P v P [2007] EWHC 2877 (Fam)

The firm acted in ancillary relief proceedings where the judge had to decide how to split the matrimonial assets where the husband claimed that a significant portion of the assets had been accrued after the couple separated. There was also dispute as to the total value of those assets.

Mubarak v Mubarik [2006] EWHC 1260 (Fam)

Acted for the husband (Respondent) in a long running ancillary relief case concerning enforcement of lump sum and periodical payment orders where the applicant was alleging that the respondent was wilfully refusing to pay. The case is novel in the discussion generated concerning the applicants use of the ‘Hadkinson’ principle to try and prevent the husband from being heard on the grounds that he is in contempt of court.

S v S [2006] EWHC 2793 (Fam)

The firm acted for the husband (Respondent) in ancillary relief proceedings involving the disposal of the assets as between the wife and the husband, in particular, the disposition of the property and assets and the amount of the lump sum to be paid by the husband to the wife, following his redundancy.

Mark v Mark [2005] UKHL 42; [2005] 2 FLR 1193

The firm acted for the husband (Respondent) in an appeal that his wife’s divorce petition could not be heard in England on the grounds that she was here illegally, and therefore she could not be seen to be domiciled or habitually resident in this country.

Mia Holman v Graham Anthony Kingston Howes [2005] EWHC 2824 (Ch)

The firm represented the husband (Defendant) in a case involving the respective interests of a divorced couple in a property registered in the sole name of the husband, who was seeking by counterclaim an order pursuant to section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”) for the immediate sale of the property to enable his half share in the property to be realised.

C v FC (Brussels II: Free-Standing Application for Parental Responsibility) [2004] 1 FLR 317

The firm acted in a case involving whether parents could remain habitually resident in England despite having been away for over two years and having established habitual residence in another country.

C v FC (Children Proceedings: Costs) [2004] 1 FLR 362

The firm acted in a child’s case involving order for costs in absence of unreasonable behaviour, where a mother acted unreasonably in failing to disclose existence of proceedings in Portugal.

M v M [2004] EWCA Civ 168

The firm acted for the husband (Appellant) in a case where the court had to decide the extent to which an overstayer is disqualified by illegality from asserting an habitual residence or a domicile of choice in this jurisdiction in order to satisfy the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973.

Moore v Moore [2004] EWCA Civ 1243

The firm acted for the wife (Appellant) in an emergency application for relief under the Family Law Act 1996 in a case involving petitions for divorce in two different jurisdictions and an order under Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996 for occupation rights.

Mubarak v Mubarak [2003] 2 FLR 553; [2002] EWHC 2171 (Fam)

W v W (Financial Provision: Form E) [2003] EWHC 2254 (Fam)

The firm acted for the husband (Respondent) in a case involving the responsibility of a party when filing their financial statement.

S v S [2002] EWHC 223 (Fam)

The firm acted in ancillary proceedings which involved a consent order.