2025
MS v HW & Anor [2025] EWFC 267, MS v HW & Anor (Costs) [2025] EWFC 268 and Louise Tickle v Father & Ors [2023] EWHC 2446 (Fam)
Acted for the mother in a successful appeal brought by journalist Louise Tickle concerning reporting restrictions in private law proceedings; the court found the judge had erred in law in adjourning the journalist’s reporting application. At a later hearing, the court re-opened previously agreed findings of fact, accepted the majority of the mother’s allegations, rejected the father’s case of parental alienation, and found that the child’s resistance to contact stemmed from her own lived experiences.
Final orders included no direct contact, restrictions on parental responsibility, a section 91(14) order and protective measures. The father was also ordered to pay part of the mother’s costs. Read more at the Transparency Project, the Law Gazette, Tortoise Media and the Guardian.
Represented the mother in proceedings concerning her seven-year-old daughter. The court found the father’s application was primarily driven by his motivation to secure immigration status for himself rather than a genuine wish to see the child. Contact was limited to indirect exchanges, with a Prohibited Steps Order and a five-year section 91(14) order also made.
Appeared for the mother in a High Court appeal arising from findings of controlling behaviour. The appeal challenged the trial judge’s characterisation of that conduct and the wording of the order. The appeal was allowed. The High Court acknowledged that the language used below may have downplayed the seriousness of the father’s behaviour.
Acted for the mother in proceedings concerning a journalist’s right to protect her source in family proceedings. The father’s application for the journalist to disclose her source, supported by Cafcass, was later withdrawn. The judgment nonetheless gave important guidance on the exceptional circumstances in which the court may order disclosure of a journalist’s source. Read more at the Transparency Project and Financial Remedies Journal.
Represented the mother in an appeal concerning overnight contact between her daughter and the father. The father was found to have raped and abused the mother when she was aged 15 and he was aged 24. The High Court determined that overnight contact was unsafe. Read more in the Guardian, the Law Gazette 23/4/25, the Metro and the Law Gazette 11/4/25.
XX v XX [2025] EWHC 2756 (Fam), X (father) v Y (mother) [2025] EWFC 62 (B) and Re A (A Child) [2023] EWFC 198
Appeared for the mother at fact-finding, securing findings of sexual abuse and rejection of the father’s cross-allegations that she had controlled him by withholding sex. Acted at final hearing seeking protective orders for the mother and child. On appeal, secured a two-year extension of the non-molestation order and a costs contribution, while the refusal to change the child’s surname to the mother’s name was upheld. The mother has since applied to the European Court of Human Rights following the refusal to change the child’s surname. Read more in the Times, the Metro, the Sun, the Good Law Project, the Daily Mail.
M v F & Anor [2025] EWHC 801 (Fam), DG v KB & Anor (Re EMP (A Child)) [2024] EWFC 12(B), DG v KB [2023] EWFC 180; and CM v IP [2022] EWHC 2755 (Fam)
Successfully appealed a failure to order a fact-finding on the mother’s abuse allegations and to implement participation measures. At fact-finding, secured findings of rape and abuse, despite the father’s allegations of parental alienation. This was one of the first private law cases to be brought under a reporting pilot designed to improve transparency in the family courts. Read more in the Guardian and TBIJ.
​
At final hearing, obtained termination of the father’s parental responsibility, a name change, a section 91(14) order, and £30,000 costs. Read more in TBIJ. The mother applied to speak publicly about her experiences of family court under a pseudonym. The court recognised that preventing her from doing so could itself amount to coercive control. Read more in the Law Society Gazette, TBIJ, the Times.
Kniveton v Griffiths
Acted for Kate Kniveton (then an MP) at fact-finding, securing findings of multiple rapes, coercive control and abuse against her ex-husband, a former MP and Minister, forming the basis of subsequent reported decisions. Acted across appeals and applications, including opposing recusal, upholding publication in the Court of Appeal, and securing named publication to advance transparency. At final hearing, secured no direct contact, a three-year section 91(14) order, restrictions on parental responsibility and a change of surname.
​
​
Kate’s high-profile case was subsequently featured in the ITV documentary, Breaking the Silence: Kate’s Story. Dr Proudman appears in the documentary, highlighting the pervasive nature of abuse across all backgrounds, with Kate Kniveton speaking publicly to challenge misconceptions and raise awareness of coercive control and violence against women. Read more in TBIJ, Sky News, C4 News, the Guardian, the Daily Mail, the Mirror, Tortoise Media, the Times, the BBC.
Father v Mother & Anor [2025] EWFC 33 (B); Re A (A Boy) [2024] EWFC 420 (B); Father v Mother [2024] EWFC 419 (B); and Re A (A Boy) [2023] EWFC 259
Successfully represented the mother across four reported decisions in complex private law proceedings, including a successful appeal overturning findings that she had fabricated rape allegations. We appeared for the mother at a Ground Rules Hearing ahead of a retrial addressing matters of evidence and procedure. At the rehearing, the court found that the father had raped, abused and coercively controlled her, causing harm to both mother and child. The court imposed prohibited contact between the child and the father and, in a rare step, revoked the father's parental responsibility, accepting it had been used as a tool of control and litigation abuse. Further protective measures included a section 91(14) order and a long-term non-molestation order.