1 Hare Court

Anastasia Gilfillan

Anastasia's practice covers all aspects of private family law, including financial remedies (including Part III and Schedule 1 claims), private children work, claims under TLATA 1996 and applications under the Family Law Act 1996. Since joining chambers, Anastasia has appeared in a variety of complex cases and is regularly instructed to undertake advisory and drafting work, including drafting and advising on nuptial agreements. She enjoys working closely with solicitors as part of a team on complex litigation, and, prior to joining chambers, worked as a paralegal at a leading specialist family law solicitors’ firm in London.

Ann Hussey KC

Ann specializes in high net worth divorce, separation and pre and post nuptial agreements. She is instructed by husbands, wives and separating unmarried couples and also advises off shore asset holding entities. Ann regularly lectures on financial remedies both in the UK and internationally. Notable cases: K v K (periodical payments: cohabitation) [2006] 2FLR 468 S v S [2007] Fam Law 106 – conduct pre acquired assets North v North [2008] 1 FLR 158 – the prodigal wife case VB v JP [2008] EWHC 112 – compensation on variation Lyons v Lyons [2010] EWCA Civ 290 – post divorce security D v D [2010] EWHC 138 inherited farming case M v M [2015] EWFC B63 impact of reduced life expectancy

Ben Wooldridge

Ben is a specialist financial remedies practitioner. He has a particular expertise / interest in cases involving nuptial agreements, a topic on which he has advised and lectured widely. Ben regularly appears in his own right in cases heard up to High Court level and is regularly led by silks in matters concerning complex legal issues and / or high net worth individuals. Ben’s cases often involve issues of jurisdiction; substantial assets; assets held offshore or in complex trust structures; allegations of serious non-disclosure and / or complex valuation evidence (particularly in relation to private equity funds). Notable cases: MR v. EF [2024] EWFC 144 (B) ES v. SS (No. 2) [2024] EWFC 59 ES v. SS [2023] EWFC 177 AZ v. AG [2023] EWHC 2014 FRB v. DCA [2020] EWHC 754 Publications: Ben co-authored the chapter on ‘injunctions in aid of financial proceedings’ in the 19th Edition of Rayden & Jackson on Divorce and Family Matters. He remains part of the team responsible for updating the text on a quarterly basis. Ben also contributed to Practical Matrimonial Precedents.

Calum Smith

Calum has developed a broad and busy practice covering all areas of family law, focussing on financial remedy work, with a particular interest in issues involving non-matrimonial property. He also accepts instructions in applications brought under TOLATA and the Family Law Act 1996 and has extensive experience in private children disputes.

Christian Edward Mackenzie Kenny

Christian practises in all areas of private family law and is ranked as a leading barrister by the legal directories, described as “always brilliantly prepared and unruffled” and “approachable, knowledgeable and helpful” (Chambers and Partners 2016). He is a specialist in financial disputes and is regularly instructed in cases involving substantial assets and complex issues such as contested international jurisdiction, company valuations, non-disclosure of assets and assets held offshore and/or within company or trust structures. Christian regularly appears in the High Court, both with leading counsel and alone and has appeared in several of the leading reported cases involving international enforcement of financial orders and injunctive relief. In addition to his financial practice, Christian regularly acts in challenging private law children disputes (including applications for leave to remove children from the jurisdiction) and in property disputes between unmarried partners under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act. Christian is also a Resolution trained mediator. Notable cases: EK v DK and Others [2023] EWHC 1829 (Fam). A High Court trial before Francis J relating to a set aside application brought by a wife on the basis of alleged fraudulent non-disclosure by the husband. In particular, the alleged non-disclosure related to the husband’s ability and available resources to house himself and also the prospects of success of the husband’s business foreign arbitration proceedings. The judgment contains a helpful synopsis of the law in relation to setting aside judgments on the basis of fraudulent or innocent non-disclosure. HAT v LAT [2023] EWFC 162. Proceedings before Peel J concerning an application for financial relief brought by a wife 30 years after a Deed of Separation and 25 years after the divorce. The judgment provides a useful survey of the law in relation to MPS/LSPO applications also in relation to delay in bringing financial applications. Nicolaisen v Nicolaisen [2023] 1 FLR 1163. A High Court jurisdiction trial heard by Mr Justice Moor, involving concurrent proceedings brought by the parties in England, Norway and Austria. The principal issues were whether (i) W had been habitually resident in England to the requisite standard when she brought her petition, and (ii) in the event that England did have jurisdiction, it was the appropriate forum. The case engaged the Marinos versus Munro debate as to the correct test for habitual residence under EC Regulation 2201/2003 (“Brussels II”) and also the transitional Brexit provisions in relation to jurisdiction. Very possibly the last reported case dealing with jurisdiction under Brussels II. CG v SG [2023] EWHC 942 (Fam). A High Court financial remedy trial involving a disputed valuation of a financial advisory business. The judgment in particular addresses issues of valuation where is it asserted that a business is a “singleton” business reliant upon the relevant party’s future involvement in it. It also addresses the correct approach to costs where the court has preferred the evidence of one party’s expert over that of the other. BC v BG (Financial Remedies) [2019] 2 FLR 337. A case in the High Court addressing the procedure and principles to be applied when challenging an arbitral award in Family Proceedings, in particular the extent to which any challenge was governed by the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996. Solovyev v Solovyeva [2014] EWFC 1546. A case concerning the validity of a Russian divorce obtained by the parties through the Consulate of the Russian Federation in London. O’Farrell v O’Farrell [2013] 1 FLR 77. A case of significant legal complexity involving the enforcement of German maintenance orders in the Queens Bench Division, third party debt orders against the Crown and the use of ex parte freezing injunctions. A v A (Reporting Restriction) [2013] 2 FLR 947. A case involving an application by a leading national newspaper to publish the details of financial remedy proceedings in the media. This involved consideration of the principles of open justice, confidentiality, the implied undertaking in relation to information produced under compulsion and the parties’ rights under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. Publications: Bankruptcy and Family Law proceedings (Practical Law Company, 3 January 2013). A practice guide dealing with conflicts of interest arising between the trustee in bankruptcy and the rights of the family under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the Family Law Act 1996 and the European Convention on Human Rights Co-author of the forthcoming edition of Rayden & Jackson on Divorce and Family Matters in relation to freezing injunctions and other injunctive measures in financial remedy proceedings.

Christie O'Connell

Christie is a family law specialist accepting instructions across the spectrum of private family law, including financial remedies, private children work, child maintenance appeals, TLATA, and applications under the Family Law Act 1996. She has experience representing clients from first to final hearing at all levels up to and including the High Court. Publications: Christie is a contributor to the Financial Remedies Journal, in which she provides summaries of recent cases of interest. Alongside her practice, she also delivers seminars and lectures to firms across the country.

Christopher Wood

Christopher’s practice consists mainly of complex financial claims, involving companies, farms, offshore assets and conflicts of law. Other work includes drafting and advising upon pre nuptial agreements. Christopher has also acted as an expert on English financial remedies claims in French proceedings. Notable cases: ShapeText BoxT v S (Financial Provision for Children) [1994] 2 FLR 883 A v A (A Minor: Financial Provision) [1994] 1 FLR 657 Thomas v Thomas [1995] 2 FLR 668 CA Sears Tooth (A firm) v Payne Hicks Beach (A firm) and Others [1997] 2 FLR 116 Wicks v Wicks [1998] 1 FLR 470 CA D v D (Lump Sum: adjournment of application) [2001] 1 FLR 633 H v M (Property occupied by Wife’s Parents) [2003] EWHC 625 (Fam) [2004] 2 FLR 16 A v A & St George’s Trustees (No 1) [2007] EWHC 99 (Fam) [2007] 2 FLR 467 A v A & St George’s Trustees (No 2) (Ancillary relief: costs) [2007] EWHC 1810 (Fam) [2008] 1 FLR 1428 CG v IF (MFPA 1984 Part III: Lugano Convention) [2010] EWHC 1062 (Fam) [2010] 2 FLR 1790 Kliers v Kliers [2020] EWFC 1026 (Fam) [2020] 2 FLR 1276 Publications: Christopher is a contributor to Rayden & Jackson on Divorce and Family Matters. He writes the chapters on Stays and injunctions in matrimonial and other proceedings and on the Recognition of divorces, annulments, legal separations and the dissolution of civil partnership proceedings. He also lectures on financial remedy topics, including Trusts, Farming cases and Compensation.

Deborah Bangay KC

Barrister specialising in money, private children work and pre-nuptial agreements for UHNW and HNW individuals, She is adept at jurisdictional disputes and inheritance claims. Notable cases: Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2023]. FB v PS [2015] EWHC 2979 (fam) EDG v RR [2015]EWHC 3097 (Fam) ZA v AS[2014] EWHC 2630 (Fam) US v SR: [2014] EWHC 175 (Fam) UL v BK [2013] EWHC 1735 (Fam) AC v DC (NO 2 [2013] 2 FLR 1499 AC v DC and Others (Financial Remedy: Effect of s 37 Avoidance Order) [2013] 2 FLR 1483 BP, KP and NI (Financial Remedy Proceedings: Res Judicata) [2013] 1 FLR 1310 Young v Young [2012] [2012] 2 FLR 470 G v G (Financial Remedies: Short Marriage: Trust Assets) [2012] 2 FLR 48 AR v AR (Treatment of Inherited Wealth) [2012] 2 FLR Golubovich v Golubovich [2010] EWHC 2267 (FAM) FZ v SZ & Anr. [2010] AER (D) 189 Jul Golubovich v Golubovich [2010] AER (D) 136 D v D (Divorce: Media Presence) [2009] 2 FLR 324VB v JP [2008] 1 FLR 742 P v P [2008] 1 FLR 742 North v North [2008] 1 FLR 158 C v C [2009] 1 FLR 8 MacFarlane v MacFarlane; Parlour v Parlour [2004] 1 FLR 893

Edward Benson

Ed practises in all areas of private family law. He specialises in financial remedy work (including Part III and Schedule 1 claims), jurisdiction disputes, cohabitee claims under TLATA, nuptial agreements, and Inheritance Act claims. Since joining Chambers, Ed has appeared frequently in the High Court in complex financial remedy cases with leading counsel, and also in his own right. He recently appeared in the Court of Appeal, led by Richard Todd KC, in Simon v Simon & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 1048. Ed regularly undertakes advisory and drafting work, both domestically and internationally (recent work includes instructions from the Bahamas and Australia). He enjoys working closely with solicitors as a part of a team on complex litigation, and spent the summer of 2022 on secondment at the top ranked family team at Payne Hicks Beach. Before joining 1 Hare Court, Ed undertook pupillage at a leading commercial Chambers. As a result of his commercial background, he is comfortable with the complex commercial and legal issues that often arise in financial remedy work, and producing written opinions and pleadings. He has a particular interest in ‘intervenor’ cases involving third party claims in financial remedy proceedings; he has appeared in several of the recent leading authorities involving intervenors. Notable cases: Simon v Simon & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 1048 (led by Richard Todd KC) Acting for the successful appellant reversing the lower court decision to direct a full rehearing of financial remedy proceedings with a litigation lender acting as a full party. A leading case addressing when litigation funders should be permitted to intervene in financial remedy proceedings and the permitted scope of such interventions. HA v WA & Anor [2022] EWFC 110 (led by Richard Todd KC) A six-day preliminary issue hearing acting for the successful intervenor where it was established that two properties in the wife’s name were in fact held on trust by her for the intervenor. Simon v Simon & Level (Joinder) [2022] EWFC 29 (led by Richard Todd KC) A leading case concerning if, and if so in what circumstances, a litigation lender could be joined to financial remedy proceedings when the husband and wife had reached an agreement as to their financial remedy claims. Simon v Simon [2022] EWFC 35 (led by Richard Todd KC) Acting for the husband in an intervenor’s application for civil proceedings to be heard concurrently with the husband and wife’s financial remedy proceedings. LS v PS [2021] EWFC 108 (led by Richard Todd KC) Acting for the successful husband resisting the disclosure of without prejudice and FDR material to an intervenor in financial remedy proceedings. A leading case on the privilege which accords to FDRs, the applicability of FPR PD9A para 6.2 to private FDRs, and the circumstances in which the ‘absolute bar’ for disclosure of FDR material may be lifted.

Eleanor Harris

Eleanor has a busy practice specialising in complex financial disputes, covering all financial remedy matters, nuptial agreements, Schedule 1 applications and financial relief after an overseas divorce, private law children disputes and matters relating to divorce and jurisdiction all of which frequently have an international dimension. She is regularly instructed in cases involving corporate and trust structures. Eleanor is commended for her pragmatic and commercial advice, thorough case preparation, swift assimilation of information, attention to detail and incisive advocacy; she works as a team with her client and solicitor to achieve the best result, whether that is through negotiation or contested litigation. Alongside her practice as a barrister, she is an Arbitrator under both the IFLA Children Scheme and Financial Scheme and conducts private FDRs and Early Neutral Evaluation in children matters as the evaluator. Eleanor sits as a Recorder in the Family Court on the South Eastern Circuit. Notable cases: HD v WB [2023] EWFC 2 DP v EP (Conduct; Economic Abuse; Needs) [2023] EWFC 6 Agbaje v Agbaje [2010] UKSC 13 Co v Co (Ancillary relief: Pre-marriage cohabitation) [2004] EWHC 287 (Fam) Publications: Eleanor is the author of the chapter on financial relief after an overseas divorce in the most recent edition of Rayden & Jackson on Divorce and Family Matters.

Emma Sumner

Since being called to the bar in 1999, Emma has risen to the top tiers of the private matrimonial finance bar. Her cases often include corporate, trust and international elements and she regularly appears on behalf of high net worth individuals who are involved in the areas of finance, law, sport and business. Emma is known amongst fellow professionals for her clear, incisive views, confident advocacy, effective negotiation skills and friendly manner.

Florence Jones

Florence is developing a broad practice in all areas of private family law. She joined chambers in October 2019 having completed her pupillage under the supervision of Nicholas Wilkinson, Rachel Spicer and Christian Kenny. During pupillage, she assisted on complex financial remedy and private children law matters. Prior to coming to the Bar, Florence was employed by both The London School of Economics and Queen Mary University as a Teaching Fellow in Family Law. She now regularly writes articles for a family law website. On completing her undergraduate degree Florence worked as a campaign coordinator for the 2015 election campaign. Alongside her studies she taught family law to undergraduates and volunteered for legal charities, including the National Centre for Domestic Violence where she provided support to victims of domestic violence.

Gavin Smith

Gavin Smith has three decades’ experience as a specialist family law barrister, dealing with all types of financial remedy proceedings following relationship breakdown. Gavin now focusses full time on his established practice as an arbitrator and private FDR evaluator. In DB v DLJ [2016] EWHC 324 (Fam), Mr Justice Mostyn referred to Gavin’s arbitration award as ‘a thorough, conscientious and clear piece of work. Its quality is a testament to the merit of opting for arbitration.’ Gavin is available to undertake arbitrations of all kinds, from single-issue disputes to those involving the full range of financial remedy claims, and from high value cases to ones where the parties’ resources are modest. He is also an experienced private FDR evaluator, assisting couples on separation by giving them an assessment of the likely outcome in their case, and thus providing them with a basis for a negotiated settlement. Gavin sits as a Deputy District Judge in the Financial Remedies Court on the Midland Circuit, where he has been authorised to hear the more complex cases. Notable cases: BC v BG [2019] EWFC 7: January 28, 2019 (as arbitrator) DB v DLJ (financial provision: arbitral award) [2016] EWHC 324 (Fam), [2016] 2 FLR 1308 [2016] 1 WLR 3319: February 24, 2016 (as arbitrator) Vogel v Lothschütz [2014] EWHC 473 (QB), (QBD)(LTL 30/1/2014): January 24, 2014 S v S [2014] EWHC 7 (Fam), [2014] 1 FLR 1257 [2014] 1 WLR 2299: January 14, 2014 (as arbitrator) Gourisaria v Gourisaria [2010] EWCA Civ 1019,[2011] 1 FLR 262; August 13, 2010 NA v MA [2006] EWHC 2900 (Fam), [2007] 1 FLR 1760: November 24, 2006 TL v ML and others [2005] EWHC 2860 (Fam), [2006] 1 FLR 1263: December 09, 2005 Chorley v Chorley [2005] EWCA Civ 68, [2005] 2 FLR 38, CA: January 12, 2005 C v C (Brussels II: French conciliation and divorce proceedings) [2004] EWHC 1959 (Fam), [2005] 2 FLR 14: June 28, 2004 Mubarak v Mubarik [2004] EWHC 1158 (Fam), [2004] 2 FLR 932: May 14, 2004 Dharamshi v Dharamshi [2001] 1 FLR 736, CA: December 05, 2000 Roker International Properties Inc v Couvaras [2000] 2 FLR 976: August 17, 2000 Abdi v Jama [1996] 1 FLR 407, CA: May 25, 1995 Publications: At A Glance: Essential Tables for Financial Remedies (annual) At A Glance Cloud Financial Remedies Practice (annual) FamilyArbitrator.com Rayden and Jackson, 18th and 19th editions Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th edition reissue: Vol 29(3), Matrimonial Law Enforcing Financial Orders in Family Proceedings

Geoffrey Kingscote KC

Geoffrey specialises in complicated and difficult financial remedy cases, including those involving pre-nuptial agreements, offshore trusts, complex businesses and, more recently, conduct. He is also a leading FDR tribunal having conducted more than 120 private FDRs/early neutral evaluations. He has appeared in a number of key cases on pre-nuptial agreements, (Radmacher), non-matrimonial assets (K v L and Jones), special contribution (Cooper-Hohn) and conduct (N v J). Notable cases: N v J [2024] EWFC 184 CB v KB [2019] EWHC 78 Cooper-Hohn v Hohn [2014] EWHC 4122 Vince v Wyatt [2013] EWCA Civ K v L [2011] EWCA Civ 550 and Jones v Jones [2011] EWCA Civ 41 Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42

Georgina Howitt

Georgina specialises in dealing with the financial consequences of relationship breakdown. She also welcomes instructions in relation to jurisdiction disputes, private children matters and Family Law Act disputes. Georgina is an experienced trial advocate. Since joining chambers in 2017, she has undertaken multiple trials up to High Court level, both on her own and led by Silks. Her trial experience means that she is well-placed to advise and represent clients in relation to negotiated settlements; and, where required, to advocate for clients at a final determination. Georgina enjoys cases of complexity. She has particular experience dealing with allegations of serious non-disclosure, where financial tracing is required; assets that are held offshore and/or in company/trust structures; and expert valuation evidence. She is interested in cases with an international dimension, especially cases which proceed under Part III following a foreign divorce. She is knowledgeable about all enforcement mechanisms (including contempt proceedings) and keeps a keen eye on enforceability throughout. Georgina represents clients at all stages of court proceedings and in alternative dispute resolution. She can also be instructed as a Private FDR Judge. Notable cases: XW v XH [2019] EWCA Civ 2262 led by Martin Pointer KC and Rebecca Carew Pole AW v AH and others [2020] EWFC 22 led by Deborah Bangay KC Bailey v Bailey (Committal) [2022] EWFC 5

Henrietta Boyle

Henrietta was the Family Law Young Barrister of the Year runner-up at the LexisNexis Family Law Awards 2022, and was shortlisted as a finalist for the same award again in 2023. Henrietta accepts instructions in all areas of private family law. She appears regularly in the High Court both in financial remedy cases and in international child abduction cases, as sole counsel (e.g. UG v NN [2022] EWHC 8 (Fam)) and also as a junior to other members of chambers (e.g. Horohoe v Horohoe [2020] EWFC 102, CG v DL [2023] EWFC 82). As well as representing clients in court, Henrietta is often instructed to undertake advisory and drafting work. In 2021, Henrietta was the Judicial Assistant to Mr Justice Mostyn in the Family Division of the High Court. Notable cases: CG v DL [2023] EWFC 82 UG v NN [2022] EWHC 8 (Fam) Horohoe v Horohoe [2020] EWFC 10 Publications: Henrietta is a co-author of the annually revised textbook Financial Remedies Practice (Class Legal), together with Sir Nicholas Mostyn (formerly Mr Justice Mostyn), Lewis Marks KC, Richard Sear KC, Gavin Smith, Phillip Blatchly, Joshua Viney and Henry Pritchard. She has had over 50 articles and case summaries published by Class Legal, Family Law Week, LexisPSL and Estates Gazette, and for a year wrote weekly case summaries for Class Legal’s newsletter.

Henry Pritchard

Henry accepts instructions in all areas of private family law, with a particular specialism in financial remedies. In addition to representing clients in court, he is frequently instructed to undertake advisory and drafting work. Having recently appeared in the High Court alongside Rob George in A Father v A Mother [2024] EWHC 1149 (Fam), Henry has a growing interest in international abduction cases, He is also one of the authors of Financial Remedies Practice (2022-24), as well as of Rayden & Jackson. He is a frequent contributor to the Financial Remedies Journal.

James Webb

James is a specialist in family finance. He represents clients in often complex financial remedy matters, cohabitation disputes, and claims under Schedule 1. James undertakes advisory and written work on topics such as jurisdiction, enforcement of financial orders, and formal pleadings in ToLATA claims. As a published author on the topic, he is well-placed to act in cases involving issues of trusts law and nuptial settlements. Publications: Rayden & Jackson on Divorce and Family Matters (2021): Contributing Editor “Variation of nuptial settlements in financial remedies: Part I: Identifying a nuptial settlement” [2017] Fam Law 978 “Variation of nuptial settlements in financial remedies: Part II: The process of variation” [2017] Fam Law 1107 “An ever-reducing core? Challenging the legal validity of offshore trusts” (2015) Trusts & Trustees (OUP) 21(5) 476

John Wilson KC

Barrister specialising in matrimonial finance, professional negligence, inheritance claims, trusts, and matrimonial civil work; cases include: H-J v H-J (financial provision: equality) [2002] 1 FLR 415; Kimber v Kimber [2000] 1 FLR 383; Miller Smith v Miller Smith [2009] EWCA Civ 1297; W v M (TOLATA proceedings: anonymity) [2012] EWHC 1679 (Fam). Prosecuting counsel for the Bar Standards Board. Patron of National Family Mediation. Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Editor-in-chief of Family Affairs (the FLBA newsletter).

Joshua Viney

Joshua is a specialist in financial remedies, financial provision for children and jurisdiction/forum disputes. He appears in the High Court and Court of Appeal regularly against opponents of all seniority. Frequently, Joshua’s cases are complex, international and have high net worth individuals. Of particular interest to Joshua are cases with offshore trust structures and companies. Notable Cases: UD v TQ [2024] EWFC 119 L v O [2024] EWFC 6 Cazalet v Abu-Zalaf [2023] EWCA Civ 1065 HAT v LAT [2023] EWFC 162 XO v YO & Anor [2022] EWFC 114 Hotel Portfolio II UK Limited v Andrew Joseph Ruhan [2022] EWHC 1695 (Comm) WC v HC [2022] EWFC 40 WC v HC (Financial Remedies Agreements) [2022] EWFC 22 AA and BB [2021] EWFC 17 Siddiqui v Siddiqui & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 1572 FS v RS and JS [2020] EWFC 63 Timokhina v Timokhin [2019] EWCA Civ 1284 ET v ST [2018] EWHC 1109 (Fam) NN v AS & Ors [2018] EWHC 2973 (Fam) Briers v Briers [2017] EWCA Civ 15

Jude Allen

Jude is an incredibly well regarded senior junior. Her court practice centres around high value complex financial remedies cases but she also has a strong following for her work in Schedule 1 claims, particularly where there are the connected elements of TOLATA and/or private law children. Jude is known for her excellent judgment and is increasingly sought out to act as a private FDR judge and to deliver clear and helpful analysis by way of early neutral evaluation. She brings that clarity of thinking and rapport with clients to assist them in attaining excellent results as quickly and efficiently as possible. She fights hard when necessary but is equally adept at working collaboratively in order to achieve settlements, even in the most intransigent of cases. Notable cases: NA v MA [2006] EWHC 2900 (Fam) Publications: Chapter on Financial Provision for Children in the most recent edition of Rayden & Jackson on Family Matters

Justin Warshaw KC

Justin specialises in complex high-value cases, difficult jurisdictional issues, cases with Human Rights angles, difficult factual disputes and coercive control. He appears regularly in the leading family cases and is well-known for his advocacy before the High Court and the Court of Appeal. He is most often seen in high profile divorces acting either for (or for the spouses of) captains of industry, disrupters, oligarchs, film stars, producers, heiresses and football club owners. He is frequently instructed in international work advising in cases in Jersey, Gibraltar, Singapore, Canada, the Cayman Islands and Hong Kong. He is frequently appointed as private FDR judge in complex high net worth cases. He was appointed Deputy High Court Judge in February 2024. Specialist in All matters concerning divorce and the breakdown of family relationships. Types of Cases as pFDR Judge: Case involving a matrimonial estate worth in excess of £100m with complex arguments about valuation and the impact of a pre-nuptial agreement Cases relating to the division of a matrimonial estate and the extent pre and post marital acquest detracts from an equal split Matters relating to how to treat complex hedge fund interests Notable Cases as Counsel: KV v KV [2024] EWFC 165 – Wife's application for maintenance pending suit and a legal services payment order. YC v ZC [2022] EWFC 137 (B) - Financial remedies proceedings XO and YO and AA limited [2022] EWFC 114 - Division of assets in international divorce proceedings influenced by husband’s litigation misconduct VV v VV [2022] EWFC 46 - Costs order VV v VV [2022] EWFC 41 (13 May 2022) ([2022] 2 FCR 681, [2022] EWFC 41, [2023] 1 FLR 170; - Pre-marital cohabitation, misconduct and party needs Traharne v Limb [2022] EWFC 27 (31 March 2022) – Post nuptial agreement CW v CH (MFPA 1984 Part III: Interim Applications) [2022] EWFC B1 (10 January 2022) - MFPA 1984 Part III: Interim Applications LS v PS (Rev1) [2021] EWFC 108 (23 December 2021) ([2021] EWFC 108, [2022] 1 FCR 691, [2022] 4 WLR 19, [2022] WLR(D) 38 - Application by an intervenor for disclosure of privileged material from a PFDR Siddiqui v Siddiqui & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 1572 (02 November 2021) ([2021] EWCA Civ 1572, [2022] 1 All ER 860 - ECHR-based appeal against the High Court's refusal to grant an adult man financial relief against his parents Crowther v Crowther & Ors (Financial Remedies) (Rev1) [2021] EWFC 88 (27 October 2021) - Extreme and unusual example of an acrimonious family law case AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9 (04 February 2021) – Jurisdictional issues FS v RS and JS [2021] 2 FLR 641 – Human Rights and provision for adult children AG v VD [2020] 2 FLR 1248 – Privilege in financial remedies Re YM and NM [2020] 1 FLR 1246 – Maintenance, injunctions and non-disclosure AJ v DM [2019] 2 FCR 1 – Maintenance Regulation and divorce jurisdiction NN v AS and Others [2019] 1 FLR 1397 – Financial Orders after Egyptian Divorce AAZ v BBZ (no 3) [2017] 2 FCR 461 – Legal Professional Privilege AAZ v BBZ (no 2) [2017] 2 FCR 450 – Discovery against solicitor asserting privilege TJB v RJB [2017] 1 FLR 1497 – Enforcing English order in Switzerland Juffali v Juffali [2017] 1 FLR 729 – Big need in big money Briers v Briers [2017] 1 FCR 309 (CA) – Post separation accrual WA v The Estate of HA (Deceased) and Others [2015] 1 FLR 1360 – Barder events ABC v PM and another [2015] All ER (D) 122 (Apr) – Setting aside a solicitor’s charge Chapman v Kawash [2015] All ER (D) 67 (Jan) – Setting aside consent orders Seagrove v Sullivan – [2015] 2 FLR 602 – Tolata Claims and bundles MET v HAT (No 2) [2015] 1 FLR 602 – Interim Maintenance Mann v Mann [2014] 2 FLR 928 – Enforcement and mediation MET v HAT [2014] 2 FLR 692 – Interim maintenance Sharbatly v Shagroon [2013] 1 FLR 1493 (CA) – non marriage case L v L [2012] 1 FLR 776 – Re-trial of financial remedies after appeal Traversa v Freddi [2011] 2 FLR 272 (CA) – financial relief after an overseas divorce Marano v Marano [2010] 1 FLR 1903 (CA) – business valuations during the financial crisis Myerson v Myerson (No 2) [2009] 2 FLR 197 (CA) – share price collapse after a final order MacLeod v MacLeod [2009] 1 FLR 641 (PC) – Pre-nuptial and marital agreements S v S [2009] 1 FLR 254 – trusts, tax and notice to show cause why agreement should not be upheld MB v KB [2007] 2 FLR 586 – financial provision for a child after and in addition to divorce settlement S v S [2007] 1 FLR 1496 – effect of conduct on award, definition of non-matrimonial property M v M [2005] 2 FLR 533 – big money, short marriage GW v RW [2003] 2 FLR 108 – matrimonial property, length of marriage provision for children F v F [2003] 1 FLR 847 – family company, illiquidity , clean break Re G [2003] 1 FLR 870 – divorce procedure G v G [2003] 2 FLR 71 – maintenance for legal fees H v H [2002] 2 FLR 1021 – professional partnership, separate property, inheritances Ranson v Ranson [2002] 1 FCR 261 (CA) V v V [2001] 2 FLR 299 Varma v Varma and Acanthus Ltd [2002] Fam Law 503 Mubarak v Mubarak [2001] 1FLR 673 Re Dianoor Jewels Ltd [2001] BPIR 234

Kate Strange

Kate is a financial remedies specialist with extensive experience of matrimonial finance, TLATA and Schedule 1 claims at every stage of proceedings. She is also frequently instructed in private children matters. She often appears in complex multi-day trials, and has appeared in the High Court, including on appeal. Kate frequently lectures on new developments in matrimonial finance. She has a particular interest in the developing caselaw on MCA 1973 s25(2)(g) conduct claims. Kate joined chambers in October 2019, having completed her pupillage under the supervision of Richard Sear KC, Tom Carter and Katherine Cook. Prior to this, she worked as a paralegal to the head of the Family Law department in a top-ranked firm. She also volunteered at a number of legal charities during her studies, advising members of the public on a wide range of issues including housing, divorce and debt, and appearing in the Social Security tribunal.

Katherine Cook

Specialising in all areas of private family law, including financial remedy proceedings; disputes as to jurisdiction and forum conveniens; recognition of foreign marriages and divorces; relationship agreements; cohabitation claims under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996; financial provision for children under schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989; claims brought by spouses and dependants under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975; applications in the Court of Protection; press exclusion and reporting restrictions in the Family Court. Katherine is ranked as a leading barrister in the field of matrimonial finance and is regularly led by KCs or instructed alone against them. She is noted for her handling of cases that are often high-profile and reputationally sensitive and which engage issues of valuation, tax, non-disclosure, offshore trust structures, and the status of agreements. Katherine is recognised as a “go-to for complicated cases with an international element”, particularly those cases involving issues of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens. She has been instructed as an expert witness on English law in South Africa and provided advice and/or representation in the Cayman Islands, the BVI, the UAE, and Gibraltar. In every case, Katherine’s focus is aimed at achieving an early favourable settlement, the details of which are formalised efficiently and discreetly. Her cases which are resolved by contested hearing feature regularly in the law reports and address issues across the full matrimonial finance spectrum, ranging from the treatment of non-matrimonial assets (WX v HX [2021] EWFC 14, in which Katherine was the only junior instructed in a case involving four silks), to Part III proceedings brought in this country subsequent to a foreign divorce (AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9). Katherine is a trained mediator and sits as an early neutral evaluator, most frequently as a private FDR Judge, where she brings to bear her “fantastic” and “user-friendly” manner to help parties reach an agreement without further costly litigation. Publications: Katherine authored the chapters on jurisdiction in the latest edition of Rayden and Jackson on Divorce and Family Matters (the leading family law practitioners’ text). She also lectures widely both in-house and for legal training providers.

Kyra Cornwall

Kyra is highly specialist in complex matrimonial finance work. This includes matters involving pre- and post-marital agreements, and those involving issues relating to international corporate structures, trust issues, landed estates and jurisdiction matters. Her busy practice involves a discrete handling of high profile and international cases. She regularly represents husbands and wives in high value and prominent matters, led and alone. She advises clients nationally and internationally, from jurisdictions including the Cayman Islands, Singapore and France, and has a particular interest in cases with links to Hong Kong, having undertaken the Pegasus Scholarship there in 2017. Notable cases: BI v EN [2024] EWFC 200 VV v VV [2022] EWFC 46 VV v VV [2022] EWFC 41 AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9 AG v VD [2020] EWHC 1847 (Fam) Hammoud v Zawawi [2019] EWHC 839 (Fam) Martin v Martin [2018] EWCA Civ 2866 WM v HM [2017] EWFC 25 MA v SK [2015] EWHC 887 (Fam) Joy v Joy [2015] EWHC 455 (Fam) Joy v Joy [2014] EWCA Civ 520

Lily Mottahedan

Lily is a trilingual barrister with an extensive financial remedies practice. Her practice encompasses all areas of private family law, including but not necessarily limited to financial remedies, financial remedies after an overseas divorce, financial provision for unmarried parents, jurisdiction and forum non conveniens disputes, applications for recognition of overseas divorces, cases concerning non-marriage and nullity, injunctions, domestic and international enforcement, marital agreements and private children matters (living arrangements and contact). She was named Junior Barrister of the Year in the Chambers UK Bar awards in 2023 having been shortlisted once before in 2019 and was highly commended as International Family Lawyer of the Year in the 2023 LexisNexis Family Law Awards on account of her expertise in forum and jurisdiction disputes following the landmark case of SA v FA [2022] EWFC 115. She is sought after in cases involving marital agreements following her success in SC v TC [2022] EWFC 67, is a go-to in cases involving major art collections given her Diploma in Art Profession Law and Ethics and in-depth knowledge of the contemporary art market, and as a former investment banker in the Mergers and Acquisitions team of Merrill Lynch in London, she brings a commercial edge to all of her financial remedy matters. She has been co-counsel on financial remedy cases overseas, to include in the Bahamas, and accepts instructions from overseas lawyers in Europe and further afield, to advise on issues of English law. Notable cases MN v AN [2023] EWHC 613 (Fam) (High Court), led by Deborah Bangay KC in the wife’s challenge to a prenuptial agreement on the grounds of duress and needs. SA v FA [2022] EWFC 115 (before HHJ Hess) where she sought a stay of divorce and financial remedy proceedings in England and Wales on forum non conveniens grounds in favour of proceedings in the Abu Dhabi Family court for Non-Muslims and was successful. SC v TC [2022] EWFC 67 (before HHJ Hess) where she successfully set-aside a post-nuptial agreement on the grounds of undue influence and failure to meet needs on behalf of a vulnerable client who had lost litigation capacity during the proceedings. AG v VG [2020] EWHC 1847 (Fam) (High Court), led by Deborah Bangay KC, defending the Wife in the Husband’s application for disclosure of her previous solicitor’s files on the grounds that she had waived legal professional privilege in her pleadings. Waggott v Waggott [2018] EWCA Civ 727 (Court of Appeal), led by Nigel Dyer KC in the Husband’s successful resistance to the Wife’s appeal and his cross-appeal in a landmark financial remedy case concerning spousal maintenance, capitalisation, clean breaks and section 28(1) bars. Quan v Bray and Others [2017] EWCA Civ 405 (Court of Appeal), led by Richard Todd KC in the Wife’s appeal of the first instance decision. Quan v Bray and others [2015] EWCA Civ 1253 (Court of Appeal), led by Richard Todd KC in the Wife’s successful application for permission to appeal. Quan v Bray and others [2014] EWCA 3340 (Fam) (High Court), led by Richard Todd KC, a four-week preliminary issue hearing concerning whether an offshore trust is post-nuptial settlement and/or a resource pursuant to the Thomas v Thomas line of cases. B v B [2014] EWHC 4857 (Fam) (High Court), without a leader, in a two day contested jurisdiction dispute concerning jurisdiction under Articles 3 to 7 of the EU Maintenance Regulation 2009 in which she was successful. Publications Upcoming articles on Hemain Injunctions in the Financial Remedies Journal (2024) and on Forum Non Conveniens in the International Family Law Journal (2024). Author of chapter on Declarations of marital status in the current edition of Rayden & Jackson on Divorce and Family Matters. Co-author of the chapter on The recognition of overseas divorces in the current edition of Rayden & Jackson on Divorce and Family Matters. Co-author of Bankers’ Bonuses – how the divorce capital of the world treats the rewards reaped from the financial capital of Europe in Family Law Week (2014). Co-author of Asaad v Kurter: The latest round in ‘non-marriage’ cases – is the tide turning? in Family Law Week (2014).

Lydia Newman-Saville

Lydia’s practice is focused on financial remedy work (including Part III and Schedule 1 claims), though she also accepts instructions in application brought under TOLATA, the Children Act 1989, and the Family Law Act 1996. Lydia’s practice covers co-habitation, pre/post nuptial agreements, and jurisdictional disputes. Lydia regularly appears on complex financial remedy cases in the High Court with leading counsel, as well as on her own against opponents of all seniority. Notable cases: Helliwell v Entwistle [2024] EWHC 740 (Fam) Helliwell v Entwistle [2024] EWHC 1298 (Fam)

Madhavi Kabra

Madhavi is a specialist family law barrister who offers the rare combination of expertise and experience in both high-end matrimonial finance and Children Act matters. Her practice is principally in HNW and UHNW financial remedy work, but she is also superb and frequently instructed in concurrent private children matters (including child arrangements and internal/external relocation disputes). Madhavi’s practice also encompasses international cases where there are issues of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens, as well as cases involving non-married couples (TOLATA and Schedule 1). Over the years, Madhavi has represented individuals of many different nationalities and from various industries, including, by way of example, foreign Royalty, an English Duke, an internationally acclaimed Artist, a Premiership Footballer and a household-name Actor. She has also represented multinational companies and banks (as interveners), entrepreneurs, CEOs, bankers, and other well-known captains of industry. Notable cases: Madhavi is instructed in cases of the utmost value and complexity (both on her own and led by King’s Counsel) including those with complicated trust structures, for example offshore trusts in tax havens and ‘old money’ trusts. She is also regularly instructed in cases with other types of sophisticated asset structures such as corporate entities with SPVs as well as cases with multiple and/or complex income streams. Madhavi has also appeared in some of the most significant reported cases of recent years including: Mansfield v Mansfield [2011] EWCA Civ 1056: one of the leading authorities on the treatment of personal injury awards in the context of financial remedy proceedings (led by Richard Todd QC). Traversa v Freddi [2011] EWCA Civ 81: Madhavi appeared in the Court of Appeal (led by Justin Warshaw, now Queen’s Counsel) in this case, one of the foremost authorities concerning financial provision after a foreign divorce pursuant to Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. A v L [2011] EWHC 3150 (Fam): Madhavi has appeared on her own in the High Court in an appeal hearing before Mr Justice Moor concerning a significant departure from equality.

Mia Purdy

Mia accepts instructions in all areas of private family law, including financial remedies, private children work, and applications under the Family Law Act 1996. Mia is developing a practice in all aspects of financial proceedings, including matrimonial finance, enforcement, variation, applications pursuant to TOLATA 1996, and applications under Schedule 1 Children Act 1989. Mia also regularly accepts instructions in private children disputes, including issues relating to declarations of parentage and parental responsibility, fact-findings and allegations of domestic abuse, and relocation (both domestic and abroad). During pupillage, Mia assisted her supervisors and other members of Chambers on various high-value financial remedy cases, including undertaking complex bank account and financial disclosure analysis. Mia has experience working closely with solicitors. Prior to commencing pupillage, she worked as a paralegal at a leading specialist family law solicitors’ firm in London. More recently, in 2023, Mia spent 8 weeks on secondment at another leading boutique family law firm where she assisted with numerous cases.

Nichola Jayne Gray KC

Nichola has over 30 years’ experience during which she has practised exclusively in financial remedy cases. She specialises in complex cases, particularly those involving corporate structures, on-shore and off-shore trusts and cases which have an international element. In addition, she is a recognised specialist in disputes between unmarried parties where there is a Schedule 1, Children Act 1989 element to be considered. She is also regularly instructed to advise on and draft pre-nuptial agreements and has a wealth of experience in both defending and challenging such agreements, having represented the wife in the frequently cited case of KA v MA (Prenuptial Agreement: Needs) where she successfully challenged the terms of the pre-nuptial agreement. She is renowned both for her attention to detail and for her robust performance in Court. Nichola is a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and regularly sits as a Private FDR Judge and Arbitrator where her ability to find innovative solutions is highly regarded. Notable cases: AH v BH [2024] EWFC 125 AB v BA [2024] EWHC 1179 (Fam) L v O [2024] EWFC 6 SS v IS [2023] EWHC 1544 (Fam) KA v MA (Prenuptial Agreement: Needs) [2018] EWHC 499 (Fam) ABX v SBX (DX Intervening) [2018] EWFC 81 T v M (Appeal against strike out of Application to vary) [2013] EWHC 1585 (Fam) Lawrence v Gallagher [2012] EWCA Civ 394 L v L (Financial Remedies: Deferred Clean Break) [2011] EWHC 2207 G v IF (MFPA 1984 Part III: Lugano Convention) [2010] EWHC 1062 Publications: Author of Blackstone’s Guide to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 Contributing Author of Rayden & Jackson, Divorce & Family Matters: Chapter 4 (Civil Partnerships) Chapter 20 (Resolving Claims to Property)

Nicholas Yates KC

Nicholas specialises in financial remedy cases (including civil partnership and Schedule 1 claims) often involving substantial assets, complex company valuations, trusts, tax issues and international dimensions. He also frequently drafts nuptial agreements and advises on their enforceability, as well as representing clients on jurisdiction matters, marriage/non-marriage cases, Inheritance Act claims and complex private law children disputes (including Leave to Remove). Nicholas is highly regarded by the professionals with whom he works. He is known to quickly establish a solid rapport with his clients in order to achieve their goals in a straightforward, timely and cost-efficient way. His international practice has included work in Jersey, France, Macau and he often appears in The Cayman Islands, where he has also been called (ad hoc) to the Bar, including in the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal. He has also been called to the Bar in The British Virgin Islands. Notable cases: ES v SS (No.2) [2024] EWFC 59 The second part of the case set out below. This judgment deals with whether a family trust, which comprised a Nuptial Settlement that held some private equity investments, should be wound up (as sought by my client) or retained, as husband wished. The judge decided that it should be wound up and the value distributed to the parties. ES v SS (No 2) – Find case law – The National Archives ES v SS [2023] EWFC 177 A Private Equity case involving significant issues of non-disclosure where the parties previously settled their case on the basis the wife (my client) was to receive c.£9m of c.£24.5m, but where a business interest was then realised that had been materially undervalued. The husband received c.€50m for his interest in that entity alone. The case considered the appropriate treatment of assets owned prior to the marriage, where those assets had been mixed in with the parties’ marital assets and, in various instances, gifted to the wife; complex valuation issues in respect of multiple business interests held through a private equity structure, where there was evidence from rival accountants and how the wife was to share fairly in the private equity investments made through the private equity fund that were made after the marriage, but had some connection with the marriage. ES v SS – Find case law – The National Archives Nicolaisen v Nicolaisen [2023] 1 FLR 1163 A High Court jurisdiction trial heard by Mr Justice Moor, involving concurrent proceedings brought by the parties in England, Norway and Austria. The principal issues were whether (i) the wife had been habitually resident in England to the requisite standard when she brought her petition, and (ii) in the event that England did have jurisdiction, it was the appropriate forum. The case engaged the Marinos versus Munro debate as to the correct test for habitual residence under EC Regulation 2201/2003 (“Brussels II”) and also the transitional Brexit provisions in relation to jurisdiction. Acted for the husband and won. This is a landmark jurisdiction case. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2022/70.html CG v SG [2023] EWHC 942 (Fam) The husband’s business had been valued by a single joint expert at £8.8m. Both parties made successful Daniels v Walker applications for their own expert valuers. The wife’s expert used the same approach as the single joint expert to achieve a value of c.£18.85m. Husband’s expert said that the business had no meaningful value as it was, in effect, the husband himself, which could not be purchased with which the judge broadly agreed. The novel aspect of this case and judgment was on the issue of costs. The judge considered the relevant rules and authorities and found that the wife’s reliance on her expert’s report was wholly reasonable and that the financial landscape did not become clear until very late and the preference of the husband’s expert’s view only became clear in cross-examination. And, therefore, there should be no cost penalty to wife. CG v SG – Find case law – The National Archives FRB v DCA (No. 2) [2020] EWHC 754 (Fam) FRB v DCA (No. 1) and FRB v DCA (No. 3) Assets of c.£172m. Acted for the husband in a novel case involving a ‘undivided family arrangement’, substantial pre-acquired assets, complex valuations of international financial entities and where the wife’s inaction, in not informing her husband that their son may not have been his biological child, was found to have been so egregious that it would be inequitable to disregard: i.e. conduct was found against the wife and sounded in the financial outcome. DJ v BJ [2019 (2) CILR 511] (The Cayman Islands) A financial case concerning the interpretation and effect of a pre-nuptial agreement and whether the husband should be held to the terms of it which were extremely beneficial to the wife. https://cilr.judicial.ky/Judgments/Cayman-Islands-Law-Reports/Cases/CILR2019/CILR192511.aspx Al-Baker v Al-Baker (No 2) [2016] EWHC 2510 (Fam) Application by wife under Part III. Her husband’s assets were worth over £100m. The main issues were the value of the worldwide assets, the extent of husband’s non-disclosure, the drawing of adverse inferences against him and whether the wife could obtain a 50/50 sharing outcome under Part III (as opposed to under the MCA 1973). The wife did get a sharing outcome of c.£63m – the largest award yet under Part III. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/2510.html Z v Z and Others [2016] EWHC 1720 (Fam) Zimina v Zimin [2017] EWCA Civ 1429 (CofA) Application by a wife under Part III of the 1984 Act following a consent order having been entered into in Russia some years beforehand, since which time husband’s financial resources had increased. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/1720.html MG v FG (Schedule 1 – Application to strike out Estoppel Legal Costs Funding) [2016] EWCH 1964 (Fam) Application by a mother under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 after receipt by her of a financial award (as wife) in Australia. Issues of ‘strike out’ under Schedule 1, res judicata and issue estoppel, as well as legal service payment orders in Children Act proceedings. De Reene v Galbraith-Marten 13 April 2016 (Court of Appeal) Permission to appeal against the refusal of leave (by a High Court Judge) for a wife to apply for financial provision under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (financial provision following a foreign divorce). This case was reported in most of the daily newspapers (see e.g. The Times 19.04.16). AB v CD [2016] EWHC 10 (Fam) Setting aside of a financial remedy consent order on the basis of wife’s non-disclosure. The wife failed to notify the husband and the court of an important investment in her company about which they should have been told prior to the settlement. The non-disclosure was not deliberate, but it was material. The consent order was set aside. Chai v Peng Chai v Peng (Estoppel: Foreign Judgment) (No 1) [2014] EWHC 3519 (Fam) [2015] 2 FLR 412 Chai v Peng (Jurisdiction: Forum Conveniens) (No 2) [2014] EWHC 3518 (Fam) [2015] 2 FLR 424 Chai v Peng (No 2) [2014] EWHC 1519 (Fam) [2015] 1 FLR 637 Chai v Peng [2014] EWHC 750 (Fam) [2014] 2 FLR 1189 Peng v Chai [2015] EWCA Civ 1312 (Court of Appeal) Chai v Peng & Others [2017] EWHC 792 (Fam) Jurisdiction race between Malaysia and England; wife won and jurisdiction was founded in England; wife successfully defended husband’s appeal to the Court of Appeal. Interim maintenance and legal services order of £1.32m per annum. Final financial remedy hearing; assets of over £200m. MET v HAT (Interim Maintenance) [2013] EWHC 4247 (Fam) [2014] 2 FLR 692 Short-term interim maintenance award; jurisdiction and foreign law. B v B [2013] EWHC 1232 (Fam) Division of current and future resources from Private Equity funds; which party should get which property, including a castle. High net-worth assets. F v F (Financial Remedies: Premarital Wealth) [2012] EWHC 438 (Fam) Financial remedies; premarital wealth; whether family settlements constituted ‘financial arrangements’ for purposes of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. Bokor-Ingram v Bokor-Ingram [2009] EWCA Civ 412 Material disclosure and the setting aside of consent orders. I v I (Ancillary Relief: Disclosure) [2009] 1 FLR 2011 Material disclosure and the setting aside of consent orders. Dorney-Kingdom v Dorney-Kingdom [2000] 2 FLR 855 Financial relief; Mesher orders and the interaction of jurisdiction between the courts and the Child Support Agency.

Nicholas Carden

Nicholas has practised as a family law barrister for over 40 years, and is an arbitrator and private FDR evaluator. He is experienced in every type of case, including: international and domestic jurisdictional disputes; financial disputes with assets ranging from multi-millions to zero (or below); prenuptial and postnuptial agreements; civil partnerships; termination-of-life cases; gender reassignment; child sexual abuse and non-accidental injury; child abduction; child relocation; and Court of Protection issues. He has appeared at every level of the court hierarchy, and has featured in many reported cases over the years. He also accepts Public Access instructions. Publications: Contributor to Rayden & Jackson on Divorce and Family Matters. Occasional lecturer and contributor to legal periodicals.

Nicholas Wilkinson

At the Family Law Awards 2022, Nicholas received the award of Highly Commended Family Law Junior Barrister of the year. He continues to impress as a skilled and popular senior junior operating at the highest level. Not only is he regularly led by the highest ranked silks in the biggest cases, but he is frequently instructed to appear alone against KCs. His practice includes substantial, complex and international litigation (involving forensic accounting, networks of companies and offshore trusts), along with media, privilege and immunity issues. He also provides accurate and balanced indications as a Private FDR Judge. Reported cases include: A v M [2023] EWHC 1900 (Fam) CD v JG [2022] EWFC 118; [2022] All ER (D) 65 (Oct) Her Royal Highness Haya Bint Al Hussein v His Highness Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum [2021] EWFC 94 Re Al M (Immunities) [2021] EWHC 660 (Fam) O'Dwyer v O'Dwyer [2019] EWHC 1838 (Fam) Joy v Joy [2019] EWHC 2152 Reported Cases: Re L (a child) [2019] EWHC 867 Al-Juffali v Estrada [2016] EWCA Civ 176 Joy v Joy -Morancho and others (No 3) [2015] EWHC 2507 Joy v Joy [2014] EWCA Civ 520 C v C (APPEAL: HADKINSON ORDER) [2011] 1 FLR 434 V v V (Financial Relief) [2010] 2 FLR 516 Publications: Nicholas is sought after to lecture on all aspects of family law. He has been a contributor to uk.practicallaw.com and Rayden and Jackson on Divorce and Family Matters (the leading family law practitioners’ textbook).

Nigel Dyer KC

Nigel retired as an advocate in January 2022 after forty years in practice at the Bar, and he now works exclusively as a judge or evaluator in private Financial Dispute Resolution hearings (FDRs). He has been conducting private FDRs since 2016 and to date has evaluated over 300 cases. He was described as the “go-to choice as a private FDR judge” in Chambers and Partners Directory 2019, and described by one leading silk as “..providing a Rolls-Royce service”. In both of the 2024 legal directories (Chambers & Ptnrs and the Legal 500) he is listed in Band 1 of the ‘Private FDR Judge / ADR’ sections. The settlement rate of the cases he has evaluated over the last eight years has been consistently high; on an informal poll c. 85% – 90% of the claims settle on the day of the hearing or shortly thereafter. The cases he evaluates range across a broad spectrum of financial claims, viz: financial remedy claims post-divorce, as well as Part III and Schedule 1 claims, and applications under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The asset classes are varied and include: land and investments in the UK and abroad, company interests and business assets, farming operations, on-shore and off-shore pensions and trusts, and wealth held in deferred remuneration and private equity arrangements. He works principally in London, although he also travels to hearings held in the major legal centres around the country as well as to the Channel Islands and the Cayman Islands. Publications: Co-editor of ‘Rayden and Jackson on Divorce and Family Matters’ [18th edition] Co-author ‘The Detection and Preservation of Assets in Financial Remedy Claims’, (2014).

Phillip Blatchly

Phillip’s expertise lies in managing and resolving financial disputes when relationships end, whether through separation, divorce or death. He is regularly instructed in cases involving offshore assets, trusts, complicated company structures, hidden wealth and other atypical financial resources that demand special consideration and proficiency. He has acted in many cases involving technical legal arguments, the outcome of which is decisive to the success or otherwise of the main proceedings. Recent examples include the extent to which a party should be held to a nuptial agreement, the effect of a party’s failure to comply with disclosure rules, and establishing / resisting claims by interveners to ownership of assets that would otherwise be subject to the court’s dispositive jurisdiction. Phillip has appeared before the range of tribunals up to and including Court of Appeal level. Before the Court of Appeal, he has appeared both with and without a leader. Several of his cases are now the leading authorities on the points of law in issue. In addition, Phillip has experience in drafting successful grounds of objection to the Supreme Court. Notable cases: Gallagher v Gallagher (No 2) (Financial Remedies) [2022] EWFC 53 Instructed as junior counsel in a case involving assets found to be worth c.£34.5m. The principal issues at play were familiar territory and included valuations of private companies (the parties’ respective experts were c.£34m apart on value); calculating non-matrimonial wealth and discounting (or not) for illiquidity. The main dispute turned on the value of a construction company, with sole experts giving evidence by ‘hot-tub’. The judgment includes some helpful dictum regarding the duties imposed on sole experts when engaging with their counterpart in proceedings. Gallagher v Gallagher (No 1) (Reporting Restrictions) [2022] EWFC 52 Following obtaining a full interim reporting restriction order (“RRO”), Mostyn J revised the terms to prohibit for a defined period of time the publication of material relating to the parties’ children and various confidential reports and advice relating to tax liabilities and other litigation. Mostyn J confirmed that this judgment was his last word on the subject of publicity in financial remedy proceedings – henceforth, his Lordship’s default position will be to publish financial remedy judgement in full without anonymisation (which includes providing the press with copies of skeleton arguments when they are sought) and any derogation will need to be justified on the individual facts of that case. XZ v YZ [2022] EWFC 49 Instructed as junior counsel to obtain a reporting restriction order (“RRO”) ahead of the final hearing of the parties’ claim for financial remedies. This was the first reported decision where the applicant successfully obtained a RRO before Mostyn J notwithstanding his Lordship having made plain in three earlier decisions that, as a matter of default, financial remedy proceedings should be published in full, without anonymisation. Mostyn J made a full RRO on an interim basis to be reviewed at the conclusion of the final hearing. Wodehouse -v- Wodehouse [2018] EWCA Civ 3009 Appeared as sole counsel in the Court of Appeal, where Phillip represented the successful husband, who appealed against a lump sum order made directly against a discretionary trust, of which the husband was a potential beneficiary. The Court of Appeal found that the judge had no jurisdiction under section 23(1) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to make an order against a third party trust. Norman -v- Norman [2017] EWCA Civ 120 Phillip represented the successful husband as junior counsel in the Court of Appeal. The court refused the wife’s appeal of the lower court’s refusal to set aside the terms a consent order. The case required a thorough analysis of the law on res judicata, issue and cause estoppel, the court’s powers under FPR r.4.1(6) now governed under FPR r.9.9A and fraudulent set aside following the Supreme Court’s decision in Sharland. Norman -v- Norman [2017] EWCA Civ 49 Appeared for the successful husband as junior counsel in the Court of Appeal, where the wife sought an anonymity order. The case provided clear authority on the procedure and exceptional circumstances required for the Court of Appeal to depart from its ordinary practice and grant an anonymity direction. N -v- N [2014] EWCA Civ 314 Phillip represented the successful husband as junior counsel in the Court of Appeal. The court overturned the lower court’s decision to set aside the terms of a consent order on the basis of the husband’s non-disclosure. The Court of Appeal opined (although did not determine) that the duty to give full and frank disclosure does not arise during the appellate process. This represented the first time any reported decision considered this issue. Publications: Phillip regularly lectures in-house for solicitors and respected industry training providers like Resolution. He is a contributor to the family law enforcement section of uk.practicallaw.com.

Rachel Spicer

Rachel is a highly experienced specialist in complex matrimonial finance and Schedule 1 claims. She has a particular interest in child maintenance matters and child support law. She has advised and lectured extensively on these topics and is one of a few number of Counsel who regularly provide representation within child support appeals, including at Upper Tribunal and Court of Appeal level. Rachel also frequently prepares and advises on nuptial agreements. Rachel will accept instructions on a direct access basis in suitable cases. Notable cases: Smith v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Another [2006] UKHL 35 Brisset v Brisset [2009] EWCA Civ 679 SC v YD [2014] EWHC 2446 (Fam) Dickson v Rennie [2014] EWHC 4306 (Fam) DG v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2023] UKUT 238 (AAC) Publications: Prenuptial Agreements (2nd Edition, Nova, 2011) Practical Law Company’s practice notes on Child Support Author of and ongoing contributor to the chapter on Child Support in most recent edition of Rayden & Jackson on Relationship Breakdown, Finances and Children

Rebecca Carew Pole

Barrister specialising in financial remedies on divorce and her expertise is in high value, complex disputes involving difficult questions of law, disclosure, valuation, tax and trust matters. In 2023 she appeared (successfully) for the applicant in the Supreme Court in the case of Potanina (respondent) v. Potanin (appellant) [2024] UKSC 3; [2024] 2 WLR 540. Notable cases: BI v EN [2024] EWFC 200 (Fam) TY v XA [2024] EWFC 96 Potanina (respondent) v. Potanin (appellant) [2024] UKSC 3; [2024] 2 WLR 540 Cazalet v Abu-Zalaf [2023] EWCA Civ 1065; [2024] 2 WLR 890 R v R (LSPO: payment of historic costs) [2021] EWHC 195 (Fam) XW v XH (Special Contributions) [2019] EWCA Civ 2262 FW v FH (Valuation of Private Companies) [2019] EWHC 1338 (Fam); [2019] 2 FLR 937 Thum v Thum (No. 2: Disclosure) [2019] EWFC 25; [2019] 2 FLR 546 XW v XH (No. 2: Publicity and Reporting) [2019] EWCA Civ 549; [2019] 1 WLR 3757 LKH v Z (Interim Maintenance: Costs Funding) [2018] EWHC 1214 (Fam); [2018] 3 Costs LR 519 XW v XH (No. 2: Reporting Restrictions Order) [2018] EWFC 44; [2019] 1 FLR 559 Martin v Martin [2018] EWCA Civ 2866; [2019] 2 FLR 291 Thum v Thum (No.1: Jurisdiction) [2018] EWCA civ 624; [2019] 2 WLR 127 XW v XH (No. 1: Financial Remedies: Non-matrimonial Assets) [2017] EWFC 76; [2019] 4 WLR 83 ZS v RS (Conflict of Interest) [2017] EWHC 2660; [2018] 1 FLR 263 WM v HM [2017] EWFC 25; [2018] 1 FLR 313 Thum v Thum (No. 1: Service of Documents) [2016] EWHC 2634 (Fam); [2016] 4 WLR 171 S v J & ors [2016] EWHC 586 (Fam) MA v SK & S Investments [2015] EWHC 887 (Fam) Abuchian v Khojah [2014] EWHC 3411 (Fam) Re G (Leave to Remove) [2007] EWCA Civ 1497 C v C (Costs: Leave to Appeal) [2006] EWHC 624 (Fam) C v C (Privilege) [2006] EWHC 336 (Fam) Re G (Maintenance Pending Suit) EWHC 1834 (Fam) C v C (Without Notice Orders) [2005] EWHC 2741 (Fam) K v K (Financial Relief: Management of Difficult Cases) [2005] EWHC 1070 (Fam) Al-Khatib v Masry [2004] EWCA Civ 1353 Publications: Co-author with Nicholas Mostyn KC ‘Child’s Pay’ (3rd edition).

Rebecca Bailey-Harris

French-speaking matrimonial practitioner and former professor of law. Rebecca specialises in cross-border jurisdictional disputes and applications for financial provision following an overseas divorce. Rebecca is also qualified as a mediator and for direct access instruction. Notable cases: Potanina (Respondent) v Potanin (Appellant) [2024] UKSC 3 [2024] 2 WLR 540 Potanina v Potanin [2021] EWCA Civ 702 [2021] 2 FLR 1457 Des Pallieres v Des Pallieres [2021] EWCA Civ 995 [2021] 2 FLR 1097 Potanin v Potanina [2019] EWHC 2956 [2020] 1 FLR 616 Giusti v Ferragamo [2019] EWCA Civ 691 [2019] 2 FLR 261 MB v TB (Jurisdiction: Divorce: Court First Seised) [2018] EWHC 2035 [2019] 1 FLR 1247 A v B (Financial Remedies) (No 2) [2018] EWCF 45 [2019] 1 FLR 17 A v B (Financial Remedies: Application to Strike Out) [2018] EWFC 4 [2019] 1 FLR 1 E v E (BIIA: Arts 16 and 19) [2015] EWHC 3742 (Fam) [2017] 1 FLR 658 Walton v Allman [2015] EWHC 3325 (Ch) [2017] 1 FLR 927 AB v JJB (EU Maintenance Regulation: Modification Application Procedure) [2015] EWHC 192(Fam) [2015] 2 FLR 1143 Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14 [2015] 1 FLR 972 Ville de Bauge v China [2014] EWHC 3975 (Fam)[2015] 2 FLR 873 Chai v Peng (No 2) [2014] EWHC 1519 (Fam) [2015] 1 FLR 637 Tan v Choy [2014] EWCA Civ 231 [2015] 1 FLR 492 H v W (Cap on Wife’s Share of Bonus Payments) (No 2) [2014] EWHC 2846 (Fam) [2015] 2 FLR 161 Publications: Rebecca has published widely in both Australia and England, through books and articles in academic and professional journals. In England Rebecca has co-authored the major texts Rayden and Jackson on Divorce and Family Matters and Cretney’s Principles of Family Law. Rebecca is currently an editor of the Family Law Reports and a monthly case commentator for Family Law. She is a consultant editor of International Family Law.

Richard Todd KC

Barrister specialising in matrimonial finance, Trusts of Land Act, Married Women’s Property Act 1882, Schedule 1 of the Children Act, Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, and private law children work; drafting ante-nuptial contracts. Richard is in the top category of Silks for Chambers and Partners; The Bar there are only four Silks in that category. (He is also top ranked in Chambers Global and Chambers Asia-Pacific) The Legal 500 also places him in their highest category; Tier 1. He has been top-ranked by these guides for a decade. Nobody at the Bar is ranked higher than Richard. Notable cases: R v M & Ors [2024] EWHC 720 BR v BR [2024] EWFC 11 Williams v Williams [2024] EWHC 733 (Fam) Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567  EK v DK [2023] EWHC 1829 Simon v Simon & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 1048 HAT v LAT [2023] EWFC 162 ADK v ASI [2022] EWHC 2610 (Fam) LSG v LYAG [2022] HKFC 114 RV v AA [2022] HKCA 89 Ravendark Holdings Ltd v Rotenberg & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 1661 (10 November 2021) LS v PS (Rev1) [2021] EWFC 108 (23 December 2021) Simon v Simon & Level (Joinder) (Rev1) [2022] EWFC 29 (21 March 2022) Simon v Simon [2022] EWFC 35 (01 April 2022) FRB v DCA (No. 2) [2020] EWHC 754 (No. 3) [2020] EWHC 3696 and (No. 4) [2021] EWHC 116 FRB v DCA [2019] EWHC 2816 C v C (Jersey) [2019] UKPC 40 LYYC v. CHL AND CSMS, THE EXECUTRICES OF THE ESTATE OF CGSK ALSO KNOWN AS CSKG, DECEASED [2019] HKFC 7; FCMP 223/2017 (8 January 2019) LYYC v. CHL AND CSMS, THE EXECUTRICES OF THE ESTATE OF CGSK ALSO KNOWN AS CSKG, DECEASED [2019] HKFC 39; FCMP 223/2017 (15 February 2019); CLARK QUANTUM KENT v. HAI TIN LTD AND OTHERS [2019] HKCFI 1145; HCA 961/2017 (2 May 2019)(Court of First Instance; 2 May 2019); LYYC v. CHL & CSMS, THE EXECUTRICES OF THE ESTATE OF CGSK ALSO KNOWN AS CSKG, DECEASED [2019] HKCA 521; CAMP 31/2019 (14 May 2019) (Court of Appeal; 14 May 2019); AK v. MYNT [2019] HKCA 562; CAMP 43/2019 (23 May 2019) (Court of Appeal; 23 May 2019) GM-SA ALSO KNOWN AS DG,M S v. DDPJ [2018] HKCA 1009; CAMP 171/2018 (28 December 2018) Court of Appeal; WGL v. ASB [2018] HKCA 203; CAMP 27/2018 (11 April 2018); WGL v. ASB [2018] HKCFI 519; HCMP 489/2013 (9 March 2018); GMSA ALSO KNOWN AS DG, M-S v. DMP-J [2017] HKCA 384; HCMP 1052/2017 (14 September 2017); Chai v Peng  7th April 2017 A v B [2017] HKFAMC 15 DX v LN (No 2) [2017] HKCA 71 CYYC v TVKT [2017] HKFAMC 7 DX v LN (No 1) [2017] HKCA 66 CWG v MH and ors [2016] HKCA 276, 277 and 279 A v B [2016] FCMC 10937/2013 Al Baker v Al Baker [2016] EWHC 1720 Z v Z and Ors [2016] EWHC 1720 Roocroft v Ball [2016] EWCA Civ 1009 NR v AB & Ors [2016] EWHC 277 (Fam) (22 February 2016) LYAG v YSG [2016] HKCFI 1908 and 1945 Chai v Peng (No 5) [2015] EWCA Civ 790 AVT v VNT [2015] HKCA 611 Quan v Bray & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 1401 (14 December 2015); Quan v Bray & Anor [2015] EWCA Civ 1253 (04 December 2015) Hopkins v Hopkins [2015] EWHC 812; Fok Chun Benjamin v Fok Chun Wan Ian et al [2015] HKCA 61 and [2016] HKCA 28. Publications: Since 1989 Richard has been the co-author of “Practical Matrimonial Precedents” (2 Volumes), Sweet & Maxwell. It is now in its 55th release (2024). Richard also co-authored, “Essential Family Practice” (2 Volumes), Butterworths and “At Court”, FT Law & Tax. Richard is also an Editor of Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law. Together with his wife, Elisabeth (also a member of chambers) he is co-author of “Relationship Agreements” Sweet & Maxwell (2013). He has also had published articles in Family Law, Family Matters, The Family Law Journal and The Lawyer. He has occasionally contributed to The Law Society’s Legal Network Television. In 2000 he was shortlisted (list of four) for UNICEF’s Lawyer of the Year for his work on the law relating to paternity disputes.

Richard Sear KC

Richard Sear KC practises in all areas of private family law and tends to be instructed in complex financial cases and jurisdiction disputes; both in England & Wales in relation to proceedings elsewhere. He has represented clients from all walks of life and from all over the world. He was appointed King’s Counsel in 2024. Prior to that, he was Chambers and Partners family law junior barrister of the year in 2022 (having been shortlisted for the award as long ago as 2014). Richard qualified as an arbitrator in 2014 and is a Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators: a significant proportion of his work involves arbitration and early neutral evaluation. Notable cases: Standish (2024) Tsvetkov v Khayrova (2023) DR v UG (2023) IR v OR (2022) Barclay (2021) Goddard-Watts (an instruction lasting over a decade).

Roxane Reiser

Roxane is a financial remedy practitioner with a particular expertise in jurisdiction and enforcement disputes. Roxane’s cases typically involve assets held overseas, assets held in trust or via corporate entities. Roxane appears in cases heard up to High Court level, led and in her own right. Many of her cases have international elements. She was called to the Geneva Bar in 2018 and has appeared before courts in the French speaking part of Switzerland on several occasions. She regularly advises on Swiss family law and related Swiss private client matters. Roxane features in the 2024 Citywealth Top 100 International Power Women Leaders list. Notable cases: JK v LM [2024] EWHC 1442 (Fam) HRH Haya Bint Al Hussein v HH Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum [2021] EWFC 94 Publications: July 2024 – Financial Remedies Journal, “Proving Foreign Law in Financial Remedy Proceedings” 2020 to date – FLBA Family Law Affairs Magazine, author of the International Update September 2022 – International Family Law Journal, issue 4, ‘Dealing with Swiss assets in financial remedy proceedings’ May 2021 – Family Law Week “Anglo-Swiss Divorce Proceedings Post Brexit: Part 2 – Recognition and Enforcement of financial orders” March 2021 – Family Law Week ‘Anglo-Swiss Divorce Proceedings Post-Brexit: Part 1 – Divorce recognition’ September 2020 – Resolution, The Review, Issue 207, “Cross-border Q&As on International Nuptial Agreements.” March 2020 – Family Law Week, “Recognition of financial remedy orders in Switzerland” January 2020 – Schulthess, IusNet Newsletter, « Les ‘Financial Remedy Orders’ anglais et leur exécution en Suisse sous l’angle de la Convention de Lugano : de la collaboration internationale absolument indispensable : Réflexions à propos de l’arrêt TF 5A_104/2019 du 13 décembre 2019. », Anne Reiser & Roxane Reiser. December 2019 – FLBA Family Affairs Magazine “Divorce in Switzerland”. March 2019 – International Business Law Journal, “Expert witnesses in international arbitration/ Les experts dans l’arbitrage international”, Laurent Hirsh, Rupert Reece & Roxane Reiser.

Simon Webster

Simon's principal practice is focused on large and complex financial remedy claims, often with international elements and often with cross-border jurisdiction issues. He has appeared in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal with the majority of is work at High Court level. He regularly participates in private FDR hearings as advocate and as Judge, his reputation in the latter now formidable. Simon’s practice also encompasses financial claims on behalf of children (Schedule 1) and claims concerning property ownership after relationship breakdown. Notable cases: MB v CD [2024] EWHC 751 – child maintenance and legal services payments X (Financial Remedy: Non-Court Resolution), Re [2024] EWHC 538 – court’s power to compel parties to attend mediation TRNS v TRNK [2023] EWFC 133 – claim to uphold post-nuptial agreement Goddard-Watts v Goddard-Watts [2023] EWCA Civ 115 – successful appeal after second rehearing of financial remedy claim following persistent non-disclosure Gallagher v Gallagher [2022] EWFC 52 – substantial financial remedy trial and consequent publicity orders. Ravendark Holdings v Rotenberg [2021] EWCA Civ 1661 – long running Part III financial claim. A v M [2021] EWFC 89 – private equity and financial remedy E v L [2021] EWFC 60 – short marriage financial remedy claim Kicinski v Pardi [2021] EWHC 499 – appeal concerning Thwaite jurisdiction S v C [Financial Remedies: Frozen Fund] [2020] EWHC 2127 – child maintenance, disabled fund G v T [2020] EWHC 1613 – substantial financial remedy trial concerning financial trading business. CB v KB [2019] EWFC 78 – music industry and valuation of recording rights. Thakkar v Thakkar [2017] EWFC 13: preliminary issue hearing to determine ownership of billion dollar company Goddard-Watts v Goddard-Watts [2016] EWHC 3000: rehearing of financial remedy claims Thakkar v Thakkar [2016] EWHC 2488: contested application for Decree Absolute KG v LG [2016] EWFC 64: setting aside on grounds of non-disclosure Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14: jurisdiction to strike out financial remedy claims http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/14.html R v R [2015] EWCA Civ 796: role of international sanctions in financial remedy claims http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/796.html G v G [2015] EWHC 1512 (Fam): legal advice privilege http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2015/1512.html Murphy v Murphy [2014] EWHC 2263 (Fam) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2014/2263.html AM v SS (Legal Services Order) [2013] EWHC 4380 (Fam): charge over husband’s property to fund wife’s legal fees http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2013/4380.html

Stephen Trowell KC

Barrister specialising in financial relief ancillary to divorce, private Children Act work, and divorce; recent cases: McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UK HL 24; Murphy [2009] EWCA Civ 1258; Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 4; Mann v Mann [2014] EWCA Civ 1674.

Thomas Harvey

Tom’s practice is focused on complex financial remedy work. He is regularly instructed as junior counsel to the leading silks in cases concerning ultra-high net worth individuals and/or and complex issues. He is also frequently instructed as sole counsel in cases before High Court judges. His cases frequently involve: Disputes as to the proper treatment of non-matrimonial / matrimonialised assets Contested jurisdiction High net worth individuals Offshore and corporate/trust structures Disputed valuation evidence Allegations of non-disclosure Issues of privilege Tom is increasingly instructed to sit as an early neutral evaluator. Notable cases: Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567 – Landmark case on the proper treatment of assets generated outside of the marital partnership. Successfully reduced the appellant wife’s sharing award by £20m. H v GH [2023] EWFC 235 – Successful strike out application of an application to extend time for payment of a lump sum. SBX v ABX [2022] EWHC 3652 (Fam) – Post-Brexit jurisdiction battle between England and Germany. ARQ v YAQ [2022] EWFC 128; [2022] 4 WLR 112 – A leading case on ‘matrimonialisation’ of non-matrimonial assets. Decision of Court of Appeal awaited. Baker v Baker [2023] EWFC 136 – Implementing a New York Separation Agreement before the English Court. Baker v Baker [2022] EWFC 15; [2022] 2 FCR 555 – Impact of unsatisfactory disclosure on an application for interim maintenance. G v T [2023] EWFC 235– Post-separation endeavour, disputed valuation evidence. Haskell v Haskell [2019] EWHC 3434 (Fam); [2020] 4 WLR 24; [2020] 1 FCR 565 – Interim maintenance order suspended rather than dismissed. FW v FH [2019] EWHC 1338 (Fam); [2019] 2 FCR 937 – Extraction of value from a family business. Hammoud v Al Zawiwi [2019] EWHC 697 (Fam); [2019] 3 FCR 356 – Prison sentence imposed on the husband who had breached an order to provide financial disclosure in proceedings under Part III of the MFPA 1984. Hammoud v Al Zawiwi [2019] EWHC 736 (Fam); [2019] 3 FCR 356 – Absence of affidavit evidence in committal applications. Chai v Peng (Jurisdiction: Forum Conveniens) (No2) [2014] EWHC 3518 (Fam); [2015] 2 FLR 424; [2015] Fam. Law 37 – Jurisdiction race between Malaysia and England, with assets of over £200m. Chai v Peng (Estoppel: Foreign Judgment) (No1) [2014] EWHC 3519 (Fam); [2015] 2 FLR 412; [2015] Fam. Law 37 – Rebutted the husband’s case that the wife should be prevented from pursuing her jurisdiction claim before the English court. Publications: Co-author of chapter on pre/post nuptial agreements in the current edition of Rayden and Jackson on Relationship Breakdown, Finances and Children

Timothy Bishop KC

Barrister specialising in financial remedies and matrimonial jurisdiction disputes, He is one of only three star individuals in Chambers and Partners 2024 guide to Matrimonial Silks Notable cases: TI v LI [2024] EWFC 163 Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567 AT v BT [2023] EWHC 3531 (Fam) Baker v Baker [2023] EWFC 136 DR v UG [2023] EWFC 68 Goddard-Watts v Goddard-Watts [2023] EWCA Civ 115 ARQ v YAQ [2023] EWFC 128 WX v HX [2021] EWFC 241 RC v JC [2020] EWHC 466 Potanin v Potanina [2019] EWHC 2965 Versteegh v Versteegh [2018] EWCA Civ 1050 Ecclestone v Stunt X v X [2016] EWCA 1995 (Fam) Work v Gray [2017] EWCA Civ 270 Appleton v Gallagher Robertson v Robertson [2016] EWHC 613 (Fam) Gray v Work [2015] EWHC 834 (fam) Tan v Choy [2014] EWCA Civ 251 Gallagher v Lawrence [2012] EWCA Civ 394 H v S [2011] EWHC B23 (Fam) FZ v SZ [2010] EWHC 1630 (Fam) Lykiardopulo v Lykiardopulo [2010] EWCA Civ 1315 McCartney v Mills McCartney [2008] EWHC 401 (Fam) Vaughan v Vaughan [2010] EWCA Civ 349 SR v CR [2008] EWHC 2329 (Fam) Miller v Miller [2006] EWHL 24 Xydhias v Xydhias [1998]EWCA Civ 1966 Publications: Former member of Editorial board of At A Glance Enforcement of Financial Orders in Matrimonial Proceedings (with Gavin Smith)

Tom Carter

Tom’s practice is now focussed on non-court dispute resolution, with particular emphasis on his role as an arbitrator under the IFLA Financial Scheme. Alongside his practice as an arbitrator, Tom is also very regularly instructed to act as ‘judge’ within the ‘private-FDR’ process, assisting parties in reaching agreement in the course of financial proceedings at all levels of complexity and value.

Legal 500

Our Team

FAQs

Marketing Resources

Newsletters

Contact us