Our Reported Cases


At FLiP we don’t take cases to Court for the sake of it. But sometimes going to Court can be the best option.

Here are some examples of our reported cases:

  • Re N [2024] EWFC 141 – acted for the applicant parents jointly on a Specific Issue Order under the Children Act 1989.
  • Y v Z [2024] EWFC 4 – Acting for the Mother on her application for child maintenance, a housing fund and capital needs. This case involved complex international considerations and the use by the Father of the Millionaires Defence.

  • LMZ and AMZ  [2024] EWFC 26 – Acting for the husband in a case concerning financial provision following a long marriage where virtually all of the wealth had accrued long before the parties had married.
  • Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2024] EWCA Civ 100 – Acting for the wife in the husband’s appeal case against the High Court decision in Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2023] EWFC 50.
  • Barclay v Barclay [2023] EWFC 164 – Represented the witness in enforcement proceedings brought by Lady Barclay against her former husband, Sir Frederick Barclay, following their divorce.
  • 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.
  • Tsvetkov v Khayrova [2023] EWFC 130 – Represented the wife in a long running case concerning financial provision following divorce. During the proceedings, the British/Russian couple found themselves the subject of significant press interest which required careful management. FLiP successfully defended against the Husband’s attempt  to argue for a departure from 50/50 in his favour.
  • Xanthopoulos v Rakshina [2023] EWFC 50 – FLiP successfully represented a Russian national in a long-running case concerning financial provision following a divorce in Russia (Part III MFPA 1984, the “Part III Application”).
  • 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 – 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 by the father. His appeal was dismissed.
  • 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.  The court held that despite the legal title being registered in the name of our client, she held it on trust for her brother.
  • J v J (Return to Non-Hague Convention Country)  [2021] EWHC 2412 (Fam) – Advising the father in a case concerning the return of a child to India following the abduction of the child by the mother.
  • AA and BB [2021] EWFC 17 – FLiP represented the mother in a case concerning competing children proceedings in England and in Russia. The High Court determined (as argued by FLiP) 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.
  • Re X (Children) (Article 61 BIIa) [2021] EWCA Civ 1305 – This was the appeal from the case referred to above. The Court of Appeal said that the judge was wrong to say that Article 13 Hague Convention applied to the first in time rules as between the UK (then in the transition period to becoming a non-EU state) and Russia.  The Court of Appeal said that, if the children were habitually resident in the UK then the European regulation (BIIa) would apply.
  • Re AA [2021] EWFC 17 – a children case issued before the end of the Brexit transition period where a lis pendens situation arose between the UK and a 1996 Hague Convention country that is not a signatory to Brussels II Revised. The Court decided that the 1996 Hague Convention, not Brussels II Revised should apply.
  • YM v NM [2020] EWFC 13 – a case which provides the test for Maintenance Pending Suit applications made before the determination of a set aside application of a (clean break) consent order. The Judge held that the Court should be slow to grant interim relief where the ultimate entitlement to such relief remains in dispute. The Court must be satisfied that the applicant is likely to succeed in the set aside application. The case also reaffirmed the test for applying for a freezing injunction.
  • Dobson v Griffey [2018] EWHC 1117 (Ch) – a case concerning the entitlement of an unmarried couple to the proceeds of sale of the property in which they had previously lived together.
  • 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

Our People


We have some of the very best London divorce lawyers and mediators, along with accomplished arbitrators, family consultants and counsellors. There’s no one better to handle your case.


Team of Family Lawyers Talking