Tom Hynes > Chambers of Paul Brant > Liverpool, England > Barrister Profile

Tom Hynes

Work Department

Civil, Family

Position

Tom specialises primarily in Divorce & Financial Remedy. His financial work includes trusts of land applications. He also has a busy practice in Children & Domestic Abuse.

Over the last 12 months in particular, Tom has developed working relationships with solicitors across a range of well-regarded North West Teams. His practice continues to grow by word of mouth.

Tom’s approach is to offer grounded and pragmatic advice with an eye to overall case strategy. In the event that court appearances are required, he presents a confident and well-prepared advocate. He is an effective negotiator and has a good eye for detail.

Tom delivers lectures annually at the extremely well-regarded Oriel Chambers Family Law Seminar Day (Chester and Preston). He is a repeat invitee to lecture at the Liverpool Law Society Private Child Conference (2022 and 2023), and last year also lectured at the Society’s Family Finance Conference (2023).

He also offers bespoke in-house training to solicitors across the North West upon request, in the last 12 months having delivered such training upon (inter alia) TLATA (a beginner’s guide), costs in the civil jurisdiction for family practitioners, case law updates, maintenance pending suit, legal services payment orders and section 37 applications.

Tom was the driving force behind the establishment of the Oriel Chambers Mooting Competition, which is an inter-varsity university level mooting competition. Undergraduate competitors are drawn from the University of Liverpool, John Moores University, Hope University and Edge Hill University and the competition is judged exclusively by Oriel Chambers barristers. Tom set up the competition in 2020 and acted as master of moots in 2021 and 2022. He stepped back in 2023 due to the birth of his daughter (taking 2 months of parental leave April – June 2023). The competition continues to run with great success annually.

Career

Cases

A v B (10 January 2024)

Client: Pippa Tudor, MSB

Tom acted for the Claimant in her application for a declaration under the trusts of land and appointment of trustees act. The claim was issued in 2022 and concluded in 2024. Tom drafted all pleadings, attended the early neutral evaluation hearing (at which the judge largely accepted the premise of Tom’s settlement position), and advised in conference throughout. Tom took a robust stance in maintaining the client’s position as to the settlement that should be agreed. Several quite strategic offers to settle had been made by each party requiring Tom to advise as to accepting, rejecting, making, and withdrawing proposals. The strategic consequence was a listing for trial at which a Part 36 offer, made in 2022 still remained open for acceptance per Tom’s advice.

The Defendant was left in a position of either accepting a very good offer and paying the entirety of the Claimant’s costs on the standard basis; or running tremendous risk to trial. He accepted the offer with the effect that the Claimant recovered all of her costs on the standard basis. The effect of his advice was to place the Defendant in a corner, requiring him to either present a case laden with risk or meet all of the Claimant’s costs.

This case shows a) that Tom is able to hold his nerve and maintain his client’s case over a long period and in the face of pressure to settle; b) the quality of Tom’s strategic advice, whereby the client had the maximum possible protection on costs at trial.

C v D (9 November 2023)

Client: Sarah Robson, Forbes Solicitors

Tom was instructed to act on behalf of a husband at a final hearing (financial remedy). The husband delayed in obtaining legal advice until shortly before the hearing, so the instructions were received urgently. The husband proved to have formed unrealistic expectations as to the outcome in the event of proceeding with a contested final hearing. He was struggling to take advice from his solicitor and wished to raise, inter alia, that one of the two plots of land available for division was worth perhaps six times its pleaded value. Tom was engaged in lengthy conference with the husband, and persuaded him that it would be contrary to his best interests to run such a case to trial in circumstances where the judge would invariably take the pleaded valuation. Tom further persuaded him that rather than the parties swapping properties (as was the husband’s opening position), it would be sensible for each party to retain the property in their possession. In so doing, he averted significant litigation risk to the husband and achieved the best possible outcome in circumstances where the husband had limited evidence to support his position. This case demonstrates that a) Tom gives sensible advice targeted towards saving his clients stress and further expenditure; b) Tom is able to engage with and understand clients in difficult circumstances; and c) Tom is able to persuade clients away from potentially deleterious decisions towards better outcomes.

E v F (8 November 2023)

 Client: Direct access

Tom represented the mother in an application by the father for a child arrangements order. The case progressed to a fact finding hearing in November 2023 (3 days), at which the father (acting in person) had made at least 9 allegations. Prior to the fact finding hearing, at various directions hearings Tom had persuaded the court that there should be a psychological assessment of the father (which showed that he struggled to accept reality); and that there should be a guardian appointment. The former was important to identify the lens through which the father’s allegations should be viewed; and the latter was important to ensure that the child’s welfare did not get lost within a complex application. Tom engaged in cross-examination of an extremely difficult witness, who was prone to shouting, outbursts, and verbal abuse from the witness box. Notwithstanding these difficulties, Tom was able to cross-examine the father effectively (as well as his two witnesses). Findings were not ultimately made as sought by the father, with the judge observing that he had “added 2 + 2 and come to 5”. This case goes to show a) Tom’s approach to strategy (identifying at an early stage key pieces of evidence to support the mother’s case); and b) that he is effective at cross-examination even when confronted with a difficult witness.

G v H (17 August 2023)

Client: Wendy Eckhardt, Brighouses Solicitors

Tom was instructed to advise an engaged woman in conference concerning a pre-nuptial agreement proposed to govern the finances between herself and her husband to be. Upon reviewing the agreement, it was clear that signing such an agreement would run contrary to the client’s best interests. It sought for the parties to be bound by an express declaration awarding the husband 70% of the matrimonial home in the event of separation. It proposed that each party would keep the property already in their name (which for the wife was nothing, and for the husband was a seven figure portfolio). In the event of divorce, the wife would only be entitled to 30% of the net equity in the family home; and a £75,000 lump sum (capitalising maintenance at £15k pa for 5 years).

Tom advised in the first instance that it should not be signed; but in the alternative identified a series of amendments that could be negotiated to make it less unfair to the lay client. Unfortunately, it is understood that the client disregarded the advice and signed the agreement. However, Tom’s advice is indicative of; a) the fact that he will not “rubber stamp” his work. He considers the detail of any instruction and offers advice tailored to the situation; and b) he is not afraid to give robust advice to clients even if that advice is not what they want to hear.

I v J (19 January 2024)

Client: Emily Davies, Stowe Family Law

Tom represented an applicant wife for the first time at a Financial Dispute Resolution Appointment. The respondent husband had historically failed to engage with the financial proceedings. The Court had imposed two penal notices upon him. He had never been in attendance at a court hearing prior to the FDR. The wife was privately paying for representation and had limited funds. One month pre-FDR, Tom advised in conference that there was little merit in incurring the costs of preparing for an effective FDR, on the basis that the husband had failed to offer full and frank disclosure and in particular there was no way of determining his income in the absence of company accounts.

Less than 2 clear days before the FDR, the husband disclosed some documents including 3 years of company accounts. Tom changed his advice to reflect this development and was instructed to prepare for an FDR. He prepared a detailed note highlighting the scale of the husband’s noncompliance with court orders (noting that he himself is a well-reputed solicitor who should understand the importance of compliance); inviting the court to give a broad indication as to the merits of the wife’s case; and seeking directions to a final hearing. He was able to utilise the skeletal company accounts produced by the husband to infer that his company holds perhaps £350,000 of undisclosed capital.

The judge having reviewed Tom’s note made clear to the husband that his failure to comply would have increasingly negative consequences for him within the proceedings. At Tom’s invitation she (quite unusually at FDR) made an order for the husband to pay the wife’s costs, which were agreed at £11,000. This represented 50% of the costs the wife had incurred up to the FDR, and provided her a war chest to get her to the final hearing. Tom’s solicitor observed that more progress had been made that day than in the previous two years. This case demonstrates Tom’s ability to a) add value to cases in which he is instructed by identifying deficiencies by the other side; b) to press his client’s advantage where necessary and appropriate; and c) to identify cases in which a costs order might be made.

Memberships

PIBA; Northern Circuit; FLBA; Inner Temple

Education

University of Liverpool (LLB; LLM); University of Nottingham (BPTC)