Direct Access Barrister
She understands the law – not just the dry legal stuff, but the context around it”
‘Brilliant advocate in Court’
Meticulous case preparation’ FTJ
Kareesha is developing a broad practice as sole and junior counsel across the full range of Chambers’ specialisms including human rights, immigration, commercial litigation, family law, contractual disputes and EU law. She gained wide experience of high value commercial litigation during pupillage and has experience of acting for the Government, including being instructed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department [Home Office]. She appears frequently in asylum appeals and also has experience of drafting fresh asylum representations. She advises in respect of applications under the immigration rules, including the Points-Based System, representing at appeals and drafting grounds of administrative review. She also represents EEA nationals and their family members.
She has a particular interest in asylum and humanitarian protection involving women and children. Her cross-expertise in family law is particularly useful in cases involving the best interests of children pursuant to s. 55 of the 2009 Act.
Kareesha represents parents at all stages of Children Act proceedings, including fact-finding hearings and appeals. She accepts instructions for complex private child disputes, no contact orders, child contact orders as well as family disputes with immigration elements. Clients praise her for her pragmatic and sound advice together with an approachable personality.
She has previously advised on aviation, fuel jet and is developing a commercial practice with particular emphasis on aviation and cryptocurrencies. Recently, the High Court found in favour of her client in a contractual dispute against a multinational oil company. Due to spending time in-house at a major oil company, Kareesha has an appreciation for the business objectives, realities and pressures at play during commercial disputes.
Some of the world’s foremost fuel jet companies are counted as her clients. She was called to the Bar in 2013 at the Honourable Society of Middle Temple. She was previously a Consultant for the TMF Group in South East Asia.
She is also the legal consultant for a bank in Vanuatu.
Combining legal practice with academic research, Kareesha was previously the Head of Law at St. Patricks College – the largest private higher education institution in the UK which is part of the Global University System (Ulaw, LSBF, St-Patricks) She was also a Visiting Lecturer at Kensington College of Business and Middlesex College of Law where she London she taught Contract Law, and Public law.
Kareesha is a specialist in Direct Public Access and is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public.
SH (Pakistan) v SSHD (2017): Successfully represented a young woman who feared return to Pakistan, both on the grounds of domestic violence pursuant to KA (Afghanistan) and inability to internally relocate pursuant to AK (Article 15(c)) Afghanistan. The appeal was allowed on the spot in open court.
Patel v SSHD (2017): Successfully represented the Appellant and his family in a 322(5) tax discrepancy case. The appeal was allowed on the spot.
Mohammed v SSHD (2018): Successfully represented the Appellant and his wife in a 322(5) tax discrepancy of more than £30,000. The Judge found that paragraph 322(5) was not appropriate in this case. The appeal was allowed.
AP (India) v SSHD (2018): Successfully represented a young woman who feared return to India based on her sexuality, arguing amongst others, a breach of ECHR Article 3 in relation to prison conditions on return
AS (Bangladesh) v SSHD (2018): Appeal allowed in the Upper Tribunal as the First Tier Tribunal Judge had made an error of law in relation to risk of return for individuals associated with illegal Bangladeshi political parties.
SK (Iran) v SSHD (2018): Successfully argued an error of law in the Upper Tribunal due to the misapplication of the appropriate burden of proof.
OH (Turkey) v SSHD (2018): Successfully represented the Appellant, a minor, in asylum proceedings arguing risk of return to Turkey