• 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
Ulrike Ramsay
PRINT PDF

Ulrike Ramsay

barrister

Call: 2018

clerks@fourteen.co.uk
  • Profile
  • News

Ulrike Ramsay has a busy practice comprising of financial remedies and private children work, as well as applications under the Family Law Act 1996.

In terms of financial remedies work, Ulrike is frequently instructed on matters of complexity such as cases concerning foreign properties, company assets, intervenor claims, as well as conduct cases, in particular cases concerning financial and/or litigation misconduct. Before coming to the Bar, Ulrike worked as a paralegal at Burgess Mee Family Law where she assisted with high-value financial remedy cases.

In terms of private children work, Ulrike regularly represents parents, Guardians and other family members in a wide range of applications such as contact/residence disputes, schooling issues, urgent applications to prevent the removal of a child from a parent’s care/the jurisdiction, as well as cases concerning allegations of domestic violence.

Specialist in:

Ulrike has represented parents, Guardians and other family members at all stages of the litigation process including FHDRAs, DRAs, fact-finding hearings, and enforcement proceedings. Ulrike frequently achieves agreements between her clients and the other side. Further, Ulrike often appears in cases concerning domestic abuse. Examples of cases Ulrike has acted in include:

W v W: 2-day final hearing. Ulrike successfully represented the respondent mother. Following Ulrike’s cross-examination of the third party supervisor and Cafcass, the applicant father no longer sought to pursue his case for supervised overnight stays and agreed to pay towards the mother’s legal costs. The trial concluded by consent on day 2 without the parties having to give evidence.

M v M: DRA. Ulrike represented the respondent mother who had been to rehab for chronic excessive alcohol use and whose latest test results again showed chronic excessive use. Ulrike was successful in arguing that a further test covering the same period ought to be directed. Further, the father agreed that provided that a negative test result is received, contact should progress to unsupervised contact and following a further negative Peth test it should progress to unsupervised overnight stays.

O v O: 3-day FFH. Ulrike successfully represented the applicant father in a three-day fact-finding hearing including allegations of physical, emotional and verbal abuse.

Ulrike has represented clients at all stages of the litigation process, including FDAs, FDRs, multi-day final hearings, and enforcement proceedings. Ulrike is a skilled negotiator and has achieved many settlements for clients at FDAs or FDR, as well as at interim hearings in enforcement proceedings.  Examples of cases Ulrike has acted in include:-

K v K: 2-day final hearing. Ulrike represented the respondent wife and was successful in arguing that a delay of 15 years in bringing an application for financial remedies had to be taken into account when considering the division of assets, pursuant to Rossi v Rossi [2006] EWHC 1482 (Fam). Further, the court agreed that the reasons advanced by the applicant husband for the delay, namely a lack of funds and wanting to wait until children act proceedings had concluded, did not amount to a very good reason for the delay (Wyatt v Vince [2013] EWCA Civ 495).

F v O: 2-day final hearing: Ulrike represented the respondent husband and was successful in arguing that one of the Bulgarian properties were not matrimonial, that the husband paid money to the Wife for her to purchase a property in Morocco which she dissipated, and that debt incurred by the Wife in the weeks post-separation was non-matrimonial. The final order was exactly in line with the husband’s open offer.

S v K: 1-day final hearing: Ulrike successfully argued that a property in Canada was matrimonial property in light of the wife having undertaken management aspects of the letting of the property. The husband argued that due to him having purchased the property before the parties met, the parties only having lived in the property for a few weeks, and the FMH being a rental flat in London, the Canadian property should not be considered to be part of the marital acquest. The Canadian property was the only real asset in the case and the court ordered the sale and a division of the sale proceeds as to 60/40 in the wife’s favour.

W v W 2-day final hearing. Ulrike successfully represented the respondent mother. Following Ulrike’s cross-examination of the third party supervisor and Cafcass, the applicant father no longer sought to pursue his case for supervised overnight stays and agreed to pay towards the mother’s legal costs. The trial concluded by consent on day 2 without the parties having to give evidence.

M v M DRA. Ulrike represented the respondent mother who had been to rehab for chronic excessive alcohol use and whose latest test results again showed chronic excessive use. Ulrike was successful in arguing that a further test covering the same period ought to be directed. Further, the father agreed that provided that a negative test result is received, contact should progress to unsupervised contact and following a further negative Peth test it should progress to unsupervised overnight stays.

O v O 3-day FFH. Ulrike successfully represented the applicant father in a three-day fact-finding hearing including allegations of physical, emotional and verbal abuse.

K v K 2-day final hearing. Ulrike represented the respondent wife and was successful in arguing that a delay of 15 years in bringing an application for financial remedies had to be taken into account when considering the division of assets, pursuant to Rossi v Rossi [2006] EWHC 1482 (Fam). Further, the court agreed that the reasons advanced by the applicant husband for the delay, namely a lack of funds and wanting to wait until children act proceedings had concluded, did not amount to a very good reason for the delay (Wyatt v Vince [2013] EWCA Civ 495).

F v O 2-day final hearing: Ulrike represented the respondent husband and was successful in arguing that one of the Bulgarian properties were not matrimonial, that the husband paid money to the Wife for her to purchase a property in Morocco which she dissipated, and that debt incurred by the Wife in the weeks post-separation was non-matrimonial. The final order was exactly in line with the husband’s open offer.

S v K 1-day final hearing: Ulrike successfully argued that a property in Canada was matrimonial property in light of the wife having undertaken management aspects of the letting of the property. The husband argued that due to him having purchased the property before the parties met, the parties only having lived in the property for a few weeks, and the FMH being a rental flat in London, the Canadian property should not be considered to be part of the marital acquest. The Canadian property was the only real asset in the case and the court ordered the sale and a division of the sale proceeds as to 60/40 in the wife’s favour.

What the directories say

“Ulrike is an excellent barrister. She is direct, thorough and has a great client manner.”
Legal500 2025

Awards

Award icon

Testimonials

“Ulrike is an excellent advocate who truly cares about her clients” (professional client)

“Thank you for making this such a positive experience… not something I thought I would say! I am in awe of what you achieved for me with such calm determination!” (lay client)


Publications

  • ‘Delay in bringing financial remedy proceedings – what are the legal implications?’ Family Law Week (28th March 2024)

  • Data Protection

    Ulrike Ramsay’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) registration number is ZA897839.
    Please see here for her Data Privacy Notice.

    2nd October 2024
    FOURTEEN recognised in the Legal500 as a “go-to set” with “a strong choice of barristers”
    5th April 2024
    Ulrike Ramsay considers the legal implications in her article ‘Delay in bringing financial remedy proceedings- What are the Legal Implications?’ published in Family Law Week
    28th March 2024
    FOURTEEN welcomes Ulrike Ramsay
    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
    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}