Christian Kenny

Barrister specialising in Private Family Law with particular focus on complex, high value matrimonial finance litigation.

In the last two years alone, Christian has been instructed in over 20 High Court cases involving assets over £100m. He is routinely chosen to act as junior to leading King’s Counsel (Band 1) and entrusted by partners in leading Family Law firms to act in the most complex cases. He has acted in several of the leading Family Law authorities relating to (for example) non-disclosure of assets, disputed company valuations, interim financial relief and freezing injunctions.

Specialist in:

• Financial provision on divorce

• Advising on and drafting nuptial agreements

• Jurisdiction matters (often relating to habitual residence and domicile and forum conveniens)

• Validity of marriage

• Recognition of foreign divorce

• Private law Children Act matters, including financial claims under Schedule 1 and applications for leave to remove from the jurisdiction

• Claims under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996

CALL: 2003

Co-author of Rayden & Jackson on divorce and family matters.

• THR v WAT [2025] EWHC 1125 (Fam). A case involving very significant assets (£70m+) made in IT and cryptoccurency. An unusual example of the court considering the appropriate level of child maintenance under the James v Seymour guidance where the husband’s annual income was in the many millions.

• CA v UK [2025] EWFC 117 (B). Jurisdiction proceedings involving competing child maintenance applications in California and England. The wife was seeking to enforce an order made in New York in the Californian courts where the husband was resident. The husband was seeking to bring proceedings under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 in England where the wife and children were resident. The case engaged forum conveniens considerations and is the only known judgment to address whether parties can bring Schedule 1 applications against themselves; i.e. where they are the intended payer under the order

• EK v DK and Others [2023] EWHC 1829 (Fam). A High Court trial before Francis J relating to a set aside application brought by a wife on the basis of alleged fraudulent non-disclosure by the husband. In particular, the alleged non-disclosure related to the husband’s ability and available resources to house himself and also the prospects of success of the husband’s business foreign arbitration proceedings. The judgment contains a helpful synopsis of the law in relation to setting aside judgments on the basis of fraudulent or innocent non-disclosure.

• HAT v LAT [2023] EWFC 162. Proceedings before Peel J concerning an application for financial relief brought by a wife 30 years after a Deed of Separation and 25 years after the divorce. The judgment provides a useful survey of the law in relation to MPS/LSPO applications also in relation to delay in bringing financial applications.

• Nicolaisen v Nicolaisen [2023] 1 FLR 1163. A High Court jurisdiction trial heard by Mr Justice Moor, involving concurrent proceedings brought by the parties in England, Norway and Austria. The principal issues were whether (i) W had been habitually resident in England to the requisite standard when she brought her petition, and (ii) in the event that England did have jurisdiction, it was the appropriate forum. The case engaged the Marinos versus Munro debate as to the correct test for habitual residence under EC Regulation 2201/2003 (“Brussels II”) and also the transitional Brexit provisions in relation to jurisdiction. Very possibly the last reported case dealing with jurisdiction under Brussels II.

• CG v SG [2023] EWHC 942 (Fam). A High Court financial remedy trial involving a disputed valuation of a financial advisory business. The judgment in particular addresses issues of valuation where is it asserted that a business is a “singleton” business reliant upon the relevant party’s future involvement in it. It also addresses the correct approach to costs where the court has preferred the evidence of one party’s expert over that of the other.

• BC v BG (Financial Remedies) [2019] 2 FLR 337. A case in the High Court addressing the procedure and principles to be applied when challenging an arbitral award in Family Proceedings, in particular the extent to which any challenge was governed by the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996.