London
2 Harcourt Buildings
Temple
London EC4Y 9DB
Dx 373 LDE
Tel 0844 561 7135

Oxford
Churchill House
3 St Aldates Courtyard
38 St Aldates, Oxford
OX1 1BN
Dx 96453 Oxford 4
Tel 0844 561 7135

Andrew Leong

Print Profile

Called: 1998

Email: aleong@harcourtchambers.co.uk

Andrew is a family law specialist.

 

He read Law at Bristol, was called to the Bar in 1998 and called to the Malaysian Bar in 1999.

 

Andrew was appointed a Recorder in 2018.

 

PRACTICE

Andrew practises in all areas of family law.

 

Andrew’s practice, which encompasses London and the South East, is predominantly in children law and has an emphasis towards work which involves an international element/cross-jurisdiction questions or complex evidential issues. He is frequently instructed in cases dealing with the most serious forms of abuse against children, where vulnerable witnesses are involved and cases which require meticulous forensic examination.

Andrew is also a member of the Malaysian Bar where he practised in Kuala Lumpur for a period of time before returning to practice in this jurisdiction.

 

Recent notable cases:

OCC v D (2016/2017) – 2 month old child suffered an Acute Life-Threatening Event where medical professionals were unable to ascertain the cause – numerous messages over social media purportedly from different individuals alleged that the mother had attempted to harm the child and caused the ALTE – complex investigation and technical analysis of those messages produced evidence that pointed to the mother having created a web of different identities and being the author of all the messages – Andrew was junior counsel for the local authority that was successful in establishing that the mother had created those identities and sent those messages.

 

LBC v S (2017) – 10 month old Hungarian child suffered serious sexual abuse since she was 2 months old – mother sought to return to Hungary with the child and sought transfer of the proceedings to Hungary under Art 15 – Andrew represented the father who had been convicted of sexually abusing the child – the father disclosed that the mother not only knew about the abuse but had also been an active participant in the abuse – technical analysis of the media devices seized from the family home produced evidence of further abuse of the child – the father alleged this had been perpetrated by the mother, which the mother disputed – evidence heard from witnesses in Hungary – findings made that the mother had actively abused the child.

 

WBC v Q,V,G,F,T (2017) – 7 year old boy suffering sexual abuse and a victim of grooming by a number of adults – Andrew represented one of the interveners who was accused of being one of the primary perpetrators of sexual abuse/grooming –Andrew’s client was completely exonerated by the court and findings were made against the other adults.

 

OCC v M-X-S (2016) – care proceedings involving family of Timor Leste nationals residing in the UK – parents had proposed family members in Timor Leste as alternative carers for the children – the government of Timor Leste supported the children being placed in Timor Leste and the Timor Leste ambassador to the UK attended the hearing to voice this position – Andrew represented the local authority which did not agree with the parents’ proposal and the stance of the government of Timor Leste and proposed that the children be adopted instead – evidence heard from witnesses in Timor Leste – Andrew successfully persuaded the court to approve the local authority’s plan that the children should be placed for adoption in the UK.

 

OCC v O (2016) – care proceedings involving English/Nigerian child – Andrew represented the Nigerian father who had proposed the child be placed with him in the UK, alternatively with the paternal uncle and aunt in Nigeria, who gave evidence at the hearing – court at first instance rejected the father’s case and approved a plan for adoption – Andrew represented the father pro bono in pursuing an appeal against that decision – the Court of Appeal overturned the first instance decision and returned the matter for a re-hearing.

 

BFC v H (2015/2016) – 15 year old subject of care proceedings with learning difficulties faced multiple allegations of perpetrating serious sexual abuse against four 7/8 year old children – live oral evidence heard from 15 year old as well as from 7 year old – Andrew represented the local authority that successfully maintained engagement with the subject child despite also obtaining findings against him of perpetration of the abuse.

 

OCC v S (2015/2016) – Care proceedings involving allegations of FII – both parents accused of interfering with 14 year old daughter’s diabetes medication – complex technical evidence concerning the different types of medication delivery systems and the different types of diabetes medication – Andrew was junior counsel representing the father who was completely exonerated from all allegations made against him.

 

B v K (2014/2015) – Andrew represented a Swedish national who was seeking permission to relocate with her child back to Sweden – English father opposed permission being granted and was supported in his opposition by the local authority social worker and the CAFCASS guardian – court granted permission to relocate – Andrew also represented the mother when the Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision.