- 01303 662 023
- clerks@anvilchambers.co.uk
- Ingles Manor, Castle Hill Avenue, Folkestone, Kent. CT20 2RD
Menu
ACTING FOR – Applicant Wife WHICH COURT – Family Court at Medway. OUTCOME – After hearing the evidence from both parties and the additional witnesses, on the last day of the final hearing, Emma was able to successfully negotiate a settlement between the parties, prior to the judgment being given
ACTING FOR – Applicant Mother. WHICH COURT – Maidstone Family Court. OUTCOME –Despite the Applicant not attending due to childcare issues and the Respondent not turning up, Emma successfully obtained a Non-Molestation Order for the Applicant. The court was not minded in the first instance to make the order. Emma
Acting for a father who, despite a long list of convictions, had been enjoying prolonged and regular contact with his children. The mother made the unilateral choice to stop contact, forcing the father to apply to the court for a child arrangements order. At court, the mother reluctantly agreed to
ACTING FOR – Applicant Father. WHICH COURT – Canterbury Family Court. OUTCOME – John’s client was convicted of assaulting his ex-partner’s husband in front of the child. After many applications to court and several CAFCASS and Local Authority reports, all recommendations were against there being any kind of contact. However,
ACTING FOR – Applicant.WHICH COURT – Dartford County Court.OUTCOME – In a Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (Tolata) the Applicant had been excluded from a property of which she was a joint owner for many years. Negotiations had been ongoing but were unsuccessful. Having issued at
ACTING FOR – Applicant husband. WHICH COURT – Maidstone Family Court. OUTCOME – In this case the wife had been controlling all of the money running through the company allowing the husband only limited access to funds while drawing a substantial salary on her own part. This, despite the fact
ACTING FOR – Applicant Father. WHICH COURT – Canterbury Family Court. OUTCOME – John’s client was convicted of assaulting his ex-partner’s husband in front of the child. After many applications to court and several CAFCASS and Local Authority reports, all recommendations were against there being any kind of contact. However,
ACTING FOR – Applicant Father. WHICH COURT – Canterbury Family Court. OUTCOME – The father was faced with a number of allegations of sexual and physical abuse over a number of years. John firstly successfully represented his client in resisting applications for Non-Molestation Orders. Following this it was necessary to
ACTING FOR – Defendant. WHICH COURT – Medway County Court. OUTCOME – Following an unsuccessful mediation, the matter was listed for a one-day fast track trial. It was necessary to challenge the evidence of an expert witness, who was persuaded that perhaps the evidence they initially gave (against our client)
ACTING FOR – Applicant Father. WHICH COURT – Medway Family Court. OUTCOME – Following a dispute ongoing for the entirety of the children’s lives it was possible to challenge multiple Social Services reports and persuade a court to order contact for an estranged father. INTERESTING POINTS – This case had
ACTING FOR – Applicant Mother WHICH COURT – Dartford Family Court OUTCOME – Following a length dispute between parents where mother had mental health difficulties, a lengthy and detailed regime of contact was reinstated following successful arguments in Court.
In a private children family law case, John acted for the respondent mother in a dispute resolution appointment in the Dartford Family Court, instructed by solicitors in Medway. The applicant father sought child arrangements orders stopping the mother from having access/ contact with the children due to her history of
Family Court at Dartford Dartford County Court John’s client, the Claimant, was in the process of negotiating a matrimonial finance settlement with her ex-husband, when the ex-husband died. This meant a complete change of applicable law, going from the Family Procedure Rules to the Civil Procedure Rules. The client was
Family Court at Bromley In a case involving a Premiership footballer, John advised on procedural matters, case funding, and failure to provide maintenance (spouse and child). The case particularly highlighted: the difficulties in a case where one party holds all of the wealth. John was able to advise the client
Family Court at Canterbury John acted for the Respondent husband in a complex case involving property held under ancient trusts by a university. The case centred on arguments about the true trading value of the various aspects of the farm’s businesses – including stabling, grazing, livery and riding tuition as
Family Court at Dartford In financial remedy proceedings acting for the applicant wife, John secured the equivalent of 75% of the overall matrimonial assets available for distribution. The husband sought to argue exceptional contributions. John conducted a lengthy, detailed examination of the witnesses in court to persuade the judge that
Family Court at Canterbury The husband had paid substantial maintenance to the applicant wife for a number of years, and then fallen on financial hard times. John successfully argued that such contributions were exceptional, having compared the husband’s lifestyle to that of the wife, and that the entire case should
Family Court at Bromley The husband, a financial expert, was suspected of hiding away significant financial assets. The wife was unable to afford legal representation to trial, and was considering giving up. The husband was refusing to negotiate at all, and was waiting for the wife to run out of
Family Court at Canterbury John was asked to advise the proposed Claimant in a potential claim against the proposed Defendants regarding the estate of the deceased. The deceased held a property portfolio with a value of £2m and the proposed Defendant ex-spouse of the deceased sought to administer the entire
Family Court at Canterbury On behalf of the respondent mother in a private law children case, John persuaded the court that there should be no direct contact between father and child, despite CAFCASS recommendations being in favour of such contact. This case required John to:
Family Court at Medway John represented the respondent mother where a father had made an application for the child to live with him. His client needed support as because of her age, mental health, and having suffered domestic abuse by the father. John persuaded the court to order that the