Our Approach

At the heart of everything we do is a desire to use the depth and breadth of our expertise to provide a solution which is in your best interests

Our Approach

Family Law in Partnership is an award-winning team of specialist family lawyers, mediators, arbitrators and family consultants. Our aim is to make the family change experience better so our clients can successfully move forward with their lives.

We do this by:

  • Putting clients at the centre, enabling them to make informed, future-focused choices between options and delivering on them.
  • Providing tailor-made solutions within the legal framework.
  • Working in conjunction with other professionals for the benefit of each individual client.

Our comprehensive practice covers both traditional and alternative methods of dispute resolution including litigation, solicitor led negotiation, mediation, arbitration and the collaborative approach.

We make it our job to understand the emotional impact of divorce and separation on you and your family and have developed a unique range of support services to provide you with emotional and practical support. For further details visit Family Support Services.

Our Promise to You

As our client, you are first in all that we do.  We promise to recognise the trust you place in us and will:

  • Help you clarify your priorities, explore how they might best be achieved and help you to identify the way forward.
  • Give clear advice about your rights and responsibilities.
  • Identify the best people and services to help you to achieve your goals (even if it is not us).
  • Carry out our work for you efficiently and effectively.
  • Ensure you remain in control.

Our Values

Commitment – we do what we say we will do; we look for the best service to suit each individual client; we do all we can to assist our clients; we deliver on our promises; we are engaged in the continual pursuit of finding better ways of helping our clients through the divorce and separation process.

Client Centred – the work we do and the way we do it is entirely focused on our clients’ needs and those of any children they may have.

Principled – we enable our clients to make informed decisions; we exercise professional integrity; we don’t litigate for the sake of it; we look to do what is in the best interests of the family as a whole; we use only the professionals who are needed.

Collegiate – we value and have mutual respect for and trust in our colleagues; we honour our differences; we work together for the benefit of our clients.

Our Reported Cases

  • AB v FC [2016] EWHC 3285 – a case concerning financial provision for the wife of a professional football player following a short marriage in circumstances where there was little capital but a high income.
  • JL v SL (No 1) [2014] EWHC 3658 (Fam), JL v SL (no 2) [2015] EWCH 360 (fam) and JL v SL (no 3) [2015] EWCH 355 (fam) a case concerning the treatment of inherited funds and post separation accruals on a divorce
  • Re G (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 336 – a complex dispute in a children case between a lesbian couple.
  • S v S [2014] EWHC 7 Fam – the first judicial announcement on the nature and effect of financial arbitration orders.
  • Divall v Divall [2014] EWHC 95 Fam a complex case concerning a jurisdiction dispute.
  • Solovyev v Solovyeva [2014] EWFC 1546 – a case heard before the President of the Family Division concerning the recognition of overseas divorces by the English courts.
  • B v S (Financial Remedy: Marital Property Regime) [2012] EWHC 265 (Fam) – a case concerning the effect of a separate property regime and a post-nuptial agreement.
  • Grubb v Grubb [2011] Court of Appeal – a case in the Court of Appeal which considered what constitutes the “reasonable needs” of a spouse in a case involving inherited wealth.
  • H v H [2009] (High Court) – an important case which clarified the law and procedure in relation to pension sharing orders.
  • L v L [2011] EWHC 2207 (Fam) – an appeal against a termed maintenance order.
  • K v L [2010] EWHC 1234 this case concerned the treatment on divorce of assets inherited prior to the marriage.
  • C v C (Appeal: Hadkinson order) High Court [2010] EWHC 1656 (fam) – the case clarified the law relating to appeals in circumstances where the order of the court below had not been satisfied.
  • Golubovich v Golubovich [2010] 2 FLR 1614 CA – an important case regarding the recognition of foreign divorce decrees by the English Courts.
  • Re S (Leave to Remove: Costs) [2009] EWHC 3120 (Fam) – a successful costs claim in a children case because of the litigious conduct of the father.
  • McFarlane v McFarlane [2009] 2FLR 1322, FD – this case established, among other things, the now common approach to dealing with uncertain income by percentage, banding and applying a cap.
  • Blades v Phillips [2008] Court of Appeal – an application for permission to appeal.
  • Bradley v Bradley [2008] Court of Appeal – an appeal against an order preventing the payment of a lump sum.
  • VB v JP [2008] EWCH 112 (Fam) – an application for an increase in periodical payments to the wife and children.
  • Boyle v Secretary of State [2008] – this case involved an appeal to replace a penalty CSA assessment and established the much re-visited “rule in Boyle”.
  • L v (1) L (2) H (a firm) [2007] EWHC 140 (QB) – a case against an ex wife and her solicitors concerning DIY disclosure.
  • B v B [2007] EWHC 2472 (Fam) – acted for the husband in defending an application by the ex-wife to overturn a consent order.
  • Re G (Children) [2006] 2 FLR 629 – we acted as London agent on an appeal to the House of Lords, a case which defined gestational, biological and psychological parenting.
  • Smith v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and another [2006] All ER (D) 161 – this case established an expansive interpretation of income to increase provision for the client in line with the other parent’s capacity to provide
  • Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] 1 FLR 1186 (House of Lords) – in this case the basis of modern financial provision was established with the 3-fold analysis of needs, sharing and compensation in the pursuit of fairness in support of a ground-changing level of financial provision.
  • McFarlane v McFarlane; Parlour v Parlour [2004] (Court of Appeal)
  • Kimber v Brookman Solicitors [2004] 2 FLR 221 – a case in which we secured production of a solicitors file to search for information concerning his former client where he had absconded and his whereabouts were unknown.
  • Re P (Parental Dispute: Judicial Determination) [2003] 1 FLR 286 the parents disputed which school their child should attend. They applied to the court to determine which parent should have the right to decide.
  • Re X and Y (Leave to remove from jurisdiction: no order principle) [2001] 2 FLR 118 – a case concerning the relocation of children abroad against the wishes of the other parent.
  • Al Habtoor v Fotheringham [2001] EWCA Civ 256 – this case concerned the issue of habitual residence of a child and the recognition by the English court of foreign court orders.
  • Le Foe v Le Foe and Woolwich plc [2001] 2 FLR 970 – an important cross over between trusts and matrimonial jurisprudence, permitting a wife to have an interest against a lender through her indirect marital contribution only.
  • Acted on various CSA (now CMS) cases involving applications to the Upper Tribunal