Personhood and the Erosion of Marital Equity
The Weaponisation of Corporate
The Weaponisation of Corporate Personhood and the Erosion of Marital Equity
A Critique of Predatory Litigation and Systemic Blindness
Author: Samantha Avril-Andreassen
Date: March 2026
Keywords: corporate veil, financial remedies, Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, equality of arms, non-disclosure, tactical penury, institutional racism, Macpherson Report, dual-role practitioners, SRA, BSB, judicial ethics, lawfare
Abstract
This paper examines the intersection of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, corporate law, and the Human Rights Act 1998. It explores a specific pattern of “litigious predation” where high-net-worth individuals utilise corporate assets—acting as an alter ego—to exhaust the psychological and financial reserves of spouses. By analysing the transition from domestic abuse to “institutional abuse” via legal processes, this paper argues for a more robust application of the SRA Code of Conduct and a re-evaluation of judicial “colour-blindness” in light of the Macpherson Report.
Table of Contents
The Corporate Veil as a Weapon: Alter Ego and Asset Stripping
1.1 Abuse of Process, Equality of Arms, and the Corporate War Chest
1.2 The “Red Herring” Valuation and the Illusion of Insolvency
1.3 Tactical Penury and Fraud on the CourtFrom Domestic Combat to Legal Attrition: The Military Narcissistic Framework
Intersectionality and the “New Blindness”: Applying Macpherson
Professional Ethics and the “Zealous” Advocate
4.1 The Erosion of the Overriding Objective
4.2 The Paradox of the Part-Time Judge
4.3 Tactical Deception and the “Zealous” Defence
4.4 Accountability: Beyond the Billable Hour
4.5 The Ethical Paradox of the Dual-Role Practitioner (“Invoice Contradiction”)The “New Blindness”: Institutional Failure and the Macpherson Paradigm in Matrimonial Law
Conclusion and Mandatory Recommendations: Restoring Equity and Human Dignity
6.1 Summary: The Legal Recycling Plant
6.2 Recommendation I: The “Serial Litigant” Disclosure Requirement
6.3 Recommendation II: Piercing the “Funding Veil”
6.4 Recommendation III: Implementing “Macpherson Sensitivity” in the Judiciary
6.5 Recommendation IV: SRA/BSB “Predatory Litigation” Sanctions
6.6 Strategic Recommendation: The “Valuation Injunction”
6.7 Strategic Recommendation: The “Inconsistency Rule” Practice DirectionKey Terminology to Avoid Defamation
Authorities and Frameworks to Bolster the Argument (Statutes, Cases, Codes)
1. The Corporate Veil as a Weapon: Alter Ego and Asset Stripping
Under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the court seeks an “equitable distribution” of assets. However, when a dominant party uses a company as their alter ego, they often successfully obscure the “matrimonial pot.”
1.1 Abuse of Process: Corporate Funding as a Bypass of “Equality of Arms”
This paper examines how “Magic Circle” firms may be funded by corporate entities to overwhelm a self-represented or under-resourced spouse, effectively using corporate wealth to bypass the “equality of arms” principle (Article 6, ECHR).
The Puppet Master Effect
Legal strategies designed to “cripple” the opponent through endless interlocutory applications, violating the spirit of the Equal Treatment Bench Book regarding vulnerable witnesses.
This is a critical addition. In legal terms, this is known as “Tactical Penury”—where a litigant claims to be “paper poor” while simultaneously using the company’s “invisible” equity to fund a high-stakes legal war.
By claiming the company has “no value” while using it as a private bank for Magic Circle fees, the perpetrator is committing Fraud on the Court.
1.2 Section 1.2: The “Red Herring” Valuation and the Illusion of Insolvency
A. Tactical Non-Disclosure and the Valuation Myth
A hallmark of the narcissistic male ego in high-value divorce is the Strategic Devaluation of the primary marital asset: the company.
The Paradox of Funding: The perpetrator argues under Form E disclosure that the company has “nominal” or “nil” value, or is burdened by debt, yet the same entity somehow provides a seemingly bottomless “war chest” to pay for elite legal representation and part-time judicial barristers.
The Red Herring: By producing “expert” valuations based on manipulated data, the perpetrator creates a “Red Herring” that forces the victim into a defensive, expensive, and exhausting search for the truth. This is a deliberate tactic to “burn through” the victim’s limited legal aid or savings before the real value is ever uncovered.
B. The “Double-Dipping” of Corporate Equity
The paper argues that if a company has enough liquidity or “equitable fat” to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal fees, it is prima facie evidence that the company possesses significant value.
The Shadow Balance Sheet: Using corporate assets to pay personal legal fees for a matrimonial cause is often a breach of Company Law (Section 190 Companies Act 2006 regarding substantial property transactions) and a clear indicator of the alter ego status.
Stripping the Marital Pot: Every pound paid to a Magic Circle firm from the company is a pound “stolen” from the marital pot. This is Dissipation of Assets disguised as “business expenses.”
C. Challenging the “Corporate Shield” under the SRA Code
When lawyers accept six-figure sums from a company that their client claims is “worthless,” they are potentially complicit in Money Laundering (POCA 2002) or, at the very least, a breach of SRA Principle 1 (Upholding the Rule of Law).
The Argument: How can a solicitor, as an officer of the court, accept payment from an entity that their own client has sworn, under a Statement of Truth, has no value to the marital estate? This is a fundamental ethical contradiction that the SRA must investigate.
Specific Legal Terminology for this Section (bold and protective)
To remain “bold and protective” while avoiding defamation:
“Artificial Indigence”: Creating a fake state of poverty to avoid a settlement.
“Asymmetric Funding”: When one side has unlimited corporate wealth and the other has nothing.
“The Valuation Gap”: The distance between the “sworn value” for the court and the “utility value” used to pay lawyers.
“Shadow Equity”: Value that exists in the company but is hidden from the court’s auditors.
1.3 Tactical Penury and Fraud on the Court
This paper frames “Tactical Penury” as a recurring pattern: a litigant maintains a courtroom narrative of hardship while leveraging corporate liquidity as an unacknowledged litigation engine. The practical effect is to convert corporate structure into a hostile instrument capable of exhausting the weaker party into procedural collapse, thereby distorting equitable distribution under MCA 1973 and undermining fair trial standards under Article 6 ECHR.
2. From Domestic Combat to Legal Attrition: The Military Narcissistic Framework
Drawing on psychological paradigms of PTSD and coercive control (Serious Crime Act 2015), this section analyses how individuals with high-conflict backgrounds (e.g., specific military training) transpose “theatre of war” tactics into the family court.
Recycling of Victims: Instead of partnership, the marriage is treated as a cycle of acquisition and disposal.
The Destruction of Dignity: Beyond financial loss, the goal is “total erasure” of the victim’s autonomy, leading to psychosomatic collapse and immune system failure—an affront to Article 3 (Prohibition of degrading treatment).
3. Intersectionality and the “New Blindness”: Applying Macpherson
The Macpherson Report (1999) identified institutional racism as a “collective failure to provide an appropriate and professional service.” This paper argues that the family court’s move from one demographic (white women) to another (Black women) by a serial litigator is not coincidental but tactical.
Racialized Vulnerability: The paper explores how systemic biases may lead judges to overlook coercive control when the victim belongs to a marginalized group, mistaking trauma responses for lack of credibility.
Colour-blindness as an Obstacle: If the court fails to see the racial dynamics and the “recycling” history of the litigant, it becomes an unwitting accomplice in the abuse.
4. Professional Ethics and the “Zealous” Advocate
The SRA Code of Conduct requires solicitors to act with integrity and uphold the rule of law.
The Profit Incentive: We critique the “zealous advocacy” model where firms prioritise billing over the “overriding objective” of the Family Procedure Rules.
Deception of the Court: Analysing the boundary between aggressive representation and “misleading the court” through the strategic omission of corporate/personal asset overlaps.
Section 4: The Facilitators of Attrition — Professional Ethics and the Dual-Role Practitioner
This section of the paper addresses the “professional machinery” that enables systemic abuse. It is particularly critical when practitioners hold dual roles, as the transition from “zealous advocate” to “impartial arbiter” (part-time judges) can create a dangerous illusion of legitimacy for their predatory clients.
4.1 The Erosion of the “Overriding Objective”
Under the Family Procedure Rules (FPR 1.1), the “overriding objective” is to deal with cases justly, which includes ensuring parties are on an equal footing. When “Magic Circle” firms and elite Counsel are funded by corporate alter egos, they often engage in “Lawfare”—the use of legal systems as a weapon of war.
The SRA Code of Conduct (Principles 1, 2, and 5): Solicitors have a mandatory duty to act with integrity and uphold the rule of law. Utilising a client’s corporate wealth to “asset-strip” a spouse of their legal standing is a breach of the duty to ensure the court is not misled by a false veneer of “limited means.”
The BSB Handbook (Core Duty 3 & 5): Barristers must not behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in them. A barrister who facilitates a “recycling” of victims by aggressively suppressing evidence of prior conduct may be seen as undermining the interests of justice.
4.2 The Paradox of the Part-Time Judge (Recorders and Deputy District Judges)
A significant ethical tension arises when senior barristers act as part-time judges. This “dual identity” can be weaponised by a narcissistic litigant:
The Halo Effect: A litigant represented by a barrister who also sits as a Judge may benefit from a “presumption of integrity” that is unearned. The court may be less likely to scrutinise the aggressive tactics of a “brother or sister” of the Bench.
Judicial Conduct and the Bench Book: Part-time judges must adhere to the Guide to Judicial Conduct, which emphasises impartiality. However, when they return to private practice, their “zealous advocacy” for a predatory client can border on a conflict of interest—using their knowledge of judicial “blind spots” to help a client circumvent the Matrimonial Causes Act.
4.3 Tactical Deception and the “Zealous” Defence
The paper argues that “zeal” is not a licence for the destruction of human dignity.
The Macpherson Parallel: Just as the Macpherson Report highlighted “institutional” failures, the legal profession suffers from institutional complicity. Lawyers who accept corporate funds to silence a spouse are often “blind” to the fact that they are participating in the final stage of a domestic abuse cycle.
The SRA’s Warning on SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation): While usually applied to media law, the paper proposes that high-conflict divorce litigation can be a form of “Domestic SLAPP”—using the court process to intimidate, bankrupt, and silence a victim of coercive control.
4.4 Accountability: Beyond the Billable Hour
For the legal profession to remain a “noble” one, the paper proposes:
Enhanced Due Diligence: Lawyers should be required to investigate the source of corporate funds in matrimonial causes to ensure they are not “proceeds of marital fraud” or “weapons of attrition.”
Sanctioning the “Silver Bullet” Strategy: Proposing that the SRA and BSB take harsher stances against firms that intentionally prolong litigation to exhaust a victim’s immune system and financial resources—a practice that constitutes a violation of Article 8 (Right to private and family life).
Drafting Note: “Protective” Phrasing
To keep this section “bold and protective” without being defamatory to specific firms or individuals, the text uses “Systemic Critique” rather than “Individual Allegation.”
“The adversarial system allows for a ‘tactical opacity’ where counsel may prioritise the client’s ‘corporate narrative’ over the statutory requirement of ‘full and frank disclosure’.”
4.5 Section 4.5: The Ethical Paradox of the Dual-Role Practitioner (The “Invoice Contradiction”)
This is the “ethical friction point” that provides the strongest leverage for your paper. When a barrister (acting as a part-time judge) submits an argument that a company is a “red herring” with no assets, while simultaneously accepting six-figure fees from that exact company’s bank account, they are participating in a fundamental paradox of integrity.
In the legal profession, this is a potential breach of the BSB Handbook and the Guide to Judicial Conduct. Here is how this hypocrisy is framed to ensure it is “bold, protective, and academically rigorous.”
A. The Material Inconsistency of “Nil Value” vs. “High Fees”
The paper identifies a disturbing pattern where a barrister—often holding the status of a Recorder or Deputy Judge—submits to the court that a corporate entity is a “red herring” or “valueless shell” to shield it from the matrimonial pot.
The Contradiction: If the company is indeed a “red herring” with no assets, it cannot legally or logically be the source of the hundreds of thousands of pounds required to pay that barrister’s fees.
The Breach: By presenting a “nil value” argument while being paid by the “nil value” entity, the practitioner may be in breach of BSB Core Duty 3 (Acting with Integrity) and Core Duty 5 (Not behaving in a way likely to diminish public trust).
B. The “Halo Effect” and Judicial Credibility
When a part-time judge stands before a full-time judge and argues a “red herring” defence, they carry an unearned “Presumption of Judicial Integrity.”
The Deception: The court assumes a “brother or sister of the Bench” would not facilitate a fraud. However, by accepting corporate funds while denying corporate value, the practitioner is effectively laundering the client’s non-disclosure through their own professional status.
The Bench Book Violation: The Guide to Judicial Conduct requires judges (including part-time ones) to uphold the highest standards of “integrity and propriety.” Arguing a state of “tactical penury” for a client while personally profiting from that client’s hidden corporate wealth is an affront to the Judicial Oath.
C. The “Source of Funds” Doctrine
The paper proposes a new ethical requirement for all “Magic Circle” practitioners: The Disclosure of Fee Origin.
Mandatory Disclosure: If a barrister argues that a company should be excluded from the matrimonial settlement, they must be required to declare under a Statement of Truth that their fees are not being paid by that company.
The Consequence: To argue a company is a “red herring” while being paid by it is a misrepresentation to the court. Under the SRA and BSB Codes, this should be treated as a disciplinary offence of the highest order.
Terminology for the “Judge-Advocate” Paradox (protective and precise)
Use these terms to describe this specific behaviour without naming individuals:
“Cognitive Dissonance in Advocacy”: Arguing a company has no value while treating it as a “Personal ATM” for legal fees.
“Professional Complicity”: When elite counsel validates a client’s non-disclosure by accepting “off-book” corporate payments.
“The Judicial Halo”: The unfair advantage gained when a part-time judge represents a predatory litigant, making the court less likely to question their “red herring” narrative.
“Fee-Based Non-Disclosure”: The act of hiding a company’s true liquidity through the very act of paying for its defence.
5. Section 5: The “New Blindness” — Institutional Failure and the Macpherson Paradigm in Matrimonial Law
This section bridges the gap between the 1999 findings of the Macpherson Report and the modern family court’s failure to protect Black women from “legal predators.”
By applying the concept of Institutional Racism to the matrimonial context, this paper argues that the court’s “colour-blindness” is not a virtue, but a dangerous oversight that high-conflict, narcissistic litigants exploit to “recycle” and destroy victims.
5.1 The Macpherson Definition: Institutional Racism as a “Collective Failure”
The Macpherson Report (1999) defined institutional racism as “the collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their color, culture, or ethnic origin.”
The Application to Family Courts: In the context of the Matrimonial Causes Act, this “failure” manifests when the judiciary and legal professionals treat a Black woman’s trauma as “aggression” or her plea for equity as “greed,” failing to recognise the specific power dynamics at play.
The “Recycling” Pattern: The paper posits that the transition of the perpetrator from white spouses to Black spouses is a tactical shift. The perpetrator anticipates that the “institutional blindness” of the court will make a Black woman a “softer target” for legal attrition, as her credibility is more easily undermined by systemic bias.
5.2 The Erasure of Human Dignity through “Cultural Blindness”
The Equal Treatment Bench Book warns judges against stereotyping, yet “cultural blindness” remains a weapon:
Tone Policing as Legal Strategy: Opposing counsel (often high-status “Magic Circle” firms) may use a victim’s reactive trauma—PTSD from military-style domestic psychological warfare—to paint her as “difficult” or “unstable.”
The Intersection of Race and Gender: When a Black woman stands against a powerful, wealthy male ego who uses corporate assets to fund his “zealous” legal team, the court often fails to see the Intersectionality of her struggle. The loss of dignity is exacerbated when the court treats her as a “litigant” rather than a “victim of systemic extraction.”
5.3 Weaponizing the “Family Oriented” Persona
The perpetrator uses his military background and a “family-oriented” public image to create a Cognitive Dissonance in the courtroom.
The “Model Citizen” vs. The “Angry Victim”: By maintaining a calm, corporate-backed exterior, the perpetrator exploits the court’s bias. The Macpherson Report highlighted how the police failed the Lawrence family by misinterpreting their grief; similarly, the Family Court fails Black women by misinterpreting their trauma-induced anxiety as a lack of “litigation conduct.”
Institutional Complicity: If a judge—especially a part-time judge who also practices in this “elite” circle—fails to see the racialised nature of the “recycling” plant, the court ceases to be a place of justice and becomes an extension of the perpetrator’s abuse.
5.4 Human Rights and the Right to Dignity
Under Article 3 (Prohibition of Degrading Treatment) and Article 14 (Prohibition of Discrimination) of the Human Rights Act 1998, the state has a positive obligation to protect citizens from degrading treatment.
The Systemic “Shut Down”: When a victim’s immune system fails and their mental health is crippled by a process that ignores their humanity, it is a breach of the State’s duty.
The Remedy: The paper calls for the Family Court to adopt “Macpherson-style” scrutiny: acknowledging that “blindness” to the victim’s race and the perpetrator’s history of “recycling” women is a failure of the SRA Code and the Judicial Oath.
Terminology & Protective Framing for this Section
To maintain a “bold and protective” stance while avoiding defamation, this paper uses sociological and legal theory:
“Institutional Gaslighting”: When the court system validates the perpetrator’s “corporate” narrative over the victim’s lived experience.
“The Credibility Gap”: The documented phenomenon where Black women’s testimony is given less weight in adversarial settings.
“Predatory Jurisdiction”: Using the high costs and complex structures of English Law to “bury” a spouse who has less social and financial capital.
6. Section 6: Conclusion and Mandatory Recommendations — Restoring Equity and Human Dignity
This final section serves as the call to action. It consolidates the legal arguments—Matrimonial Causes Act, Human Rights Act, and the SRA Code—into a set of bold, protective reforms designed to stop the “recycling” of victims and the weaponization of corporate wealth.
6.1 Summary: The Legal Recycling Plant
This paper has demonstrated that when a narcissistic ego is paired with unrestricted corporate assets, the legal system ceases to be an arbiter of justice and becomes a tool of attrition and erasure. By cycling through victims—shifting demographics to exploit institutional “blind spots” as identified in the Macpherson Report—the perpetrator uses the “Magic Circle” legal machinery to strip away not just assets, but the physical and psychological health of the spouse. This is a profound violation of Article 3 (Freedom from Degrading Treatment) and the fundamental principles of the SRA Code of Conduct.
6.2 Recommendation I: The “Serial Litigant” Disclosure Requirement
To prevent the “recycling” of victims, the Family Court must move beyond a vacuum-sealed approach to individual cases.
The Reform: Introduce a mandatory “Litigation History Statement” in Form E financial disclosures. Litigants with more than three previous matrimonial causes involving allegations of coercive control or “legal lawfare” should be subject to heightened judicial scrutiny.
The Goal: To alert the court to patterns of predatory behaviour before the “military-style” psychological destruction begins.
6.3 Recommendation II: Piercing the “Funding Veil”
The use of corporate alter ego assets to fund “zealous” legal representation while the victim is left in penury is a subversion of the Matrimonial Causes Act.
The Reform: Courts must apply a “Look-Through” provision on all legal fees. If a party uses company funds to pay for “Magic Circle” representation, the court should automatically grant a Legal Services Payment Order (LSPO) to the other spouse to ensure an “Equality of Arms” under Article 6 ECHR.
Accountability: Solicitors and Barristers (including part-time judges) must certify that their fees are not being used as a vehicle for “asset stripping” the matrimonial pot.
6.4 Recommendation III: Implementing “Macpherson Sensitivity” in the Judiciary
The “blindness” of the court toward the specific vulnerabilities of Black women in these cycles must be addressed as a systemic failure.
The Reform: Integration of Macpherson-style oversight in the Family Division. Judges must be trained to recognise how “tone policing” and “credibility gaps” are weaponised by wealthy litigants against Black women.
The Goal: To ensure that a victim’s trauma-induced PTSD and immune system collapse are recognised as evidence of harm, rather than a lack of “litigation conduct.”
6.5 Recommendation IV: SRA/BSB “Predatory Litigation” Sanctions
Lawyers must not be allowed to hide behind “zeal” to facilitate the destruction of a human life.
The Reform: The SRA and BSB should introduce specific disciplinary categories for “Predatory Litigation Conduct.” This includes the intentional use of interlocutory “barrages” designed to cause medical collapse or financial ruin.
Judicial Conflict: Part-time judges must be barred from representing clients where there is a clear history of “serial litigation,” to prevent the “Halo Effect” from shielding a predator.
6.6 Updated Recommendation: The “Valuation Injunction”
“The Valuation Injunction”: Proposing that if a party claims a company has no value, they must be legally barred from using that company’s funds to pay their legal fees. If they use the funds, the court must rebut the presumption of nil value and award an equivalent sum to the spouse immediately.
6.7 Strategic Recommendation: The “Inconsistency Rule”
The paper calls for a new Practice Direction:
“Where a party seeks to exclude a corporate entity from the marital estate on the grounds of nil value or lack of liquidity, no funds from that entity or its subsidiaries may be used to pay for the legal representation of that party. Any such payment shall be deemed an admission of the company’s status as a ‘matrimonial asset’ and ‘alter ego’.”
7. Key Terminology to Avoid Defamation
To ensure this remains an academic and protective piece rather than a personal attack, use the following “shielding” terms:
“Serial Litigant/Vexatious Pattern”: Focuses on the behaviour in court rather than the person’s character.
“Corporate Alter-Egoism”: A recognised legal concept to describe using a company as a personal shield.
“Institutional Gaslighting”: To describe how the legal system is used to make a victim doubt their reality.
“Equality of Arms”: The Human Rights standard used to argue that the fight is unfair.
8. Authorities and Frameworks to Bolster the Argument
Statutory Framework (Rules of Engagement)
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Section 25: This is the heart of divorce law. The paper argues that the Section 25(2)(g) “conduct” provision is currently too narrow and fails to account for “litigation misconduct” as a form of post-separation abuse.
Human Rights Act 1998, Articles 3, 6, and 14:
Article 3: Freedom from degrading treatment (immune system collapse and psychological torture).
Article 6: Right to a fair trial (“Equality of Arms” where one side uses corporate millions).
Article 14: Prohibition of discrimination (Macpherson element of racialised targeting).
Serious Crime Act 2015, Section 76: Coercive Control; the paper argues “Legal Lawfare” is an extension of coercive control into the courtroom.
Companies Act 2006, Section 190: Substantial property transactions; invoked as an indicator of alter-ego misuse.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA): Referenced for risk analysis concerning source-of-funds and potential laundering indicators.
Essential Case Law (Precedents)
Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34: Leading case on piercing the corporate veil; supports the argument that the veil must not become a cloak or sham to deprive a spouse of equitable share.
White v White [2000] UKHL 54: “Yardstick of equality” and fairness baseline.
Owens v Owens [2018] UKSC 41: Illustrates how the court can be “blind” to the misery of a trapped spouse (contextual foundation).
OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52: Conduct and litigation misconduct leading to cost penalties; the paper argues “penalties” alone are insufficient when the structural goal is total destruction.
Livesey v Jenkins [1985] AC 424: Full and frank disclosure in financial remedy; foundational non-disclosure authority.
Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60: Fraud/non-disclosure undermining orders; set-aside principles.
Gohil v Gohil [2015] UKSC 61: Reinforces scrutiny where disclosure is compromised.
Regulatory & Ethical Codes (Lawyers’ burden)
SRA Principles (including integrity, rule of law, public trust).
BSB Core Duties (including integrity and public trust).
Equal Treatment Bench Book (Race; Physical and Mental Health; vulnerability handling).
Macpherson Report (1999): Institutional racism definition and pattern recognition framework.
A1. OSCOLA footnotes bank (insert into your draft at first mention)
Use these as your master footnote set. In the body, insert the relevant superscript number at the end of the sentence/paragraph where the authority is first relied upon.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 25.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 24.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 23.
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, s 37.
Family Procedure Rules 2010, r 1.1.
Family Procedure Rules 2010, Pt 28.
Human Rights Act 1998.
European Convention on Human Rights, art 6 (as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998).
European Convention on Human Rights, art 8 (as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998).
European Convention on Human Rights, art 14 (as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998).
European Convention on Human Rights, art 3 (as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998).
Serious Crime Act 2015, s 76.
Companies Act 2006, s 190.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34, [2013] 2 AC 415.
White v White [2000] UKHL 54, [2001] 1 AC 596.
Owens v Owens [2018] UKSC 41, [2018] AC 899.
Livesey (formerly Jenkins) v Jenkins [1985] AC 424 (HL).
Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60, [2016] AC 871.
Gohil v Gohil [2015] UKSC 61, [2016] AC 849.
Equal Treatment Bench Book, ‘Equal Treatment Bench Book – July 2024 (February 2026 update)’ (Judiciary of England and Wales, February 2026) (online PDF).
Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘SRA Principles’ (SRA Standards and Regulations).
Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs’.
Bar Standards Board, ‘The Core Duties’ (BSB).
Bar Standards Board, BSB Handbook (current online edition / Version 4.8).
William Macpherson, The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny (Cm 4262-I, 1999) (the “Macpherson Report”).
OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52.
(If you want a secondary summary note for context only, you can add: Mishcon de Reya, ‘OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52 – Party penalised in costs…’ (3 February 2021).
Practical Law also discusses the costs point (subscription source).
Optional “compliance lens” footnotes you may want in your ethics sections:
Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘Acting with integrity’ (Guidance).
Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘Public trust and confidence’ (Guidance).
A2. Table of Authorities (OSCOLA format)
Table of Cases
Gohil v Gohil [2015] UKSC 61, [2016] AC 849
Livesey (formerly Jenkins) v Jenkins [1985] AC 424 (HL)
OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52
Owens v Owens [2018] UKSC 41, [2018] AC 899
Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd [2013] UKSC 34, [2013] 2 AC 415
Sharland v Sharland [2015] UKSC 60, [2016] AC 871
White v White [2000] UKHL 54, [2001] 1 AC 596
Table of Legislation
Companies Act 2006, s 190
Family Procedure Rules 2010, r 1.1; Pt 28
Human Rights Act 1998
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, ss 23–25, 37
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Serious Crime Act 2015, s 76
Table of International Materials
European Convention on Human Rights, arts 3, 6, 8, 14 (as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998)
Table of Reports
Macpherson, The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry (Cm 4262-I, 1999)
Table of Guidance, Codes and Professional Standards
Bar Standards Board, ‘The Core Duties’
Bar Standards Board, BSB Handbook (online/current; Version 4.8)
Judiciary of England and Wales, Equal Treatment Bench Book – July 2024 (February 2026 update)
Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘SRA Principles’
Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs’
(Optional, if relied upon) SRA, ‘Acting with integrity’ (Guidance)
(Optional, if relied upon) SRA, ‘Public trust and confidence’ (Guidance)
Table of Secondary Sources
Mishcon de Reya, ‘OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52 – Party penalised in costs…’ (3 February 2021)
Edit Site Footer