James is a managing associate solicitor within our family team. Prior to joining Grosvenor Law in 2020, James worked at a leading family law practice also based in Mayfair.
James advises in all areas of private family law, including divorce and financial remedy proceedings, nuptial agreements, cohabitation issues and private children matters. Many of the disputes James deals with have complex financial and/or international elements and his clients largely consist of high net worth individuals or ultra-high net worth individuals. Many of James’ cases are heard in the High Court and Court of Appeal.
Examples of James’ recent work are:
Ravendark Holdings Ltd v Rotenberg & Ors  EWCA Civ 1661: James acted for a Russian oligarch husband who had extraordinary wealth in his Court of Appeal proceedings. The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant’s appeal against an order that it held property on resulting trust for the husband where the property was purchased using funds loaned to it by another company (owned beneficially by the husband) and the loan was found not to be a sham. In such circumstances, the property could not be held on resulting trust. The husband supported the applicant’s appeal.
XW v XW  EWFC 76: James acted for the husband in relation to a departure from equality due to special contribution. The husband’s shareholding in a tech start-up company had been valued at £370m and the total assets were £500m. Mr Justice Baker was satisfied that the ‘husband’s contribution to the growth in value of the business assets during the marriage [came] within the concept of special contribution’.
S v S (Application to prevent solicitor from acting)  EWHC 2660 (FAM): James acted for the wife in relation to an application made by the husband asking for an order that the wife’s legal representatives be debarred from acting for their client because the husband had an initial consultation with the wife’s legal team prior to either party signing a retainer. The husband’s legal team argued that the wife’s legal team were privy to confidential, privileged information and therefore in conflict. Mr Justice Williams found that no such information had been disclosed and that the husband had visited a number of law firms with the purpose of conflicting them. The husband’s application was dismissed and costs followed the event.
James acted for a prominent Bollywood actress in Schedule 1 proceedings and Children Act proceedings.
James acted for the wife in her financial remedy and Children Act proceedings against her husband, who was the lead singer of a household known rock band and resisted applications from the media to report on the case.