Victoria acts in matters involving complex contact and residence disputes, implacable hostility and issues of parental responsibility including schooling. Victoria is often instructed for fact-finding hearings concerning allegations of domestic abuse, sexual abuse, alcohol and drug misuse.

2nd February 2017

MS v MN [2017] EWHC 324 (Fam)

Mother’s appeal against an order for direct contact in the absence of a risk assessment when findings had been made of domestic violence. Appeal allowed, a risk assessment directed and remitted back for further consideration.

Moor J who heard the appeal criticised the judge for not having applied PD 12J or the relevant case law on contact when findings have been made of domestic violence. However, of equal significance in this case was the requirement in s.16A Children Act 1989 which requires a CAFCASS Officer to undertake a risk assessment for the benefit of the court if, carrying out his/her functions, the Officer suspects the child is at risk of harm. Cafcass recommended such a risk assessment however the judge refused the mother’s application for that assessment.

PDF

26th November 2015 | Bailii

W (Children) (Abduction: Striking Out) [2015] EWHC 4002 (Fam)

Application by the mother at the PTR to strike out the father’s application for the return of two children to Spain and, in the alternative, for permission to instruct a psychologist to assess the mother’s fear of the father. Both applications were refused by Baker J

PDF

19th May 2014 | Bailii

Re G (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 680; [2014] WLR (D) 220

The issue for determination was whether a consent order providing for temporary leave to remove a child from the jurisdiction was final and brought proceedings to an end. The Court of Appeal held that this question should be determined as things stood at the time the order was made and could not depend on what happened next in the family’s life or even on what would be a sensible and practical way of going about things. Appeal dismissed.

PDF

13th December 2013 | Bailii

CI v VG [2013] EWHC 4017 (Fam)

Whether an Order dealing with temporary removal from the jurisdiction was a final order concerning matters of parental responsibility within the meaning and understanding of Brussels II Revised.

PDF

S v I [2024] Three different welfare officers provided different views in respect of the parents, including whether they had seen evidence of parental alienation and recommendations for contact. It raised difficult questions for the court as to whose evidence to prefer when all three professionals come from the same body of experts (Cafcass). This was a factually complex, long running dispute which also involved admitted domestic violence towards the mother and children where there were also allegations of parental alienating behaviours which were ultimately not found because of the admitted domestic abuse.

L v L [2020] Victoria acted for the father in a highly acrimonious children dispute involving cross allegations of domestic abuse, parental alienation and abuse towards the child. Victoria successfully appealed an interim order for contact made by magistrates which limited his time with the child. The case was reallocated to a District Judge. Victoria then successfully overturned a decision to hold a separate fact-finding hearing following on from the successful appeal. Three Cafcass reports prepared by two officers gave similar recommendations which Victoria successfully argued against achieving an equal shared care arrangement for the father.

20th January 2015 | Bailii

London Borough of Richmond v Howell [2015] EWHC 104 (Ch)

Application for the mother in care proceedings to be committed to prison for contempt in not providing information as to the whereabouts of passports. Application granted.

PDF

Victoria’s practice is primarily focused on family finance, including jurisdictional disputes and/or assets located outside England and Wales, international child maintenance issues, cohabitation disputes and claims under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989. Recent cases have involved overseas and domestic pension arrangements, allegations of sham and complex offshore trusts. She also has experience in representing interveners in financial remedy proceedings.

K v K [2024] These were very complex financial proceedings involving a high-net-worth Indian family whose money largely derived from the post separation sale of a family company. Applications were made for the joinder of third parties and to set aside transfers which Victoria defended. Victoria was instructed to act for the Husband to protect the non-matrimonial wealth and argue that the wife’s award should be limited to a needs assessment alone.

M v M [2024]  A complex and hard-fought case involving £10m’s of restricted stock units held in a US company with arguments about post-separation accrual, needs and sharing. Issues of capacity arose at several points which culminated in an adjournment during the course of Victoria’s cross examination.

G v G [2024] Victoria acted for the Wife in financial remedy proceedings concerning multiple Jurisdictions. The Husband was from a Malaysian family with a significant net worth. There were issues over the concealment of assets on the husband’s side and the beneficial ownership of various properties overseas. It was a short marriage with a young child and a needs case. The matter required difficult arguments about needs, given the extreme wealth on the husband’s side but a nonetheless very modest standard of living during the marriage in the UK.

R v R & Ors [2020] Victoria was junior counsel acting for the 6th Respondent Foreign Company in ongoing financial litigation in the High Court and on appeal to the Court of Appeal. The case involved assets held by companies owned by a husband subject to EU sanctions. The issues concerned company law, foreign assets, telescoping of company assets and piercing the corporate veil.

AJ v DM [2019] EWHC 702 (Fam) Victoria acted for the wife in applications for MPS and LASPO. Complex jurisdictional issues involving both St Lucia and Australia. The court considered whether it has jurisdiction to award legal fees and maintenance with reference to the jurisdictional rules under the Maintenance Regulation and Brussels II Revised.

Victoria has particular expertise in international cases, especially child abduction cases, relocation, wardship and jurisdictional disputes.

Prior to joining Chambers, Victoria worked for two years (2010-2012) as lawyer to Lord Justice Thorpe, Head of International Family Justice for England and Wales, advising on legal issues relating to international child abduction and relocation. This work included specific issues arising under BIIR and the 1980 Hague Convention as well as responses to developments in European and international family law and policy. Victoria’s work featured in a number of judgments, including Tower Hamlets LBC v MK [2012] EWHC 426 (Fam) and O v P [2011] EWHC 2425 (Fam).

Victoria has lectured on the international movement of children, including to the judiciary and Hague Network of Judges. She has also been interviewed by BBC News, Radio 5 Live and Channel 4 News in relation to international child abduction, relocation and jurisdictional disputes. Victoria has also provided advise on English law in various jurisdictions including in America, India, St. Lucia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

Victoria was invited by the French Ministry of Justice to participate at a judicial conference on European Family Law in Paris and the German Ministry of Justice to participate at a similar conference in Berlin. In February 2014, she was invited by the President of the Family Division to act as rapporteur to the Family Justice Council’s interdisciplinary Conference.

In March 2015, she was awarded the International Professional and Legal Development Grant to attend the 10th Anglophone-Germanophone Conference in London, hosted by the judiciary of England and Wales.

27th January 2017

Medway Council v MI and others [2017] EWFC 59 (Fam)

Placement of children in Scotland. Theis J confirmed that special guardianship orders are recognised and enforceable in Scotland. Theis J said that whilst automatically recognised as though they were made in the Scottish courts, to enforce a SGO, the SG should make a registration application to the court that made the SGO.

PDF

11th March 2016 | Bailii

FK v ML (Chlid’s Objections) [2016] EWHC 517 (Fam)

Sir Peter Singer orders a 13 year old child’s return to Dublin, despite his strongly held objections to such return, in proceedings brought by the father under the Hague Child Abduction Convention 1980

PDF

26th November 2015 | Bailii

W (Children) (Abduction: Striking Out) [2015] EWHC 4002 (Fam)

Application by the mother at the PTR to strike out the father’s application for the return of two children to Spain and, in the alternative, for permission to instruct a psychologist to assess the mother’s fear of the father. Both applications were refused by Baker J

PDF

19th May 2014 | Bailii

Re G (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 680; [2014] WLR (D) 220

The issue for determination was whether a consent order providing for temporary leave to remove a child from the jurisdiction was final and brought proceedings to an end. The Court of Appeal held that this question should be determined as things stood at the time the order was made and could not depend on what happened next in the family’s life or even on what would be a sensible and practical way of going about things. Appeal dismissed.

PDF

13th December 2013 | Bailii

CI v VG [2013] EWHC 4017 (Fam)

Whether an Order dealing with temporary removal from the jurisdiction was a final order concerning matters of parental responsibility within the meaning and understanding of Brussels II Revised.

PDF

MS v MN [2017] EWHC 324 (Fam) Mother’s appeal against an order for direct contact in the absence of a risk assessment when findings had been made of domestic violence. Appeal allowed, a risk assessment directed and remitted back for further consideration.

Moor J who heard the appeal criticised the judge for not having applied PD 12J or the relevant case law on contact when findings have been made of domestic violence. However, of equal significance in this case was the requirement in s.16A Children Act 1989 which requires a CAFCASS Officer to undertake a risk assessment for the benefit of the court if, carrying out his/her functions, the Officer suspects the child is at risk of harm. Cafcass recommended such a risk assessment however the judge refused the mother’s application for that assessment.

Medway Council v MI and others [2017] EWFC 59 (Fam) Placement of children in Scotland. Theis J confirmed that special guardianship orders are recognised and enforceable in Scotland. Theis J said that whilst automatically recognised as though they were made in the Scottish courts, to enforce a SGO, the SG should make a registration application to the court that made the SGO.

FK v ML (Chlid’s Objections) [2016] EWHC 517 (Fam) Sir Peter Singer orders a 13 year old child’s return to Dublin, despite his strongly held objections to such return, in proceedings brought by the father under the Hague Child Abduction Convention 1980

W (Children) (Abduction: Striking Out) [2015] EWHC 4002 (Fam) Application by the mother at the PTR to strike out the father’s application for the return of two children to Spain and, in the alternative, for permission to instruct a psychologist to assess the mother’s fear of the father. Both applications were refused by Baker J

Re G (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 680; [2014] WLR (D) 220 The issue for determination was whether a consent order providing for temporary leave to remove a child from the jurisdiction was final and brought proceedings to an end. The Court of Appeal held that this question should be determined as things stood at the time the order was made and could not depend on what happened next in the family’s life or even on what would be a sensible and practical way of going about things. Appeal dismissed.

CI v VG [2013] EWHC 4017 (Fam) Whether an Order dealing with temporary removal from the jurisdiction was a final order concerning matters of parental responsibility within the meaning and understanding of Brussels II Revised.