Dan is an experienced and respected family advocate with a strong reputation for his ability to tackle complex and serious contested cases.
~Regulatory
IntroductionDan is an experienced and respected family advocate with a strong reputation for his ability to tackle complex and serious contested cases.
As a former criminal defence barrister he has successfully undertaken numerous jury trials. Over the years he has accumulated extensive experience of representing defendants in the most serious of cases including murder, serious violence and serious sex cases, including historic matters. Within the criminal jurisdiction he won judicial praise for the quality of his advocacy, both in rigorous cross examination and closing speeches and he now brings those qualities to his family practice which is primary focus (Dan no longer accepts instructions in criminal cases unless there are exceptional circumstances)
He is therefore highly in demand for serious public law cases, often those involving non accidental injury and sexual abuse. He is instructed equallty by Local Authorities and solicitors acting for parents. He is also regularly instructed in private law for serious finding of fact cases, especially those that feature an overlap with the criminal law.
Dan is also very experienced in parental alienation cases and is routinely sought after by numerous solicitors in such cases having obtained extensive experience in this area in care proceedings and the High Court in addition to private law, where is often instructed on behalf of 16.4 guardians. He has been approached by local authorities to deliver training in this area and will be arranging to do so in the coming months.
Dan also has experience of contested vaccinations cases in the High Court and successfully represented the mother in a reported and at the time leading case (see link in notable cases section). It is anticipated that in the post Covid world this unusual area of law may become more frequently visited.
Instructing solicitors often comment that Dan’s ability to form a strong rapport with lay clients coupled with an honest and down to earth approach to giving advice make him a popular choice.
Dan Foster has a growing regulatory practice with a current focus on representing athletes. He is also instructed in licensing and regulatory matters (extensively in relation to taxi licenses) and is very keen to develop and widen his regulatory practice, welcoming instructions across the spectrum of regulatory law matters.
As for sport, he is sole legal advisor to the world-famous Ingle boxing gym in Sheffield, and has represented and assisted many professional boxers for criminal and regulatory matters of all kinds.
His many boxing clients have included world champions and challengers such as Kell Brook, Billy Joe Saunders and Kid Galahad (Abdul Bari Awad). Mr Saunders and Mr Awad instruct Dan on an ongoing basis in relation to a various matters. In a very high-profile case, Dan represented Mr Saunders before the British Boxing Board of Control and obtained a good result in enabling his client to avoid suspension from boxing for an infamous incident.
Dan also represented Mr Awad in his successful appeal to United Kingdom Anti Doping (UKAD) for a reduction in his suspension from boxing due to doping offences. With Dan’s assistance, Mr Awad is thought to be the only athlete ever to have achieved such a result whilst maintaining his innocence of any doping offence. This was reported by Sky Sports.
Dan’s extensive experience and expertise in criminal law has also allowed him to obtain excellent results for professional sportspersons under investigation from regulatory bodies. Dan successfully represented a professional footballer in a major National Crime Agency investigation into match fixing. Dan’s client Stephen Dawson, who was captain of Barnsley Football Club at the time, was released from the investigation with no further action taken against him. This was reported in The Guardian.
Dan also successfully represented a former professional footballer in a Serious Fraud Office investigation. Again, the SFO took no further action.
Year of call 2015Year of higher rights 2011
Notable CasesB (A Child: Immunisation) [2018] EWFC 56 – In this reported high court vaccinations case, Dan successfully represented a mother in her contested application for her child to receive routine vaccinations. The Father was a committed anti vaxxer ( Judge rules five-year-old girl can be vaccinated despite her father's objections | The Independent )
LA v L, D – represented LA in this High Court parental alienation case (care proceedings) regarding a subject child with autism. Was a junior alone against silks and juniors. Obtained the result sought by client after detailed expert psychological evidence
LA v H for father in care proceedings featuring very serious allegations focussed on alleged criminal acts towards non-subject older sibling (vulnerable adult). Parents charged with neglect of vulnerable, criminal case has silks, applications anticipated in family case. Instructed partly due to experience in criminal defence
LA v H – for LA in serious and highly complex neglect case featuring ten siblings and expert paediatric evidence regarding harm and consequences of neglect. Ten day final hearing, three different care plans
LA v D – Successfully represented local authority in a case including finding of fact regarding non-accidental injuries to a baby, complex case with expert paediatric evidence
LA v H – for intervenor step parent, successfully avoiding all findings of physical assaults and neglect of a toddler
K v S – For a mother in a private law case including finding of fact regarding historical allegations of child sexual abuse. Successfully obtained findings against the father. Case featured Re W applications and the 10year old child giving evidence supported by an intermediary
R v C – For a father in a private law case including finding of fact, successfully answering allegations of serious violence and rape
N v G – for a father in private law case, contested finding of fact regarding allegations of sexual misconduct
LA v H – for a father, finding of fact in care proceedings, successfully avoiding findings sought of sexual abuse
RegulatoryDan Foster has a growing regulatory practice with a current focus on representing athletes. He is also instructed in licensing and regulatory matters (extensively in relation to taxi licenses) and is very keen to develop and widen his regulatory practice, welcoming instructions across the spectrum of regulatory law matters.
As for sport, he is sole legal advisor to the world-famous Ingle boxing gym in Sheffield, and has represented and assisted many professional boxers for criminal and regulatory matters of all kinds.
His many boxing clients have included world champions and challengers such as Kell Brook, Billy Joe Saunders and Kid Galahad (Abdul Bari Awad). Mr Saunders and Mr Awad instruct Dan on an ongoing basis in relation to a various matters. In a very high-profile case, Dan represented Mr Saunders before the British Boxing Board of Control and obtained a good result in enabling his client to avoid suspension from boxing for an infamous incident.
Dan also represented Mr Awad in his successful appeal to United Kingdom Anti Doping (UKAD) for a reduction in his suspension from boxing due to doping offences. With Dan’s assistance, Mr Awad is thought to be the only athlete ever to have achieved such a result whilst maintaining his innocence of any doping offence. This was reported by Sky Sports.
Dan’s extensive experience and expertise in criminal law has also allowed him to obtain excellent results for professional sportspersons under investigation from regulatory bodies. Dan successfully represented a professional footballer in a major National Crime Agency investigation into match fixing. Dan’s client Stephen Dawson, who was captain of Barnsley Football Club at the time, was released from the investigation with no further action taken against him. This was reported in The Guardian.
Dan also successfully represented a former professional footballer in a Serious Fraud Office investigation. Again, the SFO took no further action.