Ulrike Ramsay

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.