• Trio of 3PB family barristers in mock remote FDR

      On Thursday 14th May 2020, 3PB family finance barristers Nicola Frost, Tonia Clark and Amy Beddis worked together as part of a team who presented a practical and informative remote mock remote Financial Dispute Resolution Hearing (FDR), alongside members of the Bristol judiciary, fellow Bristol barristers from Albion Chambers and St John's Chambers and solicitors from Burges Salmon and Clarke Willmott. The mock trial was attended by almost 200 solicitors, barristers and judges from across the...

      Continue reading
    • Hague Convention appeal clarifies 'anticipatory retention' point says Nicola Frost

      Nicola Frost, writing for Family Law Week, explains the implications of a Hague Convention decision. The CA unanimously held, "anticipatory retention" is a concept that must be recognised by the Convention. By a 2:1 majority (Black LJ dissenting on this particular point) it was further held that "communication" of an intention to retain children (prior to the end of an agreed, extended stay) is not necessary. As such, the mother's conduct surrounding an application for British...

      Continue reading
    • 3PB Family Barrister Nicola Frost provides an insightful summary of Re: MM (A patient) [2017] EWCA Civ 34

      3PB Family Barrister Nicola Frost provides an insightful summary of Re: MM (A patient) [2017] EWCA Civ 34, an appeal from the Court of Protection in which the appellant had been ordered to facilitate MM’s return to this jurisdiction, the court having found (on a number of occasions) it to be in MM’s best welfare interests to be cared for in the south west of England. The parties compromised the appeal and the court was...

      Continue reading
    • 3PB Family Barrister Nicola Frost summarises AB (Surrogacy: Domicile) [2016] EWFC 63

      3PB Family Barrister Nicola Frost provides an insightful summary of AB (Surrogacy: Domicile) [2016] EWFC 63, an application for parental orders in relation to two children in which the court had to determine whether at least one of the applicants could be said to be ‘domiciled’ in the jurisdiction at the time of the application and at the time of making the order, as required by section 54(4)(b) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act...

      Continue reading