1 Hare Court

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.

Called 1996 Silk 2018

Family Law Bar Association (ex-member of the Committee)

Aldenham School; Trinity College, Cambridge; Inns of Court School of Law.

Classical music (singer); cycling.