Maia is a tenant in our family team who specialises in public children law, Court of Protection work and family financial disputes.
Maia has experience across a wide range of family law cases representing children, parents and other parties. She is confident, empathetic and communicates well. Solicitors, interpreters and clients have praised her ability to build a trusting relationship with lay clients. She has received feedback such as "Just a belated thank you for your work in including this case in which communicating with the client was not easy but you seem to have done remarkably well with her at court" and commenting that it is no surprise that she is in demand as "you have a really great manner with clients".
Maia is able to establish a rapport with her clients, a particularly important skill when working with vulnerable clients. She has experience of dealing with clients who do not speak English, who have drug and alcohol addictions, mental health difficulties or who are struggling to understand or engage in proceedings for other reasons.
Prior to transferring to the Bar, Maia worked as a doctor for the NHS and specialised as a surgeon. Consequently, she is used to working within a fast-paced environment and being able to operate effectively under pressure. Her medical background means that she is particularly good at complex non-accidental injury cases and also Court of Protection cases that have complex medical issues.
Children law (public)
Maia acts for parents, children through their Guardians and intervenors in public law children cases. She is able to assimilate information quickly then confidently determine and prioritise the issues in the case. She accepts instructions in all hearings in care proceedings including ICOs, IRHs, directions hearings, fact finding hearings and final hearings.
Maia is a determined advocate with a strong sense of justice. In a recent case, she was briefed by parents for the fourth hearing in long running care proceedings. The parents contested an ICO but had never been allowed to voice their stance as the court had failed to book interpreters for previous hearings and interpreters used by the Local Authority spoke the wrong dialect. The court determined that the ICO should remain in place whilst the parents made changes to their conduct, but this was the first time that they had properly understood the concerns of the Local Authority and were able to explain their position properly. As a result of Maia's intervention, the family now has a real chance of reunification and a fair trial.
Her medical background provides Maia with an advantage when it comes to non-accidental injury cases. Reading medical notes and expert reports is second nature to her, and she immediately understands the significance of the allegations being made. In a recent trial, Maia was described as "fearless" in her cross-examination of one of the medical experts. When it comes to NAI cases, she is able to go head-to-head with practitioners who are far more senior in call years, and has acted in numerous NAI fact finding hearings the most complex of which was a 12-day trial for a 6 week old baby who had 19 fractures. Maia provided particular assistance to the Kings Counsel leading the case on the medical issues.
Maia is also an experienced appellate advocate, and has successfully appealed three cases - two in the County Court and one in the High Court where she was successful on five of the six grounds of appeal.
Court of Protection
Maia accepts instructions in Court of Protection cases which complement her care practice, particularly where there are deprivation of liberty applications. She is proactively extending her practice in this area.
Maia has undertaken First Appointments, Financial Dispute Resolution hearings and final hearings in finance cases. She has often successfully negotiated settlements at FDR hearings, but does not advise her clients to agree to settlement at any cost and is happy to progress to a final hearing if the settlement on offer is unsuitable.
Maia excelled at mathematics during her school career and achieved double mathematics at A-level. This aptitude for numbers alongside her meticulous preparation has helped in financial remedy work; she has often added to the questionnaires and identified possible further lines of questioning. For example, in a recent 3 day final hearing, she dealt with the complex issue of family loans and whether these should be repaid from the sale of the former matrimonial home or whether, as one party alleged, they were fraudulent.
Maia has acted for several clients who have had their spouses acting as litigants-in-persons acting in a manner to purposefully delay proceedings and increase their legal costs. She has been successful in enforcement applications against these spouses and also in obtaining costs for her clients.
- Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS), King’s College London
- Bachelor of Sciences, Physiology (BSc) King’s College London
- Member of Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS)
- GDL, City University
- BPTC, BPP Law School
- Family Law Bar Association
- BPP Advocacy Award
LA v M (care case): Represented a mother in a 6-day final hearing where her 10th child was subject to applications for Care and Placement Orders (the mother's previous 9 children having already been removed from her care). Although the court ultimately made the orders requested, the Judge complimented Maia for providing the mother with ‘excellent representation’ and ‘having made every point that was available to her’. The mother thanked Maia for having been the first person who she felt had fairly represented her.
LA v K (care case): Participated in long running care proceedings, identifying that her client (a parent) had not been afforded a fair hearing previously because of the failure of the court and Local Authority to book suitable interpreters and persuading the court that further time should be afforded to the parents to make the necessary changes to their parenting to allow the children to return to their care.
FG v LG v TK: Successfully appealed a private law children case where Magistrates had determined that a fact finding hearing would examine only three out of twenty-three allegations of domestic abuse. Having represented the client at the re-hearing, it was determined that twelve out of the twenty-three allegations would be heard and that the re-listed case would be heard by a District Judge.
K v L: Successfully appealed a case management decision made by Magistrates at a PTR that witness statements should be excluded and allegations not dealt with at a fact finding hearing. The matter was listed for a re-hearing by a District Judge with all allegations being dealt with and all witness statements included.
JO v AN (finance): Acted for a Wife where the Husband was a litigant in person and was purposefully delaying proceedings. Successfully enforced previous orders which the Husband had failed to comply, and obtained a costs order against the Husband.