Simranjit Kamal

Simran’s practice includes acting for parents, grandparents and guardians in disputes concerning the following areas:

• Child Arrangement Orders (residence and contact)
• Specific Issue Order (including names, education and proposed relocation)
• Prohibited Steps Order
• Fact-Finding hearings

Cases of Interest:

• H v C (2024) – Represented Mother throughout proceedings in the Father’s application for international relocation of the children. The Section 7 report supported the Mother’s position that the children shall remain in the jurisdiction and thereafter one of the children successfully made an application to be joined to the proceedings.
• D v C (2024) – Represented Father in a 2 day fact-finding hearing on the Mother’s allegations. Some of the allegations, including serious physical assault and stalking, were not proven.
• D v H (2024) – Represented Mother in opposing the grandmother’s application for permission to make an application for a child arrangements order to spend time with the child. The application for permission was refused.
• K v M (2023) – Represented Mother in a 2 day final hearing where the court departed from Cafcass’ recommendation, in favour of Mother, and refused Father’s application to change the child’s school.
• H v B (2023) – Represented Mother in a 2 day fact-finding hearing where the issues centred around a covert recording.
• V v V (2022) – Represented Mother in a fact-finding hearing where Mother had made 21 allegations against the Father, including sexual assaults, controlling and coercive behaviour and criminal damage. All but 2 of the allegations were proven.
• R v R (2022) – Represented Father in a 3-day fact-finding hearing where there were cross-allegations between the parties, including allegations of serious physical harm to the Mother and child. This case involved legal argument on the use of legal judgments from another jurisdiction in the current proceedings. Many of the allegations were not proven.
• W v W (2022) – Represented Father in an appeal against a case management decision and the subsequent fact-finding hearing where some of the Mother’s allegations, including rape, were not proven.
• O v S (2022) – Represented Mother in a 2-day fact-finding hearing where all contentious allegations against the Father were proven. At the subsequent final hearing, Mother was successful in obtaining an order for indirect contact only and a S91(14) barring order, preventing further applications from being made by the Father.
• F v T (2021) – Represented Mother in a 3-day fact-finding hearing where 8 out of 9 allegations of controlling and coercive behaviour were found against Father.
• Re A (2021) – Represented Father in private law proceedings where Mother had made numerous allegations against him, including sexual assault and rape. The two-day fact-finding hearing was a hybrid case, with some parties remote and some in person, where many allegations against him were not proven.
• N v N (2021) – Represented Father in Children Act proceedings and subsequently instructed to represent the client in Finance proceedings where a final order was agreed at FDR.
• K-C v C (2020) – Represented Mother in a final hearing on the issue of contact that resulted in a consent order being approved after constructive discussions.

Simran is often instructed in cases involving domestic violence and requiring injunctions. Simran is pragmatic and thorough when advising clients on options that would protect the client and reduce the need for further hearings. A sample of cases are referred to below:

• W v W (2023) – Represented the Respondent in non-molestation order and occupation order proceedings where the matter was resolved by way of undertakings.
• E v V (2022) – Represented the Claimant, who applied for an injunction under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 against her ex-husband’s new partner. The injunction was granted, and the Claimant successfully obtained a costs order.
• M v W (2022) – Represented the Applicant in a contested final hearing concerning her application for a non-molestation order against an ex-partner and successfully argued against a wasted costs order.
• B v M (2022) – Represented the Applicant in occupation order and non-molestation order proceedings resulting in a zonal non-molestation order being made.

Simran is building an employment practice acting for both Claimants and Respondents. Cases include:

• B v SA (2024) – Represented the Respondent at a final hearing where the issues were unlawful deduction from wages, incorrect payment for holiday pay and a counterclaim for overpayment.
• TG v WPD (2023) – Represented the Claimant in a preliminary hearing and drafted a written application to amend the claim. The amendment was allowed in part.
• FH v IR (2023) – Instructed to represent the Claimant in a 2-day preliminary hearing where the central issues were time limits, the Claimant’s application to amend the claim and disability.
• TA v AA (2023) – Successfully the Respondent in a 3 day final hearing where the claims were harassment on grounds of disability, direct disability discrimination, and whether the Claimant was an apprentice during the first year of employment. The majority of the claims were dismissed.
• PH v JP (2023) – Represented the Respondent in a final hearing where the issues were unfair dismissal and continuity of employment
• RC & DW v B (2022) – Successfully represented the Respondent in a 2-day final hearing involving claims for unfair dismissal and unpaid holiday pay. The claims were dismissed on the grounds that TUPE applied.
• YE v TDE (2022) – Represented the Respondent in a 3-day final hearing where the Claimant claimed harassment on the grounds of race and religion, unfair dismissal, and being subject to a detriment due to making a protected disclosure. The claim succeeded in part, with the majority of the claims being dismissed.
• JM (2021) – Simran advised a Claimant of their merits in bringing a claim for whistleblowing, sex discrimination and equal pay. Simran drafted an application to amend the claim and the schedule of loss.

Simran has been instructed in directions hearings, deputyship applications and S21a applications. Cases of note include:

• Re JL (2024) – Instructed by the Local Authority in proceedings where one of the issues is whether P’s mother was a suitable litigation friend.
• Re CG (2023) – Instructed by First Respondent and successfully obtained a final order at a directions hearing to conclude proceedings where the issues were deprivation of liberty and appointing a Rule 1.2 representative
• Re CL (2023) – Instructed by First Respondent to contest an application for disclosure of recordings in ongoing proceedings
• Re TP (2023) – Instructed by the Applicant Local Authority in proceedings where capacity and serious medical treatment became an issue
• Re RW (2023) – Instructed to represent P in a final hearing for a S21a application where the outcome was in line with the ALR’s position.
• Re JK (2022) – Instructed to represent the Second and Third Respondents in a case involving making a Forced Marriage Protection Order in respect of P and a final hearing regarding welfare.

Simran has a growing interest in inquests and accepts instructions from all parties.

• Re FJ (2024) – Instructed by the Trust in an inquest into a death involving an accidental fall.
• Re LM (2022-2023) – Instructed by a care home in both the pre-inquest review and the subsequent 3 day inquest into a death involving Covid-19.