Rahul Kanani

Rahul joined Osbornes Law in January 2024 and works as a paralegal in the Litigation Department, specialising in public law matters.

Rahul in particular assists unaccompanied asylum-seeking putative minors in establishing their age during the age assessment process and has experience in overturning negative age assessment decisions and issuing judicial reviews against local authorities.

Rahul graduated from the University of Nottingham with a First-Class Joint Honours in History and Politics in 2020 and has completed the GDL at the University of Law, where he achieved a Distinction.

Before joining Osbornes, Rahul worked as a paralegal  in the Civil Department of another London law firm where he supported solicitors in complex public matters. Rahul assisted on inquests, unlawful detention cases and matters arising from discrimination in prisons where he demonstrated an understanding of the complex legal territory of cases.

Rahul has undertaken various volunteering roles for organisations including the National Centre for Domestic Violence, Harrow and North Kensington Law Centre and the charity, Save the Children. In addition, he has volunteered for pro bono initiatives such as Access to Justice and Appeal, a charity that fights miscarriages of justice.

In his spare time, Rahul enjoys travelling, watching sports and exploring different restaurants and cuisines.

Notable Cases:

MIA, R (On the Application of) v Dorset Council [2025] EWHC 970 (Admin) [Case No: AC-2024-LON-002655]- Successful High Court Judicial Review challenge against Dorset Council, for their failure to undertake a re-assessment of my client’s age, despite the presentation of new evidence. The Judge ruled in the Claimant’s favour and issued a mandatory order requiring the Defendant to undertake a re-assessment of age. Link to the judgment here.

ARO, R (On the Application of) v London Borough of Islington [Case No: JR-2024-LON-001201]- Successfully represented our client in a Judicial Review challenge against the London Borough of Islington. We challenged the lawfulness and factual correctness of their ‘informal’ decision that our client was an adult, aged between 24-25 years old. Following a fact-finding hearing conducted over the four days, for the purpose of determining the Applicant’s age and date of birth, the Upper Tribunal concluded that ‘it is more likely than not that the applicant was 16 years old when he arrived in the United Kingdom on 4 December 2023, and that he is now 17 years old’.  Link to the judgment here.

LB, R (On the Application of) v London Borough of Enfield [2025] EWHC 2094 (Admin) [Case No: AC-2025-LON-000186]- Successful High Court Judicial Review challenge against the London Borough of Enfield. The case concerned whether the Defendant Local Authority acted unlawfully in refusing to consider whether to exercise its discretion and treat the Claimant ‘as if’ he was a former relevant child and provide him with leaving care support under the Children Act 1989. The High Court took the exceptional step of directing the Defendant Local Authority to exercise discretion to treat the Claimant as a former relevant child.