JAMES BROOMHALL

Associate

James is an 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 James has experience in the Court of Appeal.

Examples of James’ recent work are:

  • XW v XW [2017] EWFC 76: Acting 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) [2017] EWHC 2660 (FAM): Acting 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.
  • Acting for the wife in relation to ongoing ancillary relief proceedings where the husband refused to maintain his spouse pending a final order. An application was issued for maintenance pending suit and the presiding Judge agreed with the wife’s quantification of her needs. The husband was ordered to pay the wife’s legal fees in relation to the application.
  • Acting for the father to resist a relocation application.
  • Acting for both the mother and father in applications for contact.