Stuart Snow

Stuart’s practice is focussed on financial remedies and cohabitation disputes.

Stuart is known for giving clear, practical and commercially minded advice.

Where appropriate, Stuart accepts instructions on a direct Public Access basis.

Notable cases:

S v S v S [Ongoing] – Family Court at Dartford (Intervenor)

Stuart is being led and is instructed on behalf of Intervenors in financial remedy proceedings. The case concerns 11 properties (including some held within a limited company); some of the properties are held in the joint names of the Respondent Wife and the Husband only and others in the names of all 4 parties. The Intervenors are the parents of the Respondent Husband. The Intervenors assert that all properties are held on trust by the Respondents for the Intervenors’ 100% benefit (either by way of resulting or constructive trust). The matter is listed before the lead Financial Remedies Judge in Kent.

B v M [2021] – Family Court at Canterbury

3-day final hearing. The case was complicated owing to the Family Home potentially having developmental opportunities, thus increasing its value. The Respondent Wife disputed the possibility of selling to a developer but secretly sought to sell to one. The Respondent also sought a significant departure from equality to meet, on the Applicant’s case, exaggerated capital and income needs. Stuart was successful in obtaining an Order for Sale of the Family Home as well as an equal division of capital assets on a “clean break” basis.

B v B – [2021] – Arbitration

Delays with listing a final hearing meant that the parties chose arbitration to conclude their dispute. Stuart represented the Applicant Wife who had returned home to Australia following separation. The case was complicated by assertions of non-matrimonial property, a child with Special Educational Needs, a high earning Respondent Husband and the quantification of “needs” abroad (i.e. an uncertain and changing property market in Perth, Australian stamp duty and, purchase costs). Despite Husband seeking a departure from equality in his favour (cf. unevidenced non-matrimonial assets), Stuart successfully argued for a departure from equality and “invasion” of assets to meet the Wife’s needs on a clean break basis.

S v S [2020] Family Court at Canterbury (Jurisdiction dispute)

Stuart opposed an application to rescind decree nisi and dismiss financial remedy proceedings notwithstanding a valid talaq having been granted in Oman.

I v D [2021] – County Court at Bromley

Stuart acted for the Claimant in a matter brought pursuant to the TLATA 1996. Stuart’s client was in a long-term cohabiting relationship. The parties had signed express declarations of trust in respect of their family home and an investment property which declared that they held both properties on trust for the Defendant as to 100% and 0% to the Claimant. Stuart was successful in setting aside both declarations of trust on the basis of his client having been presumed to have been unduly influenced by the Defendant. Stuart successfully established a relationship of trust and control between the parties arising from a coercive, controlling and physically abusive relationship. The Judge declared that the parties held both properties on trust for themselves in equal shares (subject to the ring fencing of the Defendant’s initial deposit contribution for the investment property). Stuart also successfully argued that the sale of the property should be delayed pending the parties’ child (who was 3 years old) reaching her majority on the basis that the purpose of the trust had not yet come to an end and her welfare needed to be considered per the s.15 factors.

Langford v Perrin [2020] – County Court at Central London – 4-day multi-track

Stuart successfully defended a claim brought by a former occupant of a property claiming a beneficial interest. Stuart successfully obtained an adverse costs order on the indemnity basis against the Claimant. The case was subsequently reported online here.