Mitali Zakaria

• Representing the parents of a child who was made a Ward of Court along with others due to concerns about them travelling to Syria. The case stemmed from the reported case of Tower Hamlets London BC v M & Ors [2015) EWHC 869 (Fam).
• In A Local Authority v M & Others (Fact Finding) 2016 EWHC 1599 (FAM), Mitali represented a father in care proceedings in which the mother had been radicalised, and had gone on to radicalise the children before attempting to take them to Syria. Mitali’s client sought to have them returned to his sole care. Serious adverse findings were made against the mother. At the final hearing, the Judge made a ruling that that the children should be rehabilitated to the father’s care.
• In HB v A Local Authority & Anor (Wardship - Costs Funding Order) [2017] EWHC 524 (Fam) (21 March 2017), Mitali represented a mother in wardship proceedings in the High Court. The client was not eligible for public funding because the local authority had chosen to issue wardship proceedings under the inherent jurisdiction rather than care proceedings. Consequently, the mother was not entitled to non-means, non-merits tested legal aid.  The mother could not afford to pay legal fees. An application for a costs funding order was made on behalf of the Mother. In the Judgment MacDonald J considered what was meant by inherent jurisdiction, the extra-statutory limits of the High Court in Family proceedings together with guidance on the issue of radicalisation cases in the Family Courts, he determined that there were many radicalisation cases in which care proceedings should be issued.
• In A LA v HB (alleged risk of radicalisation and child abduction) [2017] EWHC 1437, the final hearing following the HB v A Local Authority & Anor case in which McDonald J determined that the local authority had not proven any aspect of its case. Therefore, the local authority’s application under the Inherent Jurisdiction was refused, the local authority’s application for a s31 order was dismissed, all injunctive orders against the client and the children were discharged and orders were made that their passports be released to the client.
• A Local Authority v M & Ors [2017] EWHC 2851- representing the Father. Newton J in his Judgment states “this is one of the first cases so far heard by the Courts where at least three of the children (C, D and E) are, or have been, themselves severely radicalised, and they are very young”.
• NW (Care Proceedings) [2018] EWFC B83- Representing three children through their Children’s Guardian.
• A Father in care proceedings where there are concerns regarding alleged radicalisation. Within these proceedings, there was a hearing to consider whether an interim care order can subsist after the subject child reaches 17 years old. The judge ruled in our client’s stating that an interim care order cannot subsist after the subject child reaches 17 years old. The judgment has been published: Re Q (Child: Interim Care Order: Jurisdiction) [2019] EWHC 512 (Fam).  The matter concluded with the children remaining in their parents’ care under Care orders. The final judgment was published: Re A City Council v A Mother A Father & Ors (Care Proceedings) [2019] EWHC 3076 (Fam) (27 June 2019).

• Re HB v PB, OB & London Borough of Croydon (2013) EWHC 1956 (FAM): She acted for the child in a High Court Application within private Children Act proceedings for a costs order against a non-party local authority.
• Re PM v MB & Anor (2013) EWCA CIV 969: She acted for the Appellant Father in an appeal against a dismissal for his applications for Parental Responsibility, direct contact and against the making of a s.91(14) order.

Legal 500

2020

"Mitali Zakaria leads a team that continues to go from strength to strength as the firm's reputation continues to grow"

"Mitali Zakaria is an excellent advocate. She is able to give calm and sensible advice to even the most difficult client. She is patient with the most demanding client and opponent"

"Mitali Zakaria has a close rapport with clients and judges alike. She achieves positive results when others might not. Nothing is too much trouble"

Legal 500 

2021

"Very thorough, knowledgeable and has empathy with clients. Mitali Zakaria always fights to the last – she is a good person to have with you rather than against you, and is very knowledgeable''

"Mitali Zakaria goes out of her way to assist her clients, often working outside office hours, including over the weekend"

"Mitali is kind and sympathetic yet able to give robust advice"