Mai-Ling is a member of Garden Court Chambers Family and Court of Protection Team. She focuses on the following areas:
- Children law
- Care proceedings
- International family law
- Surrogacy & assisted reproduction
- Matrimonial finance
- Court of Protection
Mai-Ling’s practice includes residence and contact disputes, including internal and international relocation, disputes between same sex couples, fact-finding hearings and cases of parental alienation and recruitment of children against a parent by care givers
Mai-Ling is also experienced in cases of international abduction, international adoption and the application of Brussels II Revised.
Mai-Ling has particular expertise in issues relating to surrogacy and assisted reproduction cases in which issues of legal parentage arise.
Mai-Ling has particular expertise in care proceedings involving allegations of non-accidental injury with complex medical issues or disputed medical evidence, sexual abuse [including false allegations of sexual abuse], factitious illness and vulnerable adults. She also has expertise in cases involving forced marriage, FGM and radicalisation.
Examples of recent cases include fractures to an 8 –week-old baby, life limiting injuries to a 6-week-old baby, sexual abuse allegations including a paedophile ring and inter sibling sexual abuse.
Mai-Ling has recently undertaken a number of cases involving breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998.
She frequently advises in family proceedings concerning immigration and nationality issues as well as international adoptions, transnational care and child placement arrangements.
Mai-Ling has a wide experience of financial remedies and appears in courts of all levels including the High Court.
Mai-Ling has also been instructed in applications under Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 and Trust of Land and Appointment of Trustees act (ToLATA).
Mai-Ling has an established practice acting in health and welfare cases for all parties, including health and social care bodies and individuals. Before the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mai-Ling acted in cases involving the exercise of the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
Mai-Ling has undertaken cases which involve best interest decisions, welfare and financial decisions and deprivations of liberty [including matters relating to finance deputies and powers of attorney]. Including contested applications involving fact finding hearings.
She has acted in cases involving adults with learning disabilities, adults with acquired brain injury and people with dementia [including disputes about residence or contact with family members]. She is instructed by the Official Solicitor, individuals and local authorities.
She has also advised in cases where there is a cross over with family proceedings e.g. non-consensual marriage. Most recently, she was instructed in a matter involving a young person in care who was detained and declarations were sought pursuant to the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
In 2015 and 2017 Mai-Ling was shortlisted for Sydney Elland Goldsmith Bar Pro Bono Award, in recognition of an outstanding commitment to pro bono work.
Mai-Ling joined Garden Court from Fourteen in September 2016. She is a trustee of Wheels for Wellbeing, an award-winning inclusive cycling charity which helps people enjoy the benefits of cycling regardless of disability, age or health condition.
PW and Others v Luton Borough Council  EWHC 3028 (Fam)
The Legal Aid Agency was ordered to pay the claimants’ increased costs which arose as a result of the LAA failing to make a decision as to the applicability of the statutory charge when it could and should have.
SW & TW (Human Rights Claim: Procedure) (No1)  EWHC 450 (Fam)
Proceedings concerning two siblings and involving cross-applications for private law orders, an application by the local authority for public law orders and applications brought under section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 for declarations and damages. Clarified the correct procedure for HRA claims in family proceedings
London Borough of Camden v RZ and Others  EWHC 3751 (Fam)-1
This case considered the issue of forced marriage protection orders. The matter was heard by Mr Justice MacDonald. There were two main issues in the proceedings (I) Due to the nature of the allegations, the court considered it necessary to put in place ‘closed material procedure’ and a Special Advocate acted on behalf of the father in the ‘closed’ hearings. (I I) The court also considered the efficacy of forced marriage protection orders and whether the FMPO and the port alert system were sufficient to safeguard a child and whether removal subject to Interim Care Orders was necessary.