There’s a scene in the film When Harry Met Sally where the characters played by Carrie Fisher and Bruno Kirby argue about throwing out his wagon-wheel coffee table:
MARIE (Carrie Fisher) ‘I’m on your side. I’m just trying to help you have good taste’
JESS (Bruno Kirby) ‘I have good taste’
MARIE ‘Everybody thinks they have good taste, and a sense of humour, but they couldn’t possibly all have good taste.’
As professional advocates, most of us think we’re good at cross-examination. After all, we’ve been taught the rudiments at law school and attended advocacy training. To varying degrees, we’ve done the job in court. We might not see ourselves as Edward Marshall Hall KC or George Carman QC redux, but most of us are quietly confident we know what we’re doing.
But there’s a world of difference between the experience of a seasoned criminal advocate, who cross-examines almost on a daily basis, and those of us who specialise in areas of law, such as financial remedies, commercial and Chancery, where most disputes settle. Accordingly, the opportunity to cross-examine arises only infrequently, and some practitioners can go years between trials,[1] not because they’re unsuccessful, but precisely because they are so adept at negotiating agreements. This article is not a call for more cases to fight. There is no question that most matrimonial clients are well advised to stay away from court where reasonably possible and not incur the financial cost or emotional ordeal of going of entering the witness box. Nevertheless, for good reason or bad: a significant issue of law or fact; one party’s unreasonable expectations; sometimes, sheer bloody mindedness, some cases will go all the way. If cross-examination has to take place, in the words of Macbeth, then it’s better if it done properly[2]: not in order to satisfy arcane professional rules, but in the interests of a fair hearing.
I don’t profess to be a master of the craft. Over the years I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about and planning how to cross-examine. As an advocate and as a tribunal, I’ve listened to a lot of cross-examination in the Family Court, Crown Court and County Court: some very good and persuasive; some ineffective; some so bad it was positively counter-productive. Cross-examination is difficult. It takes a lifetime to learn how to ask a series of closed questions that probe relevant evidence while controlling the witness’s responses and moving logically from one topic to another. It may no longer be the essential skill for a financial remedies practitioner, but cross-examination can still have a material impact on the court’s findings of fact and determination of issues. This article is written for the occasional cross-examiner, as an aide mémoire of the rules, and as a guide to doing the job well, as opposed to metaphorically trying to club a witness into submission.
What is good cross-examination?
There’s something about cross-examination that attracts sporting metaphors. I’ve heard it compared to cricket (fast and spin bowling) martial arts (how many judgments complain that ‘the witness fenced with counsel’?), and fishing, as in the following, unimprovable epigram from American trial lawyer, Louis Nizer:
‘In cross-examination, as in fishing, nothing is more ungainly than a fisherman pulled into the water by his catch.’
While not all good cross-examination is alike, it tends to involve a series of concise, focused questions, which box in a witness before the critical question is put. The process flows logically from one subject onto the next. When the advocate gets the answer he or she wants, they move on swiftly, without repetition or comment. The advocate remains in control throughout and does not need to raise his or her voice. As John Mortimer QC, the author of Rumpole, once famously put it:
‘… “the art of cross-examination”, my father[3] told me, “Is not to examine crossly. It’s the art of leading the witness through a line of propositions he agrees to until he’s forced to agree to the one fatal question”’ (Clinging to the Wreckage, (1982))
Good cross-examination is carefully planned and structured, but great cross-examination conceals the structure, so that a witness answers each question simply, on its merits, without anticipating the ultimate point, or foreseeing where is the forensic trap.
By contrast, bad cross-examination involves what the Court of Appeal in R v Farooqi [2013] EWCA Crim 1649 described as a series of ‘… prolix, extensive, irrelevant, and, on occasions, offensive, [questions], the underlying purpose [of which] was not clear’ ([42]). The bad cross-examiner rapidly loses control of the witness, who might be able to make hay with badly phrased questions, talking around the subject and using up valuable court time. Where a witness says something significant, the bad advocate spoils its effect by resorting to amateur dramatics, slowly repeating the answer back for emphasis or ladling on the commentary. This not only irritates the judge but tips off the witness about needing to correct what he’s just said. The bad advocate commits a series of cardinal sins: asking open questions, or questions to which he or she doesn’t know the answer; putting one question too many, putting inappropriate or irrelevant questions, adopting a hectoring tone, veering into legal submissions and losing any control of the length and nature of the witness’s answers.
The role of cross-examination in financial remedies
Cross-examination plays a more limited role in financial remedies than in other areas of law. Under s 25(1) Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the court has a duty to consider the relevant circumstances of the case, whereby it exercises a ‘quasi-inquisitorial’ role (Parra v Parra [2002] EWCA Civ 1886 at [22]). By contrast, most civil and criminal trials are purely adversarial in nature, whereby the court’s role during evidence is closer to that of an impartial umpire.
In financial remedies, cross-examination might help the court resolve issues of housing need, access to resources, liquidity, etc. but it will rarely, if ever, deliver a knock-out blow to the entire claim, which can occasionally happen in civil claims (e.g. a claim under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 based primarily on recollection evidence) and in crime, where the undermining of prosecution witnesses might lead a court to rule the defendant has no case to answer: R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039.
The judge’s duty in financial remedies to ‘… investigate issues which he considers relevant to outcome even if not advanced by either party’ (Parra at [22]) provides a safety net for the badly prepared case and the party who ‘fails to come up to proof’ in the witness box. Where an advocate neglects to cross-examine on a relevant issue, or where yawning gaps have emerged during cross-examination, the judge may feel duty bound to ask the witness further questions (often to the intense frustration of the cross-examining advocate), which undoes some of the damage, in the interests of fairly resolving the case. Or the court may decide to attach limited weight to what a witness has said, or his or her demeanour in the witness box (see Lord Leggatt’s keynote speech to the At A Glance conference, ‘Would you believe it? The relevance of demeanour in assessing the truthfulness of witness testimony’, October 2022).
Rules of evidence undoubtedly exist in financial remedies, but are rarely strictly enforced. The common law rule that an advocate should ‘put his case’ in cross-examination[4] still applies in the Family Court as elsewhere, but is not strictly enforced. Otherwise, hours of court time would be taken up by a line-by-line challenge of a party’s schedule of outgoings. In financial remedies, the court may be able to resolve factual disputes about income need, etc. based upon the written evidence, submissions and a generous dose of ‘judicial notice’,[5] without hearing extensive, or even any, ‘banal cross-examination’ (e.g. ‘…I suggest you don’t need £40 pm for hair products’, ‘…You would be able to live in a cheaper part of town, wouldn’t you’, etc.). In relation to income needs, in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 Moylan LJ observed at [42] that:[6]
‘… A judge is well able to assess a party’s income needs without … them being subject to detailed cross-examination. The wife’s needs had clearly been put in issue by the husband (as referred to during the hearing before the Judge) and a judge is well-placed to assess what is achievable and what is fair without any such, frankly often banal, cross-examination.’
The Family Court’s approach to cross-examination has always been somewhat laissez faire. Advocates are routinely allowed to get away with questions and commentary that would not be permitted in the county court or Crown Court. And when objection is taken to a question because it is irrelevant, unfair, badgering, confusingly compounded, etc. a judge is as likely to waive away that objection (‘let’s just get on with it shall we’) as uphold the objection, even when it is properly made out. If the standards of cross-examination are lower in financial remedies than say in crime, this is not simply down to the advocates’ lack of practice. Professional standards atrophy where they are not consistently upheld and enforced by the courts.
Professional rules and guidance
Across the mists of time, practitioners may recall the rules and conventions of cross-examination: don’t ask a question to which you don’t know the answer, make sure you put your case, ask closed and not open questions, etc. However, the source of these rules and conventions is surprisingly difficult to find. Given how minutely other aspects of legal practice have been codified over the years, in procedural directions and practice guidance, it is surprising that so little is said in relation to cross-examination.
Professional rules
Barristers might assume that cross-examination is extensively covered by the Bar Council Code of Conduct. In fact, this document (which seems to have been structured by an alien life form, with paragraph numbers like ‘CD3’, ‘gC2’ or ‘rC3.2’) says remarkably little about how to cross-examine. The Conduct Rules (‘C’) contain the following high-level principles:
- A barrister’s ‘core duties’ includes the ‘… duty to act with honesty and integrity’ (CD 3), that ‘… you must not abuse your role as an advocate’ (rC3.2).
- This includes not asking a witness questions ‘… merely to insult, humiliate or annoy a witness …’ (rC7.1) which might seem somewhat self-evident, and, more pertinently, not making ‘… a serious allegation against a witness whom you have had an opportunity to cross-examine unless you have given that witness a chance to answer the allegation in cross-examination’ (rC7.2).
- A serious allegation must not be made against any person unless the advocate has ‘reasonable grounds for the allegation’ and that ‘the allegation is relevant to your client’s case or the credibility of a witness’ (rC7.3).
The Solicitors Regulation Authority website contains a more useful resource entitled ‘How to cross examine a witness’, which is a good starting point for any fledgling advocate. This identifies two key aims in cross-examination:
‘First, to advance your case by putting it to witnesses from the other side and getting them to say things which support your case. If you fail to put your case on a particular issue it may be assumed that you accept the other side’s account of that issue and you will not be able to put your account of it in your closing speech.
Second, to undermine the case of the other side by exposing weaknesses in the reliability and credibility of its evidence. This usually means attempting to show that a witness’ account is mistaken, inconsistent or deceitful.’
The SRA website also contains several other helpful pointers:
‘Your cross examination should remain fair, calm and composed so that the witness cooperates with you and to maintain your credibility as an advocate’
‘You should avoid commenting on the quality of a witness’s answer in cross examination or arguing with them about an answer you disagree with. This can undermine your credibility and make it harder to get the witness to cooperate.’
‘Carefully consider whether a leading or open question is more likely to generate valuable evidence on a particular factual matter.’
‘Keep questions short and clear by limiting them to one issue or query at a time.’
Practice area guidance
The compendious 2026 FRC Guide[7] does not deal with cross-examination at all. This is curious since its predecessors, the 2016 HC Efficiency Statement[8] and the 2002 FRC Efficiency Statement[9] contained the provision that ‘… when conducting cross-examination advocates must avoid assertion, comment and personal opinion’ (at para 17 (HC) and para 2 (below HC) respectively. While it can be difficult to draw a clear line between what amounts to impermissible comment or assertion, it might have been helpful to include in the 2026 Guide some guidance as to standards of cross-examination.
In terms of the nuts and bolts of cross-examination, the most useful guide comes from an unexpected source: the Planning and Environmental Bar Association, who published Good Practice Memorandum (No 2) in relation to cross-examining experts in inquiries, but which contains the following checklist which has more general application (points 5 to 10 in particular):
‘(1) Cross-examination should be focussed on the matters in issue between the parties;
(2) Providing the order of topics to be covered at the outset of the cross-examination can assist with time and document management;
(3) Where possible, questions should be kept short and directed to a single issue;
(4) Questions may be ‘closed’ rather than ‘open’;
(5) During cross-examination, barristers should not ‘comment’ on the answers given;
(6) Barristers should be courteous to the witness and avoid aggressive or bullying behaviour;
(7) Avoid repetitious questioning. Effectively repeating the same question more than three times in total, when a clear answer has been given, should generally be avoided;
(8) Barristers should not interrupt a witness answering the question put;
(9) Barristers should not deliberately misinterpret the answer given by a witness;
(10) Barristers should always be fair to the witness (e.g. avoid putting questions in a misleading context);
(11) Indicating to the witness when a document is no longer required can assist with document management;
(12) The length of cross-examination should always be proportionate to the importance of the issue and have regard to any time estimate provided and making the best use of inquiry time.
[…] matters of law are not for cross-examination but are for submissions in closing.’
Vulnerable witnesses
There is also plenty of guidance available in terms of cross-examining a vulnerable witness with autism, a learning disability or hidden disabilities.
Practitioners will be aware of the contents of FPR PD 3A and 3AA, which relate to vulnerability, grounds rules hearings and the various ways a court can proceed to ensure a witness’s best evidence is given. There are two helpful websites relating to cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses:
(1) The Advocates Gateway contains a series of toolkits containing guidance on communicating with vulnerable witnesses, in order to promote high ethical and professional standards. There are 21 toolkits which are aimed mainly at criminal practice, although Toolkit 13 deals with vulnerable witnesses in the Family Court (also see Toolkit 13A which contains a crib sheet covering participation directions and intermediaries). Both are essential reading in any case involving vulnerability.
(2) The Inns of Court College of Advocacy Twenty Principles. While this also is concerned primarily with criminal trials, it contains useful guidance such as (8) signposting a new topic, (10) thinking about how to take the evidence, chronologically or in a structured way, (12) avoid statements posed as questions, (18) avoid multi-part ‘tag’ questions.
Guidance from case law
Court judgments rarely deal with standards of cross-examination. When writing a judgment, the judge normally has enough on his or her plate in terms of setting out the factual background, summarising the parties’ cases and, crucially, explaining findings of fact and decision. There is rarely the time or inclination to ‘mark the work’ of the advocates by surveying the conduct of cross-examination or providing more general guidance.
One leading exception is R v Farooqi [2013] EWFA Crim 1649, in which the Court of Appeal dismissed a criminal appeal in a terrorism case, but was extremely critical of the ‘… flagrant misconduct and alleged professional incompetence by one of the advocates at trial’. While this judgment primarily concerns criminal practice, the following observations of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge are relevant more generally:
[107]. The question was raised whether [counsel] discussed his proposed forensic strategy with his client. However, whether he did or not, and even assuming that his client agreed or encouraged it, the client’s “instructions” were irrelevant. The client does not conduct the case: that is the responsibility of the trial advocate. The client’s instructions which bind the advocate and which form the basis for the defence case at trial, are his account of the relevant facts: in short, the instructions are what the client says happened and what he asserts the truth to be. These bind the advocate: he does not invent or suggest a different account of the facts which may provide the client with a better defence.
[108]. Something of a myth about the meaning of the client’s “instructions” has developed. As we have said, the client does not conduct the case. The advocate is not the client’s mouthpiece, obliged to conduct the case in accordance with whatever the client, or when the advocate is a barrister, the solicitor “instructs” him. In short, the advocate is bound to advance the defendant’s case on the basis that what his client tells him is the truth, but save for well-established principles, like the personal responsibility of the defendant to enter his own plea, and to make his own decision whether to give evidence, and perhaps whether a witness who appears to be able to give relevant admissible evidence favourable to the defendant should or should not be called, the advocate, and the advocate alone remains responsible for the forensic decisions and strategy. That is the foundation for the right to appear as an advocate, with the privileges and responsibilities of advocates and as an advocate, burdened with twin responsibilities, both to the client and to the court.
[109]. In the trial process the advocate is subject to some elementary rules…
[111] The advocate cannot give evidence or, in the guise of a submission to the jury, make assertions about facts which had not been adduced in evidence. That is inconsistent with the proper function of an advocate
…
[113] We do not suggest that the principle of fairness to the witness requires the somewhat dated formulaic use of the word “put” as integral to the process. Assuming that there is material to justify the allegation, “Were you driving at 120 mph?” is more effective than, “I put it you, that you were driving at 120 mph?” What ought to be avoided is the increasing modern habit of assertion, (often in tendentious terms or incorporating comment), which is not true cross-examination. This is unfair to the witness and blurs the line from a jury’s perspective between evidence from the witness and inadmissible comment from the advocate… we deprecate the increasing habit of comment or assertion whether in examination in chief, but more particularly in cross-examination. The place for comment or assertion, provided a proper foundation has been laid or fairly arises from the evidence, is during closing submissions to the jury.’ (emphasis added)
Farooqi has been cited in several family and Court of Protection cases, such as Re PB [2014] EWCOP 14, in which Parker J, who often insisted that cross-examination questions should be short (with a maximum number of words), underlined the importance of careful preparation, short questions and that it was the advocate’s responsibility to control the length of the witness’s answers:
‘[141] Effective steps must be taken to reduce evidence to the essential. In Farooqi Lord Judge emphasised the requirement that cross-examination should proceed by short, focussed question rather than by comment, opinion and assertion. I also note that in The Law Commission lecture given last year Lord Judge stated (as I was taught) that in principle no question should be longer than one line of transcript. In any event, the judge is interested in the answer, not the question.
[142] Advocates need to be able to control the witness by the form and structure of their questions and not permit discursive replies or to allow the witness to ramble (particularly if the witness has the tendency to be prolix). There is no necessity for a long introduction: apart from anything else it may distract and confuse the witness and the judge.
[143] Examination must not proceed by way of “exploration” of the evidence: i.e. a debate, or by putting theory or speculation, rather than by properly directed questions which require an answer.
[144] This is all the advocates’ responsibility …’
Practitioners should also be aware of the following judicial observations about cross-examination:
‘… mere comments by representatives under the guise of questioning of a party or witness are not appropriate. They are forbidden by the most elementary principles and rules of advocacy.’: Wagner v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] UKUT 655 at [10] per McClosky J.
‘… To be frank, cross-examination is often a largely pointless and futile exercise if it amounts to little more than counsel putting disputed facts to a witness. It is a dispiriting and largely useless experience for a judge to listen (often through translators) to lengthy cross-examination of a witness along those lines … It is a very rare case where, without having been confronted by the documentary record or known or probable facts, a witness nonetheless collapses under cross-examination and admits that his witness statement is untrue.’: AO v LA [2023] EWHC 83 (Fam) at [60]–[61] per Mostyn J.
Conclusion
Rather than layer my own commentary on the guidance summarised above, I would like to conclude by offering a handful of practical suggestions which I’ve found useful in preparing cross-examination.
(1) Start with a pencil and paper
When it comes to thinking creatively, and planning cross-examination is a creative mental process, there’s something freeing about starting with a blank sheet of paper and a pencil or several pens of different colours, and being able to create a mind map, as opposed to typing on a computer. Over the years I have wasted a lot of time typing out cross-examination notes only to find I get blocked or get too drawn into the minutiae. Start with a piece of paper, if only to work out the main topics, and how one will flow into another. When you have this in mind, by all means, type out the more detailed questions (especially if, like me, your handwriting is totally illegible).
(2) Preparation
This is both an obvious and somewhat tedious point to underline: with cross-examination the devil is in the detail and careful preparation is essential. While some advocates seem to have been blessed with an innate ability to cross-examine, this only works up to a point: good preparation generally beats natural talent. This blessing often turns into a curse: those who can wing it are increasingly tempted to wing it.
The best points in cross-examination often derive not from the main witness statements and expert reports (which everyone will have read) but the exhibits and attachments (which the judge probably has not read, and which your opponent might have overlooked). The Pulitzer Prize winning biographer Robert Caro has a personal mantra: ‘Turn Every Page‘. This applies to cross-examination as much as it applies to research.
The extent to which you write out questions in long hand is a matter of personal preference. In interview,[10] Sir Nicholas Mostyn gave the following guidance:
‘Cross examination is the way, and the platform where, you can put your case again and again and drill it into the judge’s head. If the witness gives an unsatisfactory answer for you, just ignore it and move on to the next question. Get the next question in. Get the questions, which is your case, into the judge’s head. It’s the questions that matter. The second thing: write out your cross-examination. My cross-examinations would always be: ‘Question … if he answers this, then ask this; if he answers that, then ask that question’. It would all be planned out in a flow chart, with every possible answer that the witness could give, because of course you happen to know all the answers, don’t you? … ‘ Third of all, never, ever, ever ask compound questions. The judge will not remember any part of them at all.
For myself, I tend to allow for a bit more flexibility. Cross-examination is not a scientific process. Witnesses say unexpected things under pressure and there is sometimes good reason to pursue such unexpected statements (within reason: see (6), below!). As to timing, I find it much easier to plan cross-examination in the early morning than in the evening. It is extraordinary how a good night’s sleep can clear the mind in terms of planning cross-examination.
(3) Work backwards
For those starting in practice, planning cross-examination can be overwhelming. There is often so much material. Where to start?
I would suggest that, as a first stage, work out what you want to say in closing. Once you have established these dozen or so points as your finishing lines and your overall ‘theory of the case’, it should be possible to work out what you need to ask (i.e. what questions potentially support these ultimate submission), and which areas are superfluous to those submissions. If you have time, think what the other side is likely to argue, and defensively cover those points. If there is no connection between a proposed question and your ultimate argument, or the other party’s case, cut the question (or put it on a separate page, so you have it in reserve if needed), especially where court time is limited, which it normally will be.
(4) Close your questions
Every advocate has had the frustrating experience of the rambling witness. Sometimes this is down to a witness’s nerves, in other cases this might be a more streetwise witness who deliberately filibusters to blunt the point of your questions. It is essential to establish control and the best way to do this is to start by asking a series of closed and leading questions: ‘You’re not saying this, are you?’, ‘And you’re not saying that?’, ‘And you wouldn’t be arguing for that?’, ‘So would you agree with me that … ?’. Done well, this takes the wind out of even the most difficult witness’s sails (another sporting metaphor).
By contrast, it is dangerous to the point of professional incompetence to open questions such as ‘What do you say about … ?’ or ‘Why didn’t you do that?’. Some witnesses will take that opportunity to give a very long answer, which the judges might be disinclined to interrupt. Your opponent might also be wily enough to make hay with such loosely phrased questions in re-examination (‘You were asked what do you say about … why don’t you tell the court in your own words… ?’).
(5) Persuasive as opposed to direct cross-examination
In Aesop’s Fable, The North Wind and the Sun, the north wind and the sun competed to remove a traveller’s cloak. The wind used force but the harder it blew, the tighter the man clung to his coat, whereas the warmth of the sun caused the man to remove it. The point being that persuasion achieves a lot more than direct force.
It can be surprising, even in the most contentious cases, that witnesses are willing to make reasonable concessions provided questions are put respectfully and the witness is not taken as a fool or worse. Bear in mind that many witnesses find trials bewildering, to the extent that I have seen witnesses attack innocuous questions raised by their own counsel in chief, seemingly under the impression that the lawyer might have changed side.
Before you ‘go direct’ with a witness, consider whether it might be first worth gently exploring some of the less obviously contentious issues (e.g. ‘You want to go back to work don’t you?’, ‘Would it be reasonable to assume this will happen by x?’, ‘How much would you earn?’, ‘Would you be able to live outside Kensington and Chelsea?’). This is not an invariable rule: some witnesses enter the box with the battle-hardened determination to not concede an inch.
But many witnesses want to appear reasonable in front of a judge and you might get more helpful answers this way, in terms of your overall case, rather than ‘going for the jugular’, which might generate a lot of heat but limited light. This also raises a matter of timing: while you might want to start with one of your strongest areas, sometimes it works to start where you think the witness might offer helpful answers, before you turn to more contentious items, where the witness might become more defensive and clam up.
(6) Resist temptation
In cross-examination, temptation is everywhere: the temptation to gild the lily, by asking one question too many; the temptation to play to the gallery, to be your client’s white knight; the temptation to stray from your carefully prepared notes and chase metaphorical rabbits down rabbit holes.
To say that advocates must resist all of the above temptations would be a counsel of perfection. Everyone does this in practice. It is extremely difficult to plan for every eventuality in cross-examination, when in truth no one really knows precisely what a witness is going to say to any given question. But cross-examination will generally go better if you can control your impulses and resist the temptation to stray into commentary or submissions.
In real life there tends to be few ‘gotcha’ moments in court, in terms of a witness giving a truly damaging answer. But when it does happen, it’s far better to take a careful note and move on, rather than pantomiming your response. Pick up the point in closing. Allow for the evidence to have a delayed effect; like a depth charge.
(7) Silence
Finally, a semi-serious point.
It is a slightly depressing aspect of the job to find, as most advocates do, that the best answers come, not in response to one of your carefully crafted questions, but when you’ve lost your place, and the witness has felt the need to keep talking to fill the silence. It is remarkable how often this happens in court, not because the advocate has artfully paused, but because he can’t find a page reference. The serious point is to keep in control of the timing of your questions. The occasional pregnant pause might get you exactly what you want.
ALEXANDER CHANDLER KC
1 JUNE 2026
(Also published in the Financial Remedies Journal)
Further reading
Richard du Cann QC, The Art of the Advocate (Penguin 1993).
Dominic Carman, No Ordinary Man (Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, 2002).
Thomas Grant KC, Court Number One (John Murray, 2019)
Thomas Grant KC, Jeremy Hutchinson’s Case Histories (John Murray, 2015).
Thomas Grant KC, The Mandela Brief (John Murray, 2022).
Iain Morley, The Devil’s Advocate (Sweet & Maxwell, 2015).
John Mortimer QC, Rumpole, Clinging to the Wreckage (Penguin, 1986).
David Pannick QC, Advocates (Oxford University Press, 1992).
Sally Smith, Marshall Hall: A Law Unto Himself (Wildy, 2016).
Keble Advanced Advocacy Court (Inner Temple)[z4] .
Notes
[1] Technically speaking, financial remedy claims are set down for ‘final hearing’ not ‘trial’. However, I use the generic term ‘trial’ in this article.
[2] ‘If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well/It were done quickly’ (Macbeth, Act I, Scene 7).
[3] Clifford Mortimer, formerly of this parish, in terms of Mr Mortimer senior having practiced in matrimonial cases and published the very long Clifford on Probate, before going blind. Played memorably by Laurence Olivier in the play ‘A Voyage Round My Father’.
[4] Browne v Dunn (1863) R 69, Griffiths v TUI (UK) Ltd [2023] UKSC 48.
[5] I.e. the rule of evidence that the court may take into account something that is generally well-known and established, without needing to hear evidence on the point. ‘Judges are entitled and bound to take judicial notice of that which is the common knowledge of the great majority of mankind and of the greater majority of men of business’: R v Aspinall (1876) 3 QBD 48 at 61–62 per Brett JA.
[6] With thanks to Rhys Taylor for drawing my attention to this decision.
[7] The Financial Remedies Court of England & Wales: Financial Remedies Guide (March 2026), www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/financial-remedies-guide-2026/
[8] Statement on the efficient conduct of financial remedy hearings allocated to a High Court Judge whether sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice or elsewhere (revised 1 February 2016),
[9] Statement on the Efficient Conduct of Financial Remedy Hearings proceeding in the Financial Remedies Court below High Court Judge level (issued 11 January 2022),
[10] ‘Interview with Mr Justice Mostyn – rules and woolly discretion’, [2023] 2 FRJ 89.
Family Brief 