barrister
Call: 2004
David Merrigan’s practice at the Bar is a broad spectrum of all aspects of family law. He is noted for his pragmatic approach, focussed advocacy and supportive manner with clients.
David has written various professional articles on a variety of family law issues; and presented numerous lectures and seminars on case law updates in both private and public law.
David has a particular interest in the education of future barristers; and works with the Bar Standards Board in setting and marking examination questions, on the topics of civil litigation and ethics.
David has been appointed to sit as a Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) and as a Deputy District Judge in County Courts.
Specialist in:
David is instructed to act on behalf of both parents and children in complex private law disputes, especially involving alleged parental or domestic abuse. He has particular experience of litigation concerning schooling, and the internal relocation of children.
Re C & A (Children: Acquisition and Discharge of Parental Responsibility by an Unmarried Father) [2023] EWHC 516 (Fam)
David represented a party who, having been registered as the child’s biological father, was subsequently demonstrated not to be. The question was whether a welfare analysis is required before the party’s parental responsibility may be removed.
David regularly appears on behalf of local authorities, parents and children’s guardians in cases involving complex expert medical evidence and/or fact-finding. He has particular experience of working with vulnerable parents with learning disabilities.
Re X [2021] EWFC B85
David represented a father in especially acrimonious care proceedings, where a seven-year-old had been in court proceedings for six of those years. It was alleged that the father had misused his parental responsibility in such a way that had directly led to care proceedings being commenced. The question was what contact, in the context of the manner he was said to have engaged with proceedings, he should have with the child.
N (Children: Care Orders) [2014] EWFC B194 (30 July 2014)
David represented a father of children with various learning and other difficulties, in a case centring on whether adequate specialist support could be provided to the parents to care for the children.
OCC v K (Care Orders) [2021] EWFC B52 (16 September 2021)
David represented a mother of older children in proceedings where significant issues were raised as to her ability to perceive and manage risks to the children’s safety. The live issues were whether the children should remain with the mother; if not, the amount of contact the children should have with her and each other; and arrangements for family therapy unavailable on the NHS.
David regularly represents parties in both larger and smaller money cases, both under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1971 and Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989; including on matters of injunctive relief.
Seiden v Fularon [2008] EWCA Civ 1548
The application concerned the setting aside of decree nisi arising from a bigamous marriage.
O’Connell v Lovell (divorce: property) [2017] EWFC B99 (21 December 2017)
David represented a wife declined to move out of the family home following an order for sale at the conclusion of financial remedy proceedings. The unusual aspect was that the final order included an undertaking given by the wife that she would move out even if the property were not yet sold and the lump sum ordered not yet paid to her. The husband applied to enforce the undertaking; the wife argued that, as events turned out, she had nowhere else to go and should be released from her undertaking pending sale. The question was whether she should be released and, if not, whether a committal order could or should be made against her.
David has considerable experience of international relocation, including Hague Convention cases.
H v R [2021] EWHC 2024 (Fam)
David represented the mother in a matter where there was dispute as to whether the child was habitually resident in this jurisdiction or Pakistan. The main question was whether an agreement between the parents permitting the child to study in Pakistan was envisaged to be open-ended or only temporary and, whether temporary or not, whether and when the child’s habitual residence changed to Pakistan.
