Alistair Myles
Partner
Email | Call | vCard | LinkedIn
Get Started Online with Alistair
Alistair is a specialist family law solicitor with over 17 years of experience working in the frontline of family law, including cases that have re-shaped and progressed the law.
His main specialism is in dealing with difficult financial cases, including complications arising from international elements and sophisticated asset structures, as well as the individual characteristics of a particular case. Alistair is an expert in private children matters, including applications for a parent to move abroad with their children, and disputes concerning day-to-day arrangements for children.
Recognised as one of 100 “Future Leaders” (Citywealth) and one of the top 20 family and matrimonial lawyers in the UK (Citywealth 2020), Alistair is also ranked as a leading individual in the Legal 500, Chambers & Partners and Chambers HNW guides.
Alistair acts for a wide range of clients, including business owners and individuals working in finance in London. As well as financial cases on divorce, Alistair is often instructed to draft and advise on pre- and post-nuptial agreements.
Alistair is a member of Resolution and AIJA, the International Association of Young Lawyers. He also volunteers as a student advisor at the pro bono BPP Family Law Advice Clinic.
A bit more about Alistair…
-
2008 Trained Levison Meltzer Pigott, qualified
2015 Partner, Levison Meltzer Pigott
2021 Founding Partner Ribet Myles
-
Resolution
AIJA - International Association of Young Lawyers
-
Haley v Haley [2020] EWCA Civ 1369
R and K [2020] EWHC 841 (Fam)
Vasilyeva v Shemyakin [2019] EWHC 932 (Fam)
MH v MH (Case C-173/16) [2017] ILPr 23, 503
MH v MH [2015] IEHC 771
RC (Mother) v AB (Father) [2015] EWHC 1693 (Fam)
US v SR (No.3 Needs) (Adverse inferences/costs order reflecting litigation misconduct) [2014] EWFC 24
US V SR (No 2) (Legal Services Order: Undisclosed Assets) [2014] EWHC 2864 (Fam)
US v SR [2014] EWHC 175 (Fam)
Bhura v Bhura [2013] 2 FLR 44
AC v DC and others (No 2) [2012] EWHC 2420 (Fam)
AC v DC & Ors (Financial Remedy: Effect of s37 Avoidance Order) (No 1) [2012] EWHC 2032 (Fam)
JONES v JONES [2011] 1 FLR 1723
R v F (Schedule 1: Child Maintenance: Mother’s costs of contact proceedings)[2011] 2FLR 991 FD
J V J [2009] EWHC 2654 (Fam)
RE CHILD X (RESIDENCE AND CONTACT – RIGHTS OF MEDIA ATTENDANCE – FPR RULE 10.28(4)) [2009] EWHC 1728 (FAM)
CC v RC [2007] EWHC 2033 (Fam)
RE S (UNMARRIED PARENTS: FINANCIAL PROVISION) [2006] EWCA Civ 479
Reported cases
Haley v Haley
[2020] EWCA Civ 1369
Alistair acted in this landmark Court of Appeal case concerning the role of arbitration in family law disputes.
The case considered the circumstances in which a party can challenge an arbitrator's decision in financial remedy proceedings. The Court of Appeal confirmed that family arbitration awards are not immune from review and that the Family Court can refuse to approve an award where there is a real prospect that the arbitrator's decision was wrong.
The decision is widely regarded as one of the most important authorities on family arbitration. It clarified the relationship between arbitration and the Family Court and reinforced the principle that, whilst arbitration remains an effective and valuable method of resolving disputes, the court retains an important supervisory role in ensuring that outcomes are fair.
R and K
[2020] EWHC 841 (Fam)
Alistair acted in this important case concerning the role of arbitration in financial remedy proceedings following divorce.
The husband sought to challenge an arbitration award dealing with the division of the parties' assets. The High Court rejected the challenge and confirmed that parties who choose arbitration should generally expect the resulting award to be upheld and converted into a court order.
The case considered the circumstances in which arbitration awards can be challenged and helped shape the development of family arbitration law. It was subsequently considered by the Court of Appeal in the landmark case of Haley v Haley [2020] EWCA Civ 1369, which clarified the test to be applied when a party seeks to challenge an arbitration award in family proceedings.
Vasilyeva v Shemyakin
[2019] EWHC 932 (Fam)
Julian and Alistair acted for the wife in her successful application to pursue financial claims in England following a divorce obtained overseas.
The wife argued that the financial settlement she had received abroad did not fairly reflect the husband's true wealth and that there had been no equivalent process of full financial disclosure. The High Court agreed that there were substantial grounds for her claim to proceed in England.
The case highlights the circumstances in which the English courts may assist individuals who have divorced abroad but have not received a fair financial outcome, particularly where there are concerns regarding disclosure or the adequacy of the overseas award.
MH v MH (Case C-173/16)
[2017] ILPr 23, 503
Alistair acted in this important international family law case concerning which country's courts should deal with a divorce when proceedings have been issued in more than one jurisdiction.
The case considered when a court is deemed to have been first "seised" of divorce proceedings and therefore entitled to determine the dispute. The European Court confirmed that, in most cases, jurisdiction is established when the divorce application is lodged with the court, provided the applicant subsequently takes the necessary procedural steps to progress the case.
The decision provided important clarification for international families and remains a leading authority on jurisdiction disputes where competing divorce proceedings have been commenced in different countries.
MH v MH
[2015] IEHC 771
Alistair acted in this important international family law case concerning which country's courts should deal with a divorce when proceedings are issued in different jurisdictions.
The husband commenced judicial separation proceedings in Ireland whilst the wife issued divorce proceedings in England. The dispute centred on which court had been first "seised" of the case and therefore had priority to determine the parties' financial and matrimonial claims.
The decision provided important guidance on the timing of international divorce proceedings and highlighted the significance of jurisdiction in cross-border family disputes. It reinforced the principle that, where proceedings are issued in more than one country, determining which court was first seised can have a profound impact on the future conduct and outcome of the case.
RC (Mother) v AB (Father)
[2015] EWHC 1693 (Fam)
Alistair acted in this complex international children case concerning a mother's application to relocate permanently to Angola with the parties' child.
The case followed earlier proceedings in which the mother had wrongfully removed the child from England. Despite significant concerns regarding her past conduct, the Court carried out a detailed welfare assessment and concluded that the child's best interests would be served by relocating with his mother, subject to a number of safeguards designed to protect the father's ongoing relationship with the child.
The decision highlights the court's child-focused approach in international relocation cases and confirms that, even where a parent has previously acted improperly, the child's welfare will remain the court's paramount consideration.
US v SR (No.3 Needs)
[2014] EWFC 24
Julian and Alistair acted for the wife in the final stage of a complex financial remedy dispute involving serious non-disclosure and litigation misconduct by the husband.
When determining the parties' financial claims, the Court took account of the husband's conduct and the impact of his attempts to conceal assets and mislead the court. The Court also made a substantial costs order in the wife's favour, departing from the usual rule that each party bears their own legal costs in family proceedings.
The case demonstrates the potentially serious financial consequences of failing to provide full and frank disclosure and confirms that parties who engage in dishonest or obstructive conduct may face significant costs penalties.
US V SR (No 2)
[2014] EWHC 2864 (Fam)
Julian and Alistair acted for the wife in this important interim application during complex financial remedy proceedings involving allegations of hidden assets and non-disclosure.
The wife sought access to funds to enable her to continue pursuing her claims and bring the case to a final hearing. The Court ordered the release of funds from the husband's frozen bank account to meet her outstanding and future legal costs.
The decision demonstrates the court's willingness to ensure that one party is not prevented from pursuing a fair outcome because of a lack of access to resources, particularly where there are concerns regarding financial disclosure and the true extent of available assets.
US v SR
[2014] EWHC 175 (Fam)
Julian and Alistair acted for the wife in this high-value financial remedy case involving allegations of hidden assets, forged documents and serious litigation misconduct.
During the proceedings, the husband was forced into admitting that he had falsified bank statements and misrepresented his financial position in an attempt to conceal his income and substantial assets. The Court found his conduct to be a deliberate and sustained fraud on both the wife and the court.
The judgment provides important guidance on the circumstances in which the court can draw adverse inferences against a party who fails to give full and frank financial disclosure. It also demonstrates the serious consequences that can follow where a party seeks to conceal assets or mislead the court during divorce proceedings.
AC v DC and others (No 2)
[2012] EWHC 2420 (Fam)
Julian and Alistair acted for the wife in a substantial financial remedy claim involving business interests worth many millions of pounds, complex corporate structures and assets that had previously been transferred in an attempt to defeat the wife's claims.
Following a lengthy contested hearing, the Court awarded the wife a substantial share of the family's wealth and rejected a number of arguments designed to reduce the value of the assets available for division. The Court also found that millions of pounds had been dissipated and should be treated as if they remained available to the husband when calculating the financial settlement.
The case provides important guidance on the treatment of pre-marital wealth, the dissipation of assets and the division of complex business interests on divorce. It demonstrates the court's willingness to take a robust approach where attempts have been made to reduce the assets available for distribution between spouses.
AC v DC & Ors (Financial Remedy: Effect of s37 Avoidance Order) (No 1)
[2012] EWHC 2032 (Fam)
Julian acted for the wife in a complex financial remedy case involving an attempt to place assets beyond her reach through a series of trust and corporate structures.
The Court set aside the husband's transfer of shares worth approximately £54 million after finding that the transaction had been undertaken to defeat the wife's financial claims. The judgment confirmed that where a transaction is deliberately designed to frustrate a spouse's claims, the court has the power to treat the transfer as if it had never occurred.
The decision remains an important authority on the court's ability to unravel asset protection arrangements and recover assets that have been transferred to trusts or third parties in an attempt to avoid a fair financial settlement on divorce.
Jones v Jones
[2011] 1 FLR 1723
Alistair acted in this landmark Court of Appeal case concerning the treatment of business assets and pre-marital wealth on divorce.
The husband had established a successful business before the marriage, which increased substantially in value during the relationship. The Court considered how to distinguish between wealth that had been brought into the marriage and wealth that had been generated through the parties' efforts during the marriage.
The decision remains a leading authority on the treatment of business interests and non-marital assets. It confirmed that pre-marital wealth may justify a departure from equal sharing, whilst recognising that growth attributable to marital endeavour should generally be shared fairly between the parties.
R v F (Schedule 1: Child Maintenance: Mother’s costs of contact proceedings)
[2011] 2FLR 991 FD
Alistair acted in this important Schedule 1 Children Act case concerning whether a parent could be required to contribute towards the other parent's legal costs incurred in child-related proceedings.
The Court considered the circumstances in which financial provision can be ordered for the benefit of a child and confirmed that, in appropriate cases, funding may be provided to enable a parent to pursue litigation that is in the child's interests. The Court emphasised that any such award must be reasonable, proportionate and genuinely for the benefit of the child.
The decision provides important guidance on the court's powers to make financial provision in Schedule 1 cases and highlights its willingness, in appropriate circumstances, to ensure that financial inequality does not prevent issues concerning a child's welfare from being properly determined.
J V J
[2009] EWHC 2654 (Fam)
Alistair acted in this substantial financial remedy case involving complex business assets, allegations of undisclosed wealth and competing claims to a share of assets worth many millions of pounds.
The Court was required to determine the extent to which assets acquired before the marriage, together with growth in value after the parties' separation, should be taken into account when dividing the family's wealth. In doing so, it considered the application of the sharing principle in a case involving significant business interests and complex valuation issues.
The decision provides important guidance on the treatment of pre-marital and post-separation wealth and highlights the importance of full financial disclosure and careful preparation in high-value financial remedy proceedings.
Re Child X
[2009] EWHC 1728 (FAM)
Alistair acted in this important children case concerning the balance between freedom of the press and a child's right to privacy.
The proceedings involved a dispute over residence and contact arrangements for the child of a high-profile individual. Following changes to the Family Procedure Rules which permitted accredited journalists to attend family proceedings, the Court was asked to decide whether the media should be allowed access to the hearings.
The Court excluded the media, finding that publicity could have a detrimental impact on the child's welfare and the therapeutic work being undertaken to support the child. The decision confirmed that, whilst transparency in the family justice system is important, a child's welfare and privacy may justify restricting media access in appropriate cases.
CC v RC
[2007] EWHC 2033 (Fam)
Julian and Alistair acted in this substantial financial remedy case involving assets worth in excess of £20 million and a dispute over the extent of the husband's pre-marital wealth.
The husband argued that a significant proportion of the family's wealth had been accumulated before the marriage and should therefore be excluded from the sharing principle. The Court accepted that pre-marital wealth was a relevant factor, but cautioned against undertaking an overly detailed investigation into a party's financial position many years before the marriage.
The decision provides important guidance on the treatment of pre-marital assets in divorce proceedings and confirms that the court will adopt a practical and fair approach when determining the extent to which wealth generated before a marriage should influence the final outcome.
Re S (Unmarried Parents: Financial Provision)
[2006] EWCA Civ 479
Julian and Alistair acted for the father in this important Court of Appeal case concerning financial provision for children of unmarried parents.
The case considered the circumstances in which financial orders can be made under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 and, in particular, the meaning of a payment being made "for the benefit of the child". The Court confirmed that this concept should be interpreted broadly and that, in some situations, financial support provided to a parent may also benefit the child.
The decision remains an important authority on financial claims brought on behalf of children and the scope of the court's powers under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989.