Rebecca Alexander

Rebecca is a senior associate at Family Law in Partnership. She handles all aspects of private family law, including divorce, pre and post-nuptial agreements, financial settlements and children issues. Rebecca has experience of cases involving complex trust structures, substantial business interests and multi-jurisdictional elements. Legal 500 UK named Rebecca as one of their Recommended Lawyers for family/matrimonial work in both their 2023 and 2024 directories. Rebecca was also named as a Family Lawyer of the Year – Associate in the Citywealth Future Leaders Awards 2023.

Rebecca trained and qualified as a solicitor at a corporate law firm, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP. As such she is very familiar with business and trust structures, and corporate remuneration arrangements She spent three years practicing family law in Hong Kong where she built a strong network of contacts across Asia and gained experience of the local laws applying to family law issues.

Rebecca speaks Spanish and she is also fluent in French. As such, she is able to conduct first meetings with clients in French. She is a member of the Franco-British Lawyers Society and the British Spanish Law Association. Rebecca is also a member of the UIA, International Association of Lawyers.

Rebecca enjoys writing technical articles for legal journals and she has written an article for LexisNexis Family Law on Litigation Conduct and Legal Services Payment Orders which can be found here. Rebecca has also written for Tatler where she co-authored a piece focused on the attitude of the family courts towards privacy in court proceedings.

Rebecca is a graduate of the University of Manchester (BA Hons History and Spanish) and the University of Law (Master of Laws (LLM)).

Rebecca’s reported cases include:

• Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2024] EWCA Civ 100 – This was the former husband’s appeal against the High Court decision in Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2023] EWFC 50 in which FLiP represented the wife.  Although the husband succeeded in part, he failed to secure the very substantial provision he sought.
• Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2023] EWFC 158 – represented the wife in the Court of Appeal on an application by her former husband for a Legal Services Payment Order in connection with ongoing proceedings.
• Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2023] EWFC 50 – a case representing a Russian national in a long-running dispute concerning financial provision following a divorce in Russia (Part III MFPA 1984, the “Part III Application”).

• HA v WA v BV [2022] EWFC 110 – this was a preliminary issue hearing to determine whether a flat in London was owned beneficially by FLiP’s client.
• Re X (Children) [2022] EWCA Civ 1167 – this was an appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal against a judge’s refusal to set aside an order in which a Russian order concerning children was recognised and enforced in England. FLiP represented the mother on this appeal and the father’s appeal was dismissed.
• Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2022] EWFC 30 – an important decision concerning privacy in family proceedings and anonymisation. The decision was made as part of a claim for financial relief after an overseas divorce. The decision was widely reported in the mainstream press.
• Re X (Children) [2022] EWCA Civ 1167 – a case in the Court of Appeal involving international children law proceedings in Russia and England.
• AA and BB [2021] EWFC 17 – a case concerning competing children proceedings in England and in Russia. The High Court determined that Article 13 Hague Convention 1996 applied in respect of first in time rules (as the UK and Russia are signatories). The father had argued that the European regulation (BIIa) applied as this was a mandatory provision during the UK transition period from the EU.
• LCYP v JEK [2019] HKCFI 1588 – a ground-breaking decision clarifying the Hong Kong law on prenuptial agreements.
• Evans v Evans [2013] EWHC 506 (Fam) – an application for financial remedies in a case involving substantial assets. Issues of financial conduct and special contribution, and the definition of marital property were all considered in the case.