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.

Called 2008

Memberships

Positions Phillip was an elected member of the Bar Council and the Young Bar Council between 2011-2014. He was co-opted onto the committee of the Family Law Bar Association for the same period.

BVC, BPP Law LLB (Hons), University of Surrey

Philip enjoys travelling, cooking and most sports, especially skiing, boxing and golf. He is in the (long) process of learning Arabic; a humbling endeavour.