3PB

Family

Imogen Robins MCIarb is a distinguished family law specialist renowned for her expertise in family finance, serving high-net-worth (HNW) divorcing couples. Her practice centres on handling complex financial cases, which include inherited wealth, property portfolios, family businesses, significant pensions, trusts, and pre-nuptial agreements. She is also instructed in cases under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989.

Imogen stands out for her adept management of international family cases, which frequently involve foreign assets, with recent examples including Nigeria, USA, and Mauritius. Her written documents are persuasive and she produces compelling arguments on her clients’ behalf.

Imogen’s commitment to responsive client care is exemplary. She prioritises her clients’ needs, offering guidance and support throughout the legal process. Imogen is a solutions-focused barrister, she aims to work collaboratively with solicitors and clients to achieve the optimum outcome. Her advocacy skills come to the fore during negotiations and final hearings, where she skilfully and robustly represents her clients’ best interests. She is happy to advise at the commencement of a case and act as a sounding board in the initial stages. A recent client described her as “absolutely brilliant, both professionally and personally.”

In addition to her core practice, Imogen has a keen interest in non-court dispute resolution. She is a family law arbitrator, carefully resolving family disputes through the alternative dispute resolution process. She also frequently undertakes the role of evaluator in private Financial Dispute Resolutions. Imogen was instructed as the appellate counsel to appeal an arbitral award following the decision in Haley v Haley [2020] EWCA Civ 1369, and achieved a successful outcome.

In private law children cases, Imogen’s work is centred on representing clients in complex and significant cases. These include allegations of coercive and controlling behaviours, domestic abuse, parental alienation and intractable contact disputes, where expert evidence is required from psychologists or other professional experts. Her cases often have an international and cross-jurisdictional element. Imogen’s work includes both internal and external relocation cases, where permission is sought to take a child to another part of the country or abroad.

Imogen regularly writes and lectures in her field of expertise for family law professionals. She is a regular contributor to Family Law LexisNexis on subjects like "The evolution of spousal maintenance – where are we now?" and "Financial remedies after Covid-19: What can we expect?" She is a contributor to Sweet & Maxwell's Family Law Manual.

Finance

Imogen’s work is centred on financial remedies, including married and cohabiting couples and private law children cases. She brings commitment, excellent negotiation skills and sound judgment to her cases. In her work she is known for her tactical experience and legal expertise. She is patient, a good listener and strives to build a caring and supportive relationship with her clients. Her warmth and compassion belie a steely determination to achieve the optimum result. Often the best results can be achieved through negotiation but this is not always possible.

In court, Imogen uses her eloquence and advocacy to full advantage. She is available to advise during every stage of the case and is happy to speak to solicitors in confidence prior to instruction. Her strong interpersonal skills mean she is comfortable dealing with people from all walks of life. Her clients include company directors, professionals and musicians. She aims to provide an excellent service to all, regardless of wealth or status.

Selected Cases
X v X (2024)
Contested final hearing where some of the assets where held outside the jurisdiction in Jamaica. The case involved valuations and issues on non-disclosure. A successful outcome where assets were preserved for the wife.

T v T (2023)
Acting in a case for an Australian national. A successful settlement was achieved.

P v P (2022)
Acting in an ecclesiastical divorce involving a high ranking member of the Church of England. It required knowledge of church structures and a sympathetic approach; including advice about Bishops’ Visitors. The case settled following a “without prejudice hearing”.

M v M (2022)
Acting for the husband in a private FDR where there were assets outside the jurisdiction. The case included an extensive property portfolio and several care homes with a total value of £15 million. The case involved business valuations, tax experts and issues of non-disclosure. The case settled following a private FDR before Alexander Chandler KC.

X v X (2020)
Setting aside a financial remedy order following the making of a final order in the husband’s absence. Consideration given to the implications of Covid-19.

Y v Y (2019)
A case where there were alleged to be substantial assets held abroad in Nigeria. Both parties were medical consultants. The case involved expert evidence as to valuations of property, tax and pensions. A successful outcome was achieved for the client.

R v R (2019)
A complex variation case under MCA 1973 Section 31, involving a substantial £3 Million pension pot. A successful outcome was achieved for the client.

X v X (2018)
Complex litigation, involving MCA 1973 S. 25(2)(g), where one party had dissipated hundreds of thousands of pounds. Consideration of all the possible outcomes and in particular the relevance of MAP v MFP [2015] EWHC 627, given one of the parties’ mental health.

T v G (2018)
Schedule 1 to Children Act 1989 case involving internationally recognised musicians. A successful outcome was achieved for the mother and the case settled without the need for a contested hearing. The case was sensitive as the parties were high profile in the music industry.

D v D (2017)
Case involving a property tycoon with substantial business and property interests. There was satellite litigation in the Chancery Division that had to be considered during the progression of the case.

W v W (2017)
An unusual case where the District Judge was asked to make an interim remedy in respect of the parties’ dog. The court considered the interrelation between realty as in land and personal possessions. An interim order was made an Imogen’s client was permitted to see the dog. Wickes v Wickes [1999] Fam 65 and BR v VT [2015] EWHC 2727

M v M (2016)
Acting for a dentist who allegedly had offshore trusts in the British Virgin Islands. A complex case involving third party disclosure from the trustees, negotiations with the Inland Revenue regarding tax appeals and accountancy evidence. Court threatening to join the trustees and make indemnity costs orders in the event that disclosure did not take place.

M v M (2016) (UKHC)
High Court forum shopping case, involving consideration of the appropriate forum for financial remedies litigation. Whether the case should be tried in England and Wales or USA (Georgia). Heard before Mr Justice Holman.

B v B (2016)
Acting for the wife in a case involving a military pension, business accounts, where both parties had been in the medical profession.

G V R (2016)
Acting in a financial provision case where a notice to show cause application was made by the husband 8 years after the consent order had been lodged with the court. Successfully resisting the application on the part of the wife. Case involved potential cross-examination of a witness via video link from the Middle East.

M v M (2015)
Acting in a financial provision case involving a substantial property portfolio that required division following a long marriage. The case involved expert accountancy evidence.

A v AT (2014)
Acting for a wife seeking to vary a consent order under S 31 MCA 1973 to extend the term of maintenance beyond the child’s 21st birthday to enable her to remain in the former matrimonial home. A successful outcome was achieved.

Children

Senior family barrister Imogen Robins undertakes complex private law children cases. Below are some examples of her work.

F v T (2023): Acting in a fact finding hearing for the respondent facing 24 allegations of domestic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviours. No findings were made against my client and they were exonerated on each allegation.

D v D (2023): Acting in a fact-finding hearing for the applicant; with allegations involving domestic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviours and rape. Findings were made against the respondent at the final hearing.

Z v Z (2021): Acting for a party in a non-convention case where allegations of child abduction and were made. The children were brought to this country from an African nation. The case involved jurisdictional issues and consideration of expert evidence. All contact had stopped following the alleged unlawful removal but was re-instated by the court to included overnight stays. There were allegations of physical and emotional abuse and parental alienation. A Children’s Guardian was appointed for the children.

S v S (2020): A complex relocation case, involving aspects of emotional abuse, parental alienation with the need for expert psychological evidence and the involvement of a children’s guardian. The case had cross-jurisdictional considerations and the need for mirror orders.

X v X (2020): A private law case that involved parental alienation, allegations of domestic abuse and a request for psychological evidence. All contact had broken down. A successful outcome was achieved and all contact restored, including overnight stays.

Y v Z (2019): Acting for a medical professional where child arrangements had broken down and no contact was taking place. Allegations of parental alienation were relevant to the determination and the court found in favour of my client. A shared care order was made and the judge declined to make a specific issues order in relation to schooling.

S v S (2018): Successfully resisting an application for leave to remove three children from the jurisdiction to the USA. Acted for the father.

W v W (2018): Case involving parental alienation where a 14-year -old boy was refusing to see his mother. The Family Separation Clinic was involved to see whether they could facilitate in the re-introduction. The case resulted in a successful outcome for the mother and child.

W v L (2018): Child arrangements case where contact was re-instated, to include overnight contact after a gap. It involved sensitive issues and the introduction of the father’s new family.

W v W (2016): Family Law Act injunction involving a wealthy elderly married couple. The issues in the case involved DOLS (deprivation of liberty safeguarding orders), multiple experts and the Official Solicitor. Imogen had to consider “Wookey capacity” and the ability of the court to make injunctions where a party was subject to DOLS.

O v O (2016): Advising in an international relocation case and successfully resisting the relocation on behalf of the father of the child concerned.

M v T (2015) (UKHC): High Court case on paternity and DNA samples from abroad. Required detailed consideration of the law as to the obtaining of DNA samples.

Re D (Natural Parent Presumption) (1999) (Court of Appeal) 1 FLR 134: Successful appeal on the right of a child to be brought up by a natural parent.

Called 1991.

Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Family Law Bar Association Western Circuit Ecclesiastical Law Society Institute of Family Law Arbitrators (IFLA)

Inns of Court School of Law, London LLB (Hons) MCIArb – Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators