Ian Halliday - Head of Family

Case of Interest include:

 Re North Somerset Council v W & B (2016/17) A case on behalf of the respondent mother involving a fact finding hearing to establish the causation of unexplained bruising and a suspected fracture to a child under one year old.

Re London Borough of Hillingdon v B & R (2018) A case on behalf of the respondent father in which the local authority’s request for a placement order in respect of a child with autism was successfully resisted and his links with his birth family preserved.

Re Bristol City Council v J & R (2018) Appearing for a father with profound learning difficulties and successfully appealing against a finding at first instance that he lacked capacity to participate in the proceedings in his own right.

Re Cardiff City Council v A & A (2018) Appearing for a father, who spoke little English, in a case where his young son had allegedly been seriously scalded, father’s case being that the expert evidence was in error as to causation of his son’s injuries.

Re GCC v N & Others (2017/18 and continuing) Appearing on behalf of a non-resident father at a two-month fact-finding hearing during which it was alleged that the resident mother had exposed my client’s child to the risk of sexual exploitation within the mother’s extended family.

Case of Interest include:

Re A, L & A (2014) A High Court case for the respondent mother where the applicant father alleged that the mother had at one time abducted the children and had subsequently subjected them to such a barrage of misinformation about him that the children exhibited “parental alienation syndrome”.

Re J v J (2018) A contested multi-day fact-finding hearing at which it proved possible to demonstrate the truthfulness of the respondent mother’s allegations of domestic abuse despite the general lack of corroborating evidence.

Re M v G (2018) A change of residence application on behalf of the applicant father who had to show that he had put his history of domestic abuse and drug dealing behind him.

Case of Interest include:

Re G v G (2016) A case on behalf of the applicant wife, who alleged that the respondent husband had entered into a sham arrangement with his mistress to disguise the true level of his earnings/earning capacity.

Re H v H (2018) A case involving the division of an army pension complicated by the fact of the respondent husband being medically discharged from the army and seeking to make a new career in a less remunerative occupation to accommodate his physical difficulties.

Re P v S (2018) A case on behalf of the respondent husband in which the wife’s argument for an unequal division of assets in order to secure her in the FMH (and thus preserve the possibility of their children attending the local secondary school) was defeated.