Mark Lyne > Chambers of David Berkley KC > Bristol, England > Barrister Profile

Mark Lyne

Work Department

Family; Public and Regulatory; Property and Estates.

Position

Mark Lyne has been a specialist family law barrister for over 25 years and has developed a particular expertise in areas of law that relate to the challenges that affect families and family relationships.

Separately and additionally Mark has, over the last 20 years or so, developed an expertise in the field of civil actions against the police and other regulatory authorities. He generally represents claimants and has conducted many successful claims against a number of police forces, local authorities and the prison service.

Family

Mark Lyne is a senior family law barrister with exceptional expertise in:

• matrimonial finance cases
• applications under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989
• applications under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996
• family provision cases
• cases involving bankruptcy and matrimonial finance
• public and private law cases under the Children Act 1989
• child support cases

The fact that Mark offers expertise in areas beyond those relating simply to marital breakdown allows him to offer more comprehensive assistance in financial remedy and related financial disputes such as matrimonial finance cases, applications under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989,  applications under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, family provision cases, cases involving bankruptcy and matrimonial finance.

Mark also has many years of experience in both public law and private law children cases. He has  plenty of recent experience of cases involving maintenance and child support, international relocation and also of disputes involving the children of same sex relationships.

He has a reputation as someone whom clients find approachable and sensible. Every new case that Mark deals with is a reminder of the uniqueness of each and every family dispute. The width of Mark’s experience has gained him a reputation for being able to deal effectively with the cases in which he is instructed.

Mark’s most notable cases have included arguing that the White v White principles should not automatically apply to second marriage cases, dealing with one of the very first Presumption of Death Act 2013, acting for a father preventing relocation of a child to South Africa, applying the new provisions on enforcement against properties under the Child Support legislation, along with a wide variety of medium to high value financial remdy cases.

Mark also has specialist profiles on the 3PB website for family finance disputes, Private Law children cases, Care and Adoption disputes and TOLATA cases (Property).

Finance

Mark is a specialist financial remedies barrister.  His practice focuses and on complex matters where there are often high value assets, both on and off shore.  He is known to have a cool head and sensible approach in often complex legal, and emotionally charged, situations.

His expertise includes advising and representing clients in financial remedies cases against spouses in marriage, children following parents’ divorce and those seeking a civil partnership dissolution.  He also advises and acts for third parties, interveners, who may have an interest which they seek to protect in divorce proceedings.  Whether that be parents, siblings, companies or organisations or trustees.

He has specific expertise in advising on matters where there are international assets involved and where there are allegations of undue influence.

Mark also has substantial experience of Schedule 1 matters, and applications for financial remedies for children by unmarried parents.  As well as TOLATA disputes with cohabitant couples.

Notable cases:

• K v K  – Matter involving secret assets in Pakistan.  Encompassing consideration of land encroachment impact in Karachi
• P v P – Substantial assets in India.  Had to take in to consideration the effect of wife’s charitable donations in India.
• M v S – Advising on which jurisdiction to commence divorce proceedings, in UK or in Spain, where the law on pre-existing capital assets is different.
• Re RH – Centring around a separation agreement.  Husband argued that mental health considerations diluted the quality of the agreement even where the agreement negotiated through solicitors.
• K v K  – Wife’s application to set aside a final Consent order on the grounds of undue influence and misrepresentation; considerations of the impact of delay (Norman v Norman, Wv H, Birkett v James)
• C v C – Regarding a short marriage with children.  Consideration of the meaning of adjusting without undue financial hardship (C v C [1997]), and analysing the Court expectations for returning to work.
• L v L  – A Lithuanian divorce.  Both domicile in UK, with assets in Lithuania and UK. Application for financial relief under Part III of the Matrimonial and Financial Proceedings Act 1984.

Private Law

Mark has considerable experience of family disputes over maintenance, shared care disputes, children with special educational needs (SEN), international and national relocation of children, contests over private adoption and disputes involving children of same sex relationships.

Mark’s most notable cases have included arguing that the White v White principles should not automatically apply to second marriage cases, dealing with one of the very first Presumption of Death Act 2013, acting for a father preventing relocation of a child to South Africa, applying the new provisions on enforcement against properties under the Child Support legislation, along with a wide variety of medium to high value financial remedy cases.

Notable cases include: 

• Re R  –  private adoption case and application to remove the child permanently to Canada; evidence as to child’s sense of identity after some years of no contact with father
• Re K  –  internal relocation case; proposed move from one London Borough to another; consideration of ‘de minimis’ observations per Black LJ in Re C; consideration of Re F factors
• Re M  –  shared care application; consideration of a change of status quo for a child on the autistic spectrum; difficulties with the portability of an Education, Health and Care plan (EHCP)

Care and Adoption

Mark also has many years of experience in public law care and adoption disputes including cases involving teenage children, sexual abuse, physical violence against children, adoption and fostering, and parental and extended family rights over children.

Notable cases include:

• Re W – accepted allegations of physical disciplining of teenage children; sibling sexual abuse; management of voluntary accommodation over 16.
• Re B  – consideration of the purpose of PAMS testing; reliability and evidential value in care proceedings.
• Re H –  in the context of Re B consideration of whether adoption/long term fostering of six children with different carers was better than placement with a family member of some of the children, where the family member was a capable parent but did not accept the allegations against the parents.
• FLA application; consideration of the balance of harm test in the context of the test in G v G where no physical violence was alleged

Property

Mark has a long-established track record in handling TOLATA cases including the noteworthy cases of :

• D v L  – consideration of the effect of a Notice of Severance served after litigation contemplated on arguments of common intention and/or constructive trust.
• P v A – consideration of what amounts to an express declaration of trust; analysis of s53(1) LOPA 1925 and Goodman v Gallant.

Public and Regulatory 

Mark has, over the last 20 years or so, developed an expertise in the field of civil actions against the police and other regulatory authorities. He generally represents claimants and has conducted many successful claims against a number of police forces, local authorities and the prison service.

Notable cases include :

• SC v West Midlands Police – Successful claim arising out of unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. Aggravated and exemplary damages awarded as a result of findings of deceit and false evidence v police officers
• D v West Mercia Police – Claim for wrongful arrest/false imprisonment arising out police decision to arrest a claimant involved in a civil boundary dispute. PACE ‘necessity’ test in arrest at issue. Agreed settlement.
• B v West Midlands Police – Claim for wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, Articles 3 and 8 ECHR. Issues arising out of extent of police immunity against negligence claims and exceptions to Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire.
• G v Department of Work and Pensions – Claim arising out of allegations of racial discrimination against DWP as department responsible for JobCentre Plus. Successful arguments relating to the meaning of course of conduct under s118(6)(a) of the Equality Act 2010 and limitation.
• H v West Midlands Police – False imprisonment and assault claim arising out of police use of powers of entry and search under PACE and other legislatiounder PACE and other legislation. Agreed settlement.
• C v Ministry of Justice – Claim against MoJ as department responsible for HM Prison Service. Claim for assault in prison. Issues relating to extent of vicarious liability for acts of prison staff. Agreed settlement.
• C v Herefordshire District Council – Claim against local authority arising out of decisions taken by social services. Arguments concerning the use of human rights claims to defeat the immunity of social services against negligence claims relating to children in the care system.
• G v West Midlands Police – Successful claim arising out of a sequence of arrest, detentions and prosecutions. Full range of remedies pursued. Consideration of meaning of “terminated in his favour” where the prosecution was stayed on the grounds of abuse of process.
• S v West Mercia Constabulary – Successful claim against the police arising out of wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and assault. This case culminated in an agreed award of damages significantly higher than the guidelines figure to reflect (a) the seriousness of the assault causing head injuries and (b) the aggravated nature of the claim in the light of attempted fabrication of evidence by a police officer.
• F v West Mercia Constabulary – Malicious prosecution/false imprisonment claim arising out of alleged breaches of a harassment notice. Compromise at trial following rulings relating to the alternative nature of malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office claims.
• P v West Mercia Constabulary – Successful claim against the police arising out of the wrongful and unlawful use of CS gas to restrain a suspect in close proximity to third parties. Consideration by the court of the current police procedures for the use of CS gas.
• P v West Mercia Constabulary – Successful claim against the police for malicious prosecution/false imprisonment arising out of an arrest on child cruelty charges where the arrest was intended to keep the claimant away from a hearing in the Family proceedings Court.
• D v Worcestershire County Council – Successful claim against a local authority for breach of data protection laws in relation to confidential Children Act information.
• R v MPC – False imprisonment claim arising out of stop and search provisions, with concomitant assault allegations.

Career

Year of Call 1981.

Memberships

Family Law Bar Association

Education

Downing College, Cambridge – BA (CANTAB)