from extensive field experience, including in Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Iraq, Mali, Ethiopia, Libya, the Great Lakes Region and the Caucasus.

Cases

Recent and ongoing international work includes:

• Advising the G5 Sahel Force
• Advising the African Union Mission in Somalia on the establishment of a Civilian Casualties Tracking, Analysis and Response Cell pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 2036 (2012) and 2093 (2013) (instructed by the Center for Civilians in Conflict, the United Nations and the UK Government).
• Advising the UN Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) on its Protection of Civilians strategy.
• Assisting the international military mission in the Central African Republic (MISCA) with developing a Defensive Fire Policy.
• Working with Libyan judges and prosecutors on developing transitional justice policies and implementation.
• Investigating incidents of alleged severe human rights violations in a number of countries including Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen.
• Trainings for military forces (US, Afghanistan, NATO), Governments (Afghanistan and Somalia), NGOs, journalists and human rights activists on human rights, international humanitarian law, civilian protection and responding to civilian harm.
• Researching and writing an in-depth report for CIVIC and UNHCR on the impact of the armed conflict in Somalia on the civilian population.
• Representing various NGOs on advocacy missions, including at the UN, NATO, national governments and NGO consortia.
• Death penalty cases in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Kenya, Pakistan, Thailand, Singapore and Somalia.

Languages

Fluent German

Conversational French

Background 

Before joining the Bar, Nikolaus worked for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan and for Afghanistan’s Independent Human Rights Commission. He specialized in the issue of civilian casualties, dealing with a range of incidents including the killing of civilians in airstrikes by international forces, targeted assassinations of non-combatants by insurgents and the shooting of unarmed protesters by Afghan Government forces.

Nikolaus also worked as Special Assistant to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Sudan and has undertaken a range of consultancy and academic assignments in countries including Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Iraq, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Sri Lanka and Russia.

After completing pupillage, Nikolaus was Judicial Assistant to Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury.

He holds a BA in law from Oxford University and an LLM from Harvard Law School and completed the BVC with the highest mark in his year. He was awarded the Harvard Henigson Human Rights Fellowship as well as numerous prizes and awards for his research on legal structures in Somalia and on conflict mapping in Central Africa and Central Asia. Nikolaus is a qualified mediator under Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Rules.

Administrative & Public Law: “Nikolaus goes above and beyond in tackling complex issues at speed. He provides invaluable strategic insights and he is skilled at zoning in on the weaknesses in the other side’s position.” “Nikolaus produces accessible written advice. His arguments are really sound and attractive to the court.” “He is extremely bright and writes beautifully. He has a great strategic assessment of a case and where it might go. He is thinking several steps ahead on the litigation.” “Nikolaus has very good judgement on what works and what does not. He has a clear writing style.” – Chambers UK, 2025

Civil Liberties & Human Rights: “Nick is really forensic in his approach in factually rich and complex cases. He has a great manner with clients.” “His legal analysis and ability to produce excellent written work really stand out.” – Chambers UK, 2025

Competition Law: “Nik is an absolute pleasure to work with.” “He has an incredibly impressive strategic brain with a very strong sense for determining the best course of action amongst a myriad of options.” “Nik is engaging, collaborative and solution-oriented.” – Chambers UK and Chambers Global, 2025

Data Protection: “Nikolaus is superb. He has very good judgement on what works and what does not. He has a very clear writing style.” “Nikolaus is one of the most intelligent people I know.” “He is extremely good at getting across the detail and being thoroughly familiar with it. He has the ability to marshal detailed factual info. He is easy to work with.” – Chambers UK, 2025

Group Litigation: “Nikolaus is an expert in data protection. He is easy to work with and produces high-quality work.” “He is one of the most intelligent people I’ve met yet has no ego at all.” – Chambers UK, 2025

Leading Junior in Administrative Law and Human Rights: “’He is one of the most intelligent barristers at the Bar and is incredibly down to earth.” – Legal 500, 2025

Leading Junior in Group Litigation: “’Nik is very strong on his feet and handles complex lines of enquiry adeptly.  His written analysis is also very strong.” – Legal 500, 2025

Leading Junior in Competition: “Nik combines the top-line technical expertise in competition which you would expect from Monckton, with deep experience and feel for public law issues. He is a future star, particularly in merger control cases, and great to work with.” – Legal 500, 2025

Leading Junior in Data Protection: “Nikolaus offers good practical analysis and attention to detail.” – Legal 500, 2025

Administrative & Public Law: “He immediately sees the right, strategic answer. He’s always got his eye on the winning point of the case.” “Nik’s written work is good in terms of clarity and dissecting the strengths and weaknesses of the case.” – Chambers UK, 2024

Civil Liberties & Human Rights: “It is inspiring to watch him navigate complex, unpredictable cases. He knows how to reach creative settlements. An amazing advocate.” – Chambers UK, 2024

Data Protection: “Nikolaus’s written work is good in terms of clarity and dissecting the strengths and weaknesses of the case.” – Chambers UK, 2024

Competition Law: “He has some brilliant ideas.” “Nikolaus genuinely cares about making a difference and will always make the time to talk.” “He’s also been extremely productive, always churning out fantastic advice.” “He is also very good to deal with, very client-friendly, and engaging.” “He’s very strong on the legal aspects but also on the substantive aspects of the case, understanding the position of the competition authorities.” “Nikolaus is extremely strong on technical legal issues, and is very thoughtful.” – Chambers UK, 2024

Group Litigation: “Nikolaus is very forensic and has a real attention to detail.” – Chambers UK, 2024

Leading Junior in Administrative Law and Human Rights: “’An extremely diligent junior who is brilliant with clients.” – Legal 500, 2024

Leading Junior in Group Litigation – Legal 500, 2024

Leading Junior in Competition: “Steeped in competition law, Nik always provides clear and considered advice. He is equally able of seeing the commercial realities and risks for his clients.” – Legal 500, 2024

Administrative & Public Law: “He was extremely knowledgeable and calm in a very busy and pressurised matter.” “He produces beautifully drafted pleadings and has good strategic judgement in litigation. Nothing seems to fluster him.” – Chambers UK, 2023

Civil Liberties & Human Rights: “His courtroom advocacy is so good: it is mesmerising.” “A strong advocate whether for the claimant or the defendant.” – Chambers UK, 2023

Data Protection: “He’s very skilled, produces beautifully drafted pleadings and has good strategic litigation judgement. He can turn his hand to the most difficult issues in public law and data protection.” “He is very hard-working and responsive; he goes above and beyond for the client.” – Chambers UK, 2023

Competition Law: “Nik is a smart and hard-working junior who writes well and is good to deal with.” – Chambers UK and Chambers Global, 2023

Group Litigation: “Both his drafting and advocacy are excellent.” – Chambers UK, 2023

Leading Junior in Administrative Law and Human Rights: “Nikolaus is a highly intellectual strategic thinker who approaches issues in a pragmatic way.” – Legal 500, 2023

Leading Junior in Group Litigation: “He is extremely smart; knowledgeable; very pragmatic; hard working and very easy to work with.” – Legal 500, 2023

Leading Junior in Competition: “Steeped in competition law, Nikolaus always provides clear and considered advice. He is equally able of seeing the commercial realities and risks for his clients.” – Legal 500, 2023

Administrative & Public Law: “He is an incredibly smart barrister with a tactical understanding of how the other side works.” “He is easy to work with and very clear in his advice.” – Chambers UK, 2022

Civil Liberties & Human Rights: “He is very good on his feet and his strategy is very good.” “Nikolaus is very hard-working and incredibly clever.” – Chambers UK, 2022

Data Protection: “He produces first-rate advocacy and is a barrister I turn to for the complex data breach cases.” – Chambers UK, 2022

Competition Law: “He’s a smart barrister who writes well, and is one of the few lawyers who understands merger control.” – Chambers UK and Chambers Global, 2022

Leading Junior in Administrative & Public Law: “Nikolaus is an excellent strategic thinker who always has the clients’ overall objectives and goals in mind when advising on case strategy.” – Legal 500, 2022

Leading Junior in Civil Liberties & Human Rights – Legal 500, 2022

Leading Junior in Competition: “A strong technician, pragmatically minded and very user friendly.” – Legal 500, 2022

Administrative & Public Law: “An extraordinarily incisive legal mind who appears effortlessly to identify the nub of an issue and wrestle with its relevance and consequence. He is deeply courteous, and appears unflappable even when dealing with several high-profile cases at the same time. He is well organised and musters in-depth preparation to make every moment of a client-facing meeting matter.” – Chambers UK, 2021

Civil Liberties and Human Rights: “Academic, thorough in his legal arguments and very good at drafting.” – Chambers UK, 2021

Leading Junior in Administrative & Public Law: “Nik has incredible technical knowledge of the law coupled with an ability to explain it in a clear and concise manner.” – Legal 500, 2021

Leading Junior in Civil Liberties & Human Rights: “Has a sharp legal mind, clear strategic thinking and is outcome focused. He is one a few counsel that understand the dynamics of developing technology and rights.” – Legal 500, 2021

Leading Junior in Competition: “Highly responsive, great manner with clients and very knowledgeable.” – Legal 500, 2021

Administrative & Public Law: “We found him very impressive, incredibly hard-working and dedicated to our case. He brought a fresh perspective as he has a diverse practice.” “Really sharp and insightful, with both legal depth and clear strategic thinking, and he’s really good on his feet. He was put on the spot and it was like water off a duck’s back.” “He was helpful, calm and patient, and he listened well. He answers quite meticulously, can break things down into a simple response and he’s able to translate all the jargon.” – Chambers UK, 2020

Civil Liberties and Human Rights: “Incredibly hard-working and dedicated. He punches above his level of call.” “He’s sharp, insightful and really good on his feet.” – Chambers UK, 2020

Leading Junior in Administrative & Public Law: “He uses his deep practical knowledge of national security to good effect.” – Legal 500, 2020

Administrative & Public Law: “He has a phenomenal ability to understand the wide array of issues which arise. He’s good with clients and he has a great ability to inspire confidence.” “He’s really hard-working and gets to the point. He goes out of his way to help instructing solicitors, which is appreciated.” – Chambers UK, 2019

Civil Liberties and Human Rights: “He has a phenomenal ability to understand the wide array of issues which arise.” “He drafts beautifully and has a really good tactical sense of what works.” – Chambers UK, 2019

Administrative & Public Law: “Very intelligent, extremely friendly and easy to work with.” “He is able to spot novel and difficult new points of law.” – Chambers UK, 2018

Civil Liberties and Human Rights: “He has a detailed technical knowledge of the law and an ability to advise in a clear and workable manner.” – Chambers UK, 2018

Administrative & Public Law: “Brilliant, writes beautifully, is hard-working and totally unflappable. He is really good with clients.” “A wonderfully creative litigator.” “Technically one of the most gifted barristers that I have come across, he’s absolutely meticulous.” – Chambers UK, 2017

Administrative & Public Law: “He has a technical background which means he can add a whole different dimension to cases. He has years of experience in his fields of practice and is hugely connected.” “He works incredibly hard and is very well informed on all the technical public law questions.” – Chambers UK, 2016

Administrative & Public Law: “He is incredibly competent and very accommodating. He seeks to push the boundaries of the law, yet always offers pragmatic and realistic advice.” – Chambers UK, 2015