• About Us
  • Our People
    • Our Barristers
    • Our Staff
    • Join Us
  • Our Work
    • Children: Private
    • Children: Public
    • Court of Protection
    • Family Finance
    • International
    • Fees and Timescales
    • Policies
  • Public Access
  • Dispute Resolution
  • Insight
    • News
    • Seminars & Events
    • Cases
    • Publications
  • Contact
020 7242 0858
  • About Us
  • Our People
    • Our Barristers
    • Our Staff
    • Join Us
  • Our Work
    • Children: Private
    • Children: Public
    • Court of Protection
    • Family Finance
    • International
    • Fees and Timescales
    • Policies
  • Public Access
  • Dispute Resolution
  • Insight
    • News
    • Seminars & Events
    • Cases
    • Publications
  • Contact
David Sharp
PRINT PDF

David Sharp

barrister

Call: 1986

dsharp@fourteen.co.uk
  • Profile
  • News
  • Publications

David Sharp was educated at Oxford University and has been in private practice at the Bar in England and Wales for over 36 years, specialising for the last 26 years in family work and cohabitation disputes.  David has been involved in several high profile cases that have attracted the attention of the national media, and a number of other cases at the forefront of legal developments in the field of family law.  David also has a wealth of practical experience in relation to the realities of family life, having been married for 34 years and having 5 children.

Specialist in:

David also acts in private cases including child arrangements, changes of name and other specific issues and prohibited steps orders. He specialises in leave to remove from the jurisdiction. He has, amongst others, dealt with relocation to France, Spain, Ireland, USA, Australia, New Zealand, Morocco, Canada, Tanzania, Cyprus, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone and Israel. Instability in the country concerned did not prevent David securing leave (examples include the last 3 countries mentioned).

David has acted for many years for local authorities, parents and guardians in public law proceedings, being involved in a number of important guideline cases and dealing with serious and complex sexual and physical abuse allegations.  He appeared in Re K & H [2006] EWCA Civ 1898, the guideline case on interim care orders.

Reported cases
17th February 2022 | Bailii

Re: L (Fact-Finding Hearing: Fairness) [2022] EWCA Civ 169; [2022] 2 FLR 1245

A judge is at liberty to depart from the Local Authority threshold document in making findings of fact against a parent, including a finding of a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, so long as a parent has a reasonable opportunity to put his case on any additional matters and there is procedural fairness. The further the findings of fact deviate from the threshold document the more caution must be shown in ensuring fairness to the parent.

PDF
7th August 2020 | Bailii

KN (A Child) (Art 15 Transfer) [2020] EWCA Civ 1002; [2021] 1 FLR 617

David’s successful appeal against a decision, of the Court’s own motion, by HHJ Wright at the CFC to transfer care proceedings to France under Brussels IIA, Article 15. He represented the Mother, who opposed the transfer. The Court of Appeal agreed with David, for a range of reasons, that the French Court was not better placed to hear the case and the transfer would not be in the best interests of the 13 year old boy, who was the subject of the proceedings. The Court also allowed the appeal on the basis that the Court below had not given sufficient notice to the parties it was contemplating the transfer, as required by FPR 12.64. In addition, the Court of Appeal gave important guidance on the proper use of Articles 55 and 56 of Brussels IIA.

PDF
2nd April 2020 | Bailii

N (A Local Authority) v RK & Others [2020] EWFC 25

In a ‘remote’ final hearing of care proceedings, Mostyn J approved the Local Authority’s care plan for the child, EK, to be made subject to Care and Placement Orders. David Sharp represented the child, through his Children’s Guardian. For Eleanor Clotworthy’s article on the procedural issues raised by conducting the hearing remotely by Skype for Business, published online by “It’s a Lawyer’s Life”, please click here

This was the first full tirla of care proceedings by Skype.

PDF
23rd January 2020 | Bailii

Hertfordshire County Council v AK and another [2020] EWHC 139 (Fam)

Deprivation of liberty orders should only be made if a child’s current circumstances justify the making of one. They should not be made on a contingent or anticipatory basis for such unspecified time when a child’s circumstances deteriorate.

PDF
1st May 2015

Re B (Leave to Defend Adoption) [2015]

David represented the prospective adopters in the sequel to the well known Supreme Court case, in which adoption was described as “the last resort” to be confined to cases where “nothing else will do”.

20th December 2006

In the Matter of K & H (Children) [2006] EWCA Civ 1898

Children are not to be removed from parents under an interim care order unless it was in the interests of their safety and a high standard had to be met and applied

PDF
30th July 1992

W v Hertfordshire County Council [1993] 1 FLR 118

Care — Care proceedings — Children Act 1989 — Local authority applying for interim care orders for three children — Justices declining to make orders in respect of two children — Justices announcing decision without stating findings of fact or reasons — Whether decision vitiated — Whether matter should be remitted for rehearing — Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) rules 1991, r 21(5),(6)

PDF

David has conducted a large number of multi-million pound cases; assets include complicated offshore and discretionary trust arrangements, share option schemes, large scale property portfolios, farms and even a medieval priory.  David handled the Mareva proceedings in the case of Clark v Clark, which became front page news in the national press, and represented the estate of Chigusa Maeda Turner, whose murder by her husband, in Venezuela, also made national news.

David also deals in Inheritance Act cases and cases under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989.

David has advised and/or represented clients in well over 80 cohabitation cases concerning the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, a significant number also involving proceedings under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989. He has had only three adverse results in all this time, which he hopes one day to get over!

David advises and represents clients in cases involving the inherent jurisdiction, child abduction, international adoptions and in various kinds of case with an international element.

A Borough Council v B [2024]

These were care Proceedings where David represented the children. The LA plan was to move the children to their father’s care under a child arrangements order. The legal test the Court should apply was disputed. The Mother argued that, as these were public law proceedings, the public law test for a removal under an ICO should apply, in other words that the children’s immediate physical, psychological or emotional safety required their removal from the Mother’s care. It was argued by David on behalf of the children that the private law test for an interim switch of “lives with” arrangements applied as this was a private law order moving children from one parent to another. This was a less sharp interference with family life than placing children in foster care and was more likely to be a proportionate response to the concerns. This required simply application of the welfare test and “compelling reasons” for such a switch at an interim stage. The Court adopted the latter private law test and made the child arrangements order for the children to live with the Father at this interim stage.

Re AW (Children) EWHC 2021-2023

DHCJ Richard Harrison KC. 3 children, 17, 11 and 10. Parents convicted of ABH and kidnapping from foster care re the eldest child. David represented the Father. The issues were about whether the younger children could safely be cared for in the local Romany community and within the family network, when unable to return to the care of the parents. LA applied under s34(4) CA 1989 to stop all direct contact to the Father, as it was alleged the Father had secretly passed a phone number to the children at contact in the prison, to arrange to be “collected” by his associate. An order was made, but David argued successfully it could be time limited and the order was made for only 2 years.

A County Council v W [2023]

High Court case where subject girl, a Hong Kong citizen, was taken into care after the Mother was filmed in England severely beating her. The Father and the Paternal Aunt wanted to care for her in HK. The child did not want to go back to HK as she feared that neither the Father nor the Aunt, otherwise able carers, would protect her from the Mother. Both Father and Aunt had to come here to give sworn evidence as it was decided remote sworn evidence from HK needed permission from the Chinese government. While wardship to the HK High Court might give some protection, it was held the child was being reasonable to fear for her safety and in those circumstances it would be too emotionally harmful to send her back to HK.

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v A [2023]

Care Proceedings, whereby the LA was seeking care and placement orders re a boy of 14 months. The Mother and Father had longstanding drug and alcohol addictions they had failed to tackle and a domestically abusive relationship, whereby the Father, according to the Mother, was coercively controlling and at various times, had strangled, punched, and stamped on the Mother, slammed her face into objects, broken her collar bone and set her home on fire. The Father had various criminal matters outstanding, including possession with intent to supply a large quantity of class A drugs. The domestic violence was proved. The issue arose as to whether a condition could be placed on any adoption that there must be face to face contact with siblings from the birth family. This was very important to the Mother. It was held that while the care and placement orders should be made, the care plan was approved only on condition, as argued by David, that the pool of adopters was restricted to those who would facilitate sibling face to face contact, unless and until it could be demonstrated, after a search of 6 months, that no such adopters could be found.

Re: L (Fact-Finding Hearing: Fairness) [2022] EWCA Civ 169; [2022] 2 FLR 1245  A judge is at liberty to depart from the Local Authority threshold document in making findings of fact against a parent, including a finding of a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, so long as a parent has a reasonable opportunity to put his case on any additional matters and there is procedural fairness. The further the findings of fact deviate from the threshold document the more caution must be shown in ensuring fairness to the parent.

KN (A Child) (Art 15 Transfer) [2020] EWCA Civ 1002; [2021] 1 FLR 617 David’s successful appeal against a decision, of the Court’s own motion, by HHJ Wright at the CFC to transfer care proceedings to France under Brussels IIA, Article 15. He represented the Mother, who opposed the transfer. The Court of Appeal agreed with David, for a range of reasons, that the French Court was not better placed to hear the case and the transfer would not be in the best interests of the 13 year old boy, who was the subject of the proceedings. The Court also allowed the appeal on the basis that the Court below had not given sufficient notice to the parties it was contemplating the transfer, as required by FPR 12.64. In addition, the Court of Appeal gave important guidance on the proper use of Articles 55 and 56 of Brussels IIA.

N (A Local Authority) v RK & Others [2020] EWFC 25 In a ‘remote’ final hearing of care proceedings, Mostyn J approved the Local Authority’s care plan for the child, EK, to be made subject to Care and Placement Orders. David Sharp represented the child, through his Children’s Guardian. For Eleanor Clotworthy‘s article on the procedural issues raised by conducting the hearing remotely by Skype for Business, published online by “It’s a Lawyer’s Life”, please click here

This was the first full trial of care proceedings by Skype.

Hertfordshire County Council v AK and another [2020] EWHC 139 (Fam) Deprivation of liberty orders should only be made if a child’s current circumstances justify the making of one. They should not be made on a contingent or anticipatory basis for such unspecified time when a child’s circumstances deteriorate.

Re B (Leave to Defend Adoption) [2015] David represented the prospective adopters in the sequel to the well known Supreme Court case, in which adoption was described as “the last resort” to be confined to cases where “nothing else will do”.

In the Matter of K & H (Children) [2006] EWCA Civ 1898 Children are not to be removed from parents under an interim care order unless it was in the interests of their safety and a high standard had to be met and applied

W v Hertfordshire County Council [1993] 1 FLR 118 Care — Care proceedings — Children Act 1989 — Local authority applying for interim care orders for three children — Justices declining to make orders in respect of two children — Justices announcing decision without stating findings of fact or reasons — Whether decision vitiated — Whether matter should be remitted for rehearing — Family Proceedings Courts (Children Act 1989) rules 1991, r 21(5),(6)

What the directories say

“David has good analytical skills. He communicates very well with vulnerable clients, and can quickly get to the main issues in a case.”
Legal500 2025

“David is a very strong advocate who always has a thorough grasp of all the documents in a given case. His legal knowledge is incredible.”
Legal500 2024

 

Awards

Award icon

Award icon

Professional Memberships

Family Law Bar Association
New South Wales Bar

Data Protection

David Sharp's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) registration number is Z4705873.
Please see here for his Data Privacy Notice.

2nd October 2024
FOURTEEN recognised in the Legal500 as a “go-to set” with “a strong choice of barristers”
5th October 2023
FOURTEEN recognised in The Legal 500 as a boutique chambers with great practitioners
26th March 2020
David Sharp successfully opposed a Deprivation of Liberty Order
23rd July 2020
David Sharp & Christopher Miller co-author “Orphans – are some of them prejudiced by the Children Act 1989? Can this be remedied” [2020] Fam Law 883
7th March 2014
Parental Responsibility – Where Next? Issue 606, Family Law Journal
7th August 2000
Paternity Testing – Time to update the Law? Issue 560, Family Law Journal
SHARE/PRINT
SHARE/PRINT TWITTER LINKEDIN EMAIL
PRINT PDF
SHARE/PRINT
TWITTER LINKEDIN EMAIL
PRINT PDF
Fourteen

FOURTEEN
14 Gray’s Inn Square
London WC1R 5JP

T:020 7242 0858

E:clerks@fourteen.co.uk

ranked in Chambers UK Bar 2025
Leading set legal 500 UK 2025
Family Law Awards 2024 finalist from Lexis Nexis

Designed by: Mash. Managed by Square Eye Ltd.
© FOURTEEN 2025. All rights reserved.
Barristers regulated by the Bar Standards Board
  • Contact
  • Policies
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}