barrister
Call: 1998
Christopher practises exclusively in family law and areas related to the breakdown of family relationships, such as applications brought under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and TLATA 1996. He is renowned for his meticulous attention to detail, persuasive advocacy and sympathetic, but direct, manner with clients.
Christopher has presented numerous lectures and seminars on diverse topics such as financial provision under sch 1 of the CA 1989, forensic testing for alcohol abuse, circumventing nuptial contracts, international relocation of children and court skills for non-legally trained professionals.
Christopher practises exclusively in family law and areas related to the breakdown of family relationships, such as applications brought under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and TLATA 1996. He is renowned for his meticulous attention to detail, persuasive advocacy and sympathetic, but direct, manner with clients.
Christopher has presented numerous lectures and seminars on diverse topics such as financial provision under sch 1 of the CA 1989, forensic testing for alcohol abuse, circumventing nuptial contracts, international relocation of children and court skills for non-legally trained professionals.
Specialist in:
Christopher is instructed to act on behalf of parents and children in the most complex of private law disputes, often involving alleged intractable hostility and/or serious allegations of parental abuse. He has extensive experience of litigation concerning the proposed permanent international relocation of children.
Christopher regularly appears on behalf of local authorities, parents and children’s guardians in cases involving complex expert medical evidence and/or disputed scientific evidence. He also has a particular interest in public law cases which have an interface with immigration or international issues.
Recent cases of note
Re JH (A child) March 2018
Christopher Miller represented the father of a child who had suffered significant intra-cranial and spinal bleeding linked with hypoxic-ischaemic brain damage and retinal haemorrhages. There was a consensus between 6 experts at an experts’ meeting that the child’s presentation was most likely as a result of an inflicted shaking or impact type injury. However, the parents’ team were able to identify features of the pathology which indicated that it was just as likely to have been caused by a combination of birth processes, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome and a spinal abnormality. The local authority withdrew the case half way through the fact-finding hearing and the child was returned to the parents’ care shortly thereafter.
Re CB (No. 3) (Adoption and Children Act 2002) [2015] EWHC 3274 (Fam)
Christopher Miller represented the Local Authority in the third reported judgment in these proceedings. Here, Moylan J deals with the proposed adopters’ application for an Adoption Order, which was opposed by the mother – supported by representations made on behalf of the Latvian authorities. The application was granted.
Re CB (A Child) (No. 2) (Adoption Proceedings: Vienna Convention) [2016] 1 FLR 1286, [2016] 2 WLR 470
The Court of Appeal provides definitive guidance on issues relating to the interface between ECHR Law, BIIa, the Vienna Convention and domestic adoption jurisprudence. The Latvian Ministry of Justice intervened in the appeal in opposition to the Local Authority and in support of the mother. The mother’s appeal was dismissed. Christopher Miller represented the Local Authority.
Re CB (A Child) (No. 1) (Adoption Application: Permission To Oppose) [2016] 1 FLR 1261
Christopher Miller represented the Local Authority in an application, made by the mother, for permission to oppose an adoption. The mother, supported by the Latvian authorities, applied for a transfer of the proceedings to the Latvian court under Art 15 Brussels II Revised, permission to oppose the adoption and contact. All three applications were refused by Moylan J
Re W (Residential Assessment) [2011] EWCA Civ 661; [2011] 2 FLR 1024
Care proceedings — Residential parenting assessment — Public funding of application — Mother mentally ill — Whether appropriate to order residential assessment before psychiatric report obtained — Whether mother’s application for residential assessment to be dismissed or adjourned — Funding considerations
Re S (Residential Assessment) [2008] EWCA Civ 1078; [2009] 2 FLR 397
Care proceedings — Residential assessment — Delay — Mother’s behaviour — Risk that child would lose foster placement — Whether assessment required
Christopher regularly represents high net worth clients and appears in cases that involve issues such as foreign assets, trusts, nuptial agreements, linked POCA proceedings and complex business assets.
Recent cases of note
L v L October 2018
Matrimonial finance case involving a British Virgin Islands Trust owned by a Hong Kong Trustee. Complex issues involving the tax consequences of de-enveloping part or all of the trust in addition to whether or not the trust was a sham and, if not a sham, whether or not it was a nuptial settlement capable of being varied.
McN c McN and B v McN March 2017
Christopher represented the majority ultimate owner (through various offshore legal entities) of an oil brokerage company in actions brought against him under schedule 1 of CA 1989 by the mother of his youngest child and matrimonial finance proceedings brought by his ex-wife at a time when the multi-million dollar sale of his oil brokerage company in tranches was pending. Complex issues arose concerning the balancing of risk arising from aggressive taxation planning, currency fluctuation and contingent pricing of tranches of the company depending on future performance.
Christopher has been interested in the international movement of children and the conflict of laws from the outset of his career. He has represented clients in reported cases concerning the Hague Convention (abduction of children), Brussels II Revised and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations at both High Court and Court of Appeal level.
Re CB (A Child) (No. 2) (Adoption Proceedings: Vienna Convention) [2016] 1 FLR 1286, [2016] 2 WLR 470
The Court of Appeal provides definitive guidance on issues relating to the interface between ECHR Law, BIIa, the Vienna Convention and domestic adoption jurisprudence. The Latvian Ministry of Justice intervened in the appeal in opposition to the Local Authority and in support of the mother. The mother’s appeal was dismissed. Christopher Miller represented the Local Authority.
Re CB (A Child) (No. 1) (Adoption Application: Permission To Oppose) [2016] 1 FLR 1261
Christopher Miller represented the Local Authority in an application, made by the mother, for permission to oppose an adoption. The mother, supported by the Latvian authorities, applied for a transfer of the proceedings to the Latvian court under Art 15 Brussels II Revised, permission to oppose the adoption and contact. All three applications were refused by Moylan J
C v S [2014] EWHC 3799 (Fam)
Father’s application for the summary return of his son to Australia. Application granted.
“Will go above and beyond when preparing for cases, especially highly complex ones.”
“He’s very knowledgable and has a good commercial background, particularly in business and corporate structures. He’s good at understanding accounts and presenting them clearly in a simplified form that clients can comprehend. He can’t do enough for you.”
Chambers & Partners 2020
“Is committed to client care of the highest standard – he is meticulous in his preparation and his attention to details which is borne out in hs advocacy”
Legal 500 2020
“He’s an extremely confident and thorough advocate, who leaves no stone unturned.”
“A very cerebral barrister.”
Chambers & Partners 2019
“Has the ability to reduce the most difficult legal concepts to plain English that even a four year old could understand” – tier 2
The Legal 500, 2018
“Highly intellectual and someone with the ability to reduce the most difficult of legal concepts into plain English that a four year old can understand. He is well prepared and his advocacy skills have resulted in many impressive wins.”
Chambers & Partners 2018
“Highly recommended for public law matters” – tier 3
The Legal 500, 2017
“His attention to detail and preparation stand out as does the clarity with which he presents his case in court.”
Chambers & Partners 2017
“He responds quickly to queries and is willing to have discussions out of hours.”
The Legal 500, 2016
” He offers clear, thoughtful and persuasive advocacy. This is always accompanied by high-quality documentation and attention to detail. He also has a very pleasant, friendly and thoughtful manner with clients.”
Chambers & Partners 2016
“He’s a dream to work with as he’s highly conscientious”
Chambers & Partners 2015
“A solid practitioner, he is thorough and knows the law”
Chambers & Partners 2014
“An excellent advocate with great listening skills”
The Legal 500, 2014
“Exhibits sharp analytical skills, and is always quick to grasp the key issues”
The Legal 500, 2013
Family Law Bar Association
Lincoln’s Inn
