Kyra Hassan

What are their particular strengths/skills?

Kyra has previously represented tenants and occupiers on the housing possession duty schemes at Leeds County Court, and Wandsworth County Court. At TV Edwards LLP, Kyra acts as a duty solicitor at Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court.

Kyra is a solicitor within the Social Welfare Team at TV Edwards LLP specialising in Housing Law.

She is experienced in representing tenants and occupiers in possession cases of all kinds, including claims based on rent arrears, anti-social behaviour, and section 21 (“no fault eviction”) notices. She also acts for clients in bringing claims against their landlord for a variety of matters including poor housing conditions, unlawful eviction, trespass and discrimination.

Kyra provides advice and assistance in matters regarding homelessness, anti-social behaviour injunction applications, closure orders, and contempt proceedings.

She is confident in dealing with issues surrounding a client’s capacity to conduct proceedings.

As paralegal at a legal aid firm in Leeds in 2019, Kyra first gained experience of a range of housing cases. She began her training contract with the firm in 2021 during which she became committed to assisting those who are most vulnerable and marginalised in society to secure access to justice.

Qualifying as a solicitor in March 2023, Kyra later worked for a firm in London before moving to TV Edwards LLP in June 2025.

Notable/reported cases

The Queen (on the application of George Rayner) -v- Leeds District Magistrates’ Court [2021] EWH 1964 (Admin)

Kyra assisted her supervisor at the time in bringing a judicial review against the Leeds Magistrates’ Court for their refusal to state a case for the opinion of the High Court. The case involved an extremely vulnerable client who was illiterate, and who had significant mental health problems.

The local authority applied for a partial premises closure order against the client’s property due to allegations of anti-social behaviour. The local authority sought a partial closure order to permit access to the property by the client, the local authority, and a small group of friends and family, but restrict it to others, including those who might seek to exploit the client.

At the first hearing, the local authority’s application was adjourned to 12 February 2020 so that the client’s solicitors could apply for legal aid funding. Funding was refused, and the client’s solicitors sought a review of that decision. On 12 February 2020, the client’s solicitors sought a further adjournment so that the review could be completed, and the client could be represented at trial. The Claimant was vulnerable and illiterate and would not have been able to participate in proceedings without representation.

The Leeds Magistrates’ Court refused the application for an adjournment and the client’s solicitors could no longer represent the client at the hearing. However, they did hear later that morning that the review had been successful, and funding was granted, but by then the Leeds Magistrates’ Court had granted the partial premises Closure Order for three months.

The client’s solicitors applied for the Leeds Magistrates’ Court to state a case for the opinion of the High Court, to ask whether an adjournment had been necessary to protect the client’s human rights, and, if not, were the magistrates correct to refuse to adjourn because it was in the best interests of justice to proceed. The Leeds Magistrates’ Court refused the application.

The client, by way of his solicitors then brought a judicial review of the Leeds Magistrates’ Court decision.

The Judge found that the reasons given by the client’s solicitors for seeking an adjournment were cogent and the Leeds Magistrates’ Court’s refusal was flawed. The Leeds Magistrates’ Court had claimed that there had been a reasonable opportunity for the client to get legal aid, but the Judge held that this was not a conclusion that could properly be reached on the facts of this case. The Judge found that client’s solicitor had applied for legal aid promptly, and had appealed the refusal promptly. To conclude otherwise was an error of law which clearly had a material effect on the decision to dismiss the application for an adjournment.

The Judge found that the client’s Article 6(1) ECHR rights to a fair trial were engaged and the complexity of the matters before the Court, the client’s mental health problems and his illiteracy meant that, without legal representation, he would not be able to safeguard those rights. The Judge found that the Leeds Magistrates’ Court’s approach to making the decision, where it sought to balance the Claimant’s Article 6(1) rights with the need to ensure the trial progressed was flawed, the real issue was whether the client could present his case with no obvious unfairness.

Associations/Committees/Rep Groups

• Young Legal Aid Lawyers

Languages

• Farsi/ Persian