Geoffrey Kelly

Geoffrey’s reputation is founded on many years of experience in resolving family finance issues. In particular he deals with financial remedies upon divorce or dissolution of civil partnerships, applications under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989, property disputes between cohabitees and disputes regarding children.

Ranked as a leading junior in the latest edition of Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500, he is described as having “an incredible eye for detail” and is “always thoroughly well-prepared with an in-depth analysis of figures.” “He has a reassuring and down-to-earth manner with clients and is an articulate and firm but sensible advocate.” Previous editions of the legal directories say that he is “particularly experienced in financial work for high net worth individuals and often undertakes work involving complex business structures and trusts. He is always well prepared and can see the bigger picture without getting bogged down in minutiae. He is a convincing advocate.”

Geoffrey regularly appears in the Principal Registry of the Family Division and local County Courts.

Geoffrey is available to conduct Private FDRs.  Legal 500 2024 ranks him in Tier 3 of the inaugural list of Leading Private FDR judges, where he is described as “A persuasive junior, whose preparation is meticulous and his manner with the lay clients always sets them at ease.”

Selected Cases:

S v S (2012)

Represented highly successful businessman whose fortune was mainly generated subsequent to separation. Involved complicated issues of valuation of shares in a privately owned company.

M v M (2012)

Represented wife of retired businessman where there were significant funds but issues regarding the classification of matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets.

L v L (2012)

Acted for wife who was the co-owner of a boutique estate agents.

S v S (2012)

Instructed by wife in farming case where the husband alleged there were no available assets from which to make an award to her. Substantial issues regarding post-nuptial settlement.

K v K (2011)

Represented wife in case where the husband alleged that the assets all belonged to his family and nothing belonged to him.

V v V (2011)

Instructed by wife where she alleged that the husband had sought to defeat her claims by selling his shares in a private company at an undervalue.

M v M, S v AS (2012 & 2011)

Representing policemen (current and retired) where the significant issue was the treatment of his pension.

M v M (2010)

Acted on behalf of a highly successful business with complicated issues revolving around foreign trusts and EBTs.

L v L (2010)

Represented retired Premiership footballer where the assets were spread around the globe and where consideration of the significant liabilities incurred in a film partnership was required.