Deans Court Chambers

Expert legal advice and advocacy, delivered by an outstanding team of Queen’s Counsel and barristers.

Bansa Singh Hayer

View All
Bansa Singh Hayer - Deans Court Chambers

Education

  • LLB (Hons)
  • Inns Of Court School of Law

Appointments

  • Family Mediator - 1999

Professional Associations

  • Northern Circuit
  • Family Law Bar Association
  • Child Concern Committee Member
  • Committee Member - COPPA

Profile

Bansa has practised predominately in the field of family work for over 20 years.

In the field of public law children work Bansa is in particular demand for complex cases involving serious non-accidental injury and complex sexual abuse issues. He acts for parents, grandparents, children and local authorities and is often called upon to advise at an early stage in proceedings.

Bansa has a diligent and methodical approach. He has a calm and conciliatory nature qualifying as a mediator in 1999. This skill is highly effective in the often fraught and emotive atmosphere of child care work.
He is a powerful advocate with a reputation for rigorous cross-examination coupled with a straightforward, pragmatic approach. He produces high quality paper work.
 Bansa also accepts instructions in complex private law children cases with a particular interest in international movement of children and child abduction.

Whilst Bansa is perhaps more widely known for his work in children cases he also has considerable experience in ancillary relief / Schedule 1 and TOLATA work and continues to do these cases on a regular basis.

He also provides seminars and lectures to solicitors, social workers and expert witnesses.

Court of Protection

Bansa has been involved in the field of Community Care and Court of Protection for a number of years and is head of the team at Deans Court. Bansa is often called upon to be involved in complex welfare applications and property and affairs cases with particular emphasis on young adults leaving the care system requiring declarations through the Court of Protection.

Bansa frequently appears on behalf of local authorities, patients and interested parties dealing with applications relating to Guardianship, Dols, breaches of ECHR rights in the High Court.

Bansa gives regular talks on various topics relating to the work of the Court of Protection and matters leading to Judicial Review.

Notable Cases

  • Family - Public Law

    Re B

    Court - Family Court at Circuit Judge level 

    Facts - M accused of attempted infanticide. M gave birth in a public toilet at hospital and left the child in the bin before leaving the hospital without seeking medical assistance for the child or herself. Child subsequently discovered by hospital staff. Medical assistance given to the baby and subsequently revived. Child made subject to interim care order but finally placed with F under child arrangement order.

  • Family - Public

    Re S

    The case concerns local authority make historical allegations of sexual abuse against F in relation to a number of children aged 4/5. Allegations date back over 10 years. F was now in a relationship with M who has a young child by F. Local authority sought to prevent F playing any role other than minimum contact with child. BSH successfully represented F and the allegations were removed from the threshold and fresh assessments commissioned on the basis of F having never committed sexual offences against any such children

  • Family Law - Public

    Re W

    The case concerns local authority allegations of FII against M exaggerating and or fabricating illness in her two children aged (9) & (13). M had engendered an environment where even if M did not fabricate or exaggerate illness in her children the children were convinced they were suffering from serious illnesses. Furthermore M had sexually abused the children and encouraged them to then make serious allegations of sexual abuse against F. The case ran for over 3 weeks with a total of 28 witnesses being presented to the court.

  • Family

    Re T

    Case involving intracranial subdural haemorrhages/ retinal haemorrhages/ fractured ribs and long bones.

  • Family

    Re D

    Case before Mrs Justice King in the High Court - one of the first cases before the court concerning Female Genital Mutilation.

  • Family

    Re J-L (Finding of Fact: Schedule of Allegations) [2012] EWCA Civ 1832

    Care Proceedings - Fact finding - Sexual abuse allegations contained in schedule - judge found allegations not proved but found children had been exposed to sexual activity - Whether judge had gone further than the evidence permitted.

  • Family

    A v Local Authority v A, B and E [2011] EWHC 2062 (Fam) 2012 2FLR 601

    Case concerning an application made within complex care proceedings for the revocation of a violent father's PR.

  • Family

    Re W (A Child) (non accidental injury: expert evidence) [2005] EWHC civ 1247; [2006] 1 FLR 543

    Hearing relating to i) the advisability of the court relying on a single expert in care proceedings, when the issue that expert has to address is of central importance to the judge’s findings, and ii) the propriety of permitting parents who deny abusing their child a second opinion.

  • Family

    Oldham MBC v GW and PW [2007] EWHC 136 (Fam)

    Judgment given in the course of care proceedings where a child, who had suffered a series of fits, after the parents had taken her to hospital, had been taken into care but the local authority subsequently sought to withdraw those proceedings in the light of differences between the medical experts acting in the case.

  • Family

    GC v LD & Ors [2009] EWHC 1942 (Fam)

    Judgment concerning which local authority should pay allowances in a case where a special guardianship order would mean a child moving to another authority.

  • Family

    Re A & B (One Parent Killed by Another) [2010] EWHC 825 (Fam)

    Guidance issued to family practitioners and the Court when confronted with the complexities involving the homicide of one parent by the other.

  • Family

    Re F (A Child) [2011] EWCA Civ 258

    Issue as to where in relation to one child there had been a finding of non-accidental injury but the identity of the perpetrator had not been established, there should be a relaxation of the principle which requires the real possibility of future harm to a second child to be found only on a further proven fact in relation to the identity of the perpetrator.

© 2013 Deans Court Chambers | All rights reserved