Julian Ribet
Partner
Email | Call | vCard | LinkedIn
Get Started Online with Julian
Julian is a respected specialist family lawyer with a strong track record of dealing with complicated financial and children related disputes arising on relationship breakdown/divorce gathered over 20 years.
He’s highly rated by every legal directory (Chambers & Partners, Legal 500, Spears, and Citywealth); listed as one of the top 20 family lawyers in the UK (CityWealth) and ranked as a leading individual in Chambers UK Guide and Chambers HNW Guide.
Julian acts for domestic and international clients and is regularly instructed by high net worth individuals. His cases often involve tracing assets and unravelling complicated financial issues including dealing with inherited wealth, sophisticated offshore trusts, substantial business assets, family companies, tax and pensions.
Julian works with clients who are in the media spotlight including city professionals, entrepreneurs, owners of landed estates, those working in the sports and entertainment industries, politicians, and their spouses/partners, and also with international families directly, with their General Counsel or through their Family Office.
Julian is a member of Resolution. He is a Resolution Accredited Specialist Family Lawyer with particular expertise in complicated financial cases and freezing injunctions and is a Resolution trained "all issues" Mediator.
He is a qualified Family Arbitrator and is a Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.
A bit more about Julian…
-
1999 Trained Ambrose Appelbe, qualified
2000 Assistant, Levison Meltzer Pigott
2007 Partner, Levison Meltzer Pigott
2021 Founding Partner, Ribet Myles
-
Resolution
Association for Lawyers for Children
Stonyhurst Association
-
Reported cases
Williams v Williams
[2024] EWHC 733 (Fam)
Julian and Alison acted for the husband in this significant case concerning the finality of divorce orders. A final divorce order was mistakenly obtained by the wife's solicitors through the online divorce portal without their client's authority, and they then made an application to set it aside.
The President of the Family Division held that, despite the mistake, the divorce remained valid. The Court emphasised the importance of certainty and finality in matters affecting marital status and confirmed that a final divorce order will only be overturned in very limited circumstances.
The decision is an important reminder of the potentially significant consequences of obtaining a final divorce order before financial matters have been resolved and highlights the court's reluctance to disturb a final order once it has been made.
Marie-Therese Hohenberg Bailey v Anthony Bailey & Ors
[2022] EWFC 5
Julian, Georgina and Natasha acted for Princess Marie-Therese Hohenberg Bailey in a long-running dispute concerning the enforcement of financial orders made following divorce. Despite findings in the underlying financial remedy proceedings that the husband had been dishonest and had sought to frustrate the implementation of the court's orders, he continued to refuse to take steps required to enable the wife to receive her financial award. Following extensive enforcement proceedings, the Court found that the husband had acted in contempt of court and sentenced him to 12 months' imprisonment. Two third parties who had assisted in obstructing the implementation of the orders were also found in contempt.
The decision demonstrates the Family Court's willingness to take robust action where parties deliberately ignore court orders and seek to prevent the enforcement of financial awards. It highlights the extensive powers available to the court, including committal to prison, when faced with serious and persistent non-compliance.
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.
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
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 (No.1)
[2014] EWHC 175
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.
AM v SS
[2014] EWHC 865
Julian acted for the husband in one of the first reported cases concerning a Legal Services Payment Order, a type of order designed to ensure that a party can obtain legal representation during financial remedy proceedings.
The Court considered the circumstances in which one spouse should be required to contribute towards the other's legal costs and confirmed that an applicant must first demonstrate that they cannot reasonably fund the litigation through other means.
The decision provided important guidance on the approach to Legal Services Payment Orders and highlighted the court's role in ensuring that both parties are able to participate fairly in financial remedy proceedings.
AM v SS v WS
[2014] EWHC 2887
Julian acted for the husband in this complex financial remedy case concerning the true ownership of a number of high-value properties held by members of the husband's family.
The wife argued that several properties, although legally owned by the husband's father and sister, should be treated as assets belonging to the husband and therefore available for division within the divorce proceedings. Following a detailed examination of the evidence, the Court rejected those claims and found that the husband had no beneficial interest in the properties in question.
The case highlights the importance of establishing the true ownership of assets in financial remedy proceedings and demonstrates the court's careful approach when determining whether property held by third parties can properly be treated as a spouse's asset.
AM v SS
[2013] EWHC 4380
Julian acted for the husband in one of the first reported cases concerning a Legal Services Payment Order, a type of order designed to ensure that a party can obtain legal representation during financial remedy proceedings.
The Court considered the circumstances in which one spouse should be required to contribute towards the other's legal costs and confirmed that an applicant must first demonstrate that they cannot reasonably fund the litigation through other means.
The decision provided important guidance on the approach to Legal Services Payment Orders and highlighted the court's role in ensuring that both parties are able to participate fairly in financial remedy proceedings.
AC v DC and Others (No 2)
[2012] EWHC 2420
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 and Others (Financial Remedy: Effect of s37 Avoidance Order)
[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.
K v B
[2010] EWHC 2151
Julian acted for the wife in this unusual case involving the interaction between English family law and rights arising under Sharia law.
The dispute concerned the wife's entitlement to a dowry, the husband's future rights of custody under Sharia law and the terms of a financial settlement reached between the parties. Although the husband succeeded on a technical aspect of his appeal, the Court found that his unreasonable conduct had been a significant cause of the litigation and ordered him to pay a substantial proportion of the wife's legal costs.
The decision demonstrates the court's willingness to take a broad view of a party's conduct when determining costs and highlights the importance of engaging constructively in family law proceedings.
CC v RC
[2007] EWHC 2033
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
[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.
Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane
[2006] UKHL 24
Julian was part of the legal team acting for Mr McFarlane in this landmark House of Lords case, which remains one of the most influential family law decisions of the modern era.
The Court considered how fairness should be achieved when dividing assets and income following divorce. In doing so, it established the three key principles that continue to underpin financial remedy law today: needs, sharing and compensation. The Court confirmed that there should be no discrimination between the roles of breadwinner and homemaker and recognised that a spouse who has sacrificed their own career for the benefit of the family may be entitled to financial compensation for that economic disadvantage.
The decision transformed the way financial claims are assessed on divorce and continues to guide the courts when determining fair outcomes in cases involving substantial assets, income and relationship-generated disadvantage.
McFarlane v McFarlane; Parlour v Parlour
[2004] EWCA Civ 872
Julian was part of the legal team acting for Mr McFarlane in this landmark Court of Appeal case concerning spousal maintenance following divorce.
The Court considered the financial claims of two former wives whose marriages had enabled their husbands to pursue highly successful careers. It recognised that, in some cases, fairness may require a spouse to receive financial provision that reflects not only their immediate needs but also the economic disadvantage suffered as a result of decisions made during the marriage.
The decision was a significant development in the law of financial remedies and helped shape the principles that were later refined by the House of Lords in Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24. It remains an important authority on the purpose and assessment of spousal maintenance.
W v J (Child: Variation of Financial Provision)
[2003] EWHC 2657
Julian acted for the father in this important Schedule 1 Children Act case concerning the limits of financial provision that can be claimed for a child.
The mother sought a substantial increase in child-related payments in order to fund her legal costs in ongoing disputes concerning the child. The Court rejected the application, holding that financial provision under Schedule 1 must be for the benefit of the child and could not be used to require one parent to fund the other's legal fees.
The decision provides important guidance on the scope of financial claims made on behalf of children and confirms that the court will carefully distinguish between expenses incurred for a child's benefit and costs incurred by a parent personally.
Re S (Contact: Children's Views)
[2002] EWHC 540
Julian acted for the mother in this important children case concerning the weight to be given to a child's wishes and feelings when determining contact arrangements.
The father sought contact with his three children, aged 16, 14 and 12. The Court recognised the importance of maintaining a relationship with both parents but concluded that the views of older children could not be ignored simply because the court considered them to be mistaken. In relation to the eldest child, no contact order was made, whilst arrangements for the younger children were left to negotiation and agreement.
The decision highlights the importance of listening to children's wishes and feelings, particularly as they grow older, and confirms that the court will take a realistic and child-focused approach when determining what arrangements are in a child's best interests.