Joy Adeniran > Chambers of Sir Geoffrey Cox KC > London, England > Barrister Profile

Joy Adeniran

Position

Joy joined Chambers after the successful completion of her pupillage. Joy’s practice draws on significant prior experience. Prior to coming to the Bar, Joy spent two years in the litigation department of the Home Office, assisting in the defence of judicial review claims made against UKVI’s rules, policies and procedures. Joy also spent time as an Assistant Private Secretary to the Rt Hon Sir Oliver Heald QC, then Minister of State for Courts and Justice. Joy was responsible for overseeing the minister’s portfolio in various areas, including the MOJ’s Brexit negotiation strategy, EU Law, Human Rights, the Bill of Rights Project, Crown Dependencies, problem solving and specialist courts, and the work of the Law Commission.

Joy began her practice with a broad mixed common law practice which saw her working across a number of Chambers’ practice areas. This included a busy criminal practice, frequently appearing in the Magistrates’, Youth and Crown Court. Joy had much success in this practice area, securing numerous acquittals and successful appeals. Joy has found that this foundation in criminal law provided her with unparalleled advocacy experience, which has been of huge benefit to her family law practice, particularly in fact finding and final hearings.

FAMILY:

Joy accepts instructions in a range of family matters. Joy regularly acts in public and private children proceedings and has secured and defeated applications for Non-Molestation and Occupation Orders. Joy has also been instructed in financial remedy proceedings and family committal proceedings.

Examples of recent cases include:

Public Law:

GCC v S (Gloucester County Court) – Successfully opposed the Local Authority’s application for an Interim Care Order and removal of the children.

LBOL v M (Central London Family Court) – Representation of father in care proceedings. The father’s application for contact was granted despite difficult psychological evidence.

LBOE v D (West London Family Court) – Representation of paternal grandparents in care proceedings. The parents were alleged to be involved in human trafficking and were subject to criminal prosecution. At the outset of proceedings, the Local Authority sought Care Orders and removal of the children from the family’s care. At final hearing, the court was persuaded to impose a supervision order for the children to remain in the care of their mother and paternal grandparents in the family home.

WCC v M (Coventry County Court) – Representation of mother who had purportedly published information online about the children and proceedings, in contravention of Section 97 Children Act 1989 and Section 12 Administration of Justice Act 1960.

LBOL v C (Central London Family Court) – Received commendation for representation of an extremely vulnerable mother in care proceedings. The mother had a diagnosis of autism, history of psychosis and mild learning difficulty, and was aided by an intermediary throughout the proceedings.

HCC v M (Watford County Court) (Reported) – Representation of mother in care proceedings. Notwithstanding strong opposition being raised by the Children’s Guardian, the court acceded with submissions for the children to remain in the parents care under the auspices of a supervision order.

LBOL v A (Central Family court) – Representation of a father in care proceedings. The children were removed from the Nigerian parents care on an interim basis due to concerns about the use of harmful cultural practices. The successful use of culturally sensitive experts led to the family being reunified at the conclusion of proceedings.

Private Law:

A v A (Milton Keynes Family Court) representation of a mother in private law proceedings. Serious allegations of sexual abuse and rape were made against a vulnerable father with learning difficulties, serious mental health conditions, and substance abuse issues. At fact finding hearing evidence was heard from the eldest child. The case concluded with an order for no contact between the children and the father and the imposition of a prohibited steps order and section 91(14) order. Commendation was received from the judge for management of the complex case and vulnerable witness handling.

W v H v CG (Medway Family Court) Representation of the applicant mother who had been in a same sex relationship with the respondent mother. Complex legal issues arose around the existence of parental responsibility for the respondent mother and whether she could be deemed to be the other parent pursuant to section 42 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. The case was further complicated by complex and extensive factual dispute and the involvement of a Children’s Guardian and the respective Local Authorities for each child.

P v C (Dartford County Court) representation of mother from the outset to conclusion of private law proceedings. The mother made serious allegations of domestic abuse against the father. All allegations were found in the mother’s favour at fact find hearing, bar one. A non-molestation order was later secured to protect the mother. After protracted proceedings, the matter concluded with an order being made for indirect contact between the father and child. Commendation was received from the judge for oral and written advocacy.

S v I (Central London Family court) Representation of father at final hearing in which interim Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order, Prohibited Steps Order, and non-molestation orders were all discharged.

S v S (Chelmsford County Court) representation of mother in long standing private law proceedings in which allegations of parental alienation were made by the father. During the course of proceedings, the Guardian reached the point where recommendations were made for a change of the child’s residence to the father’s home. At final hearing, the Judge accepted the mother’s argument that the child should continue to live with her. It was also accepted that every effort had been made for direct contact to be achieved and consequently, contact between the child and father should be limited to indirect contact.

A v B (Northampton County court) – Representation of father in non-molestation and children act proceedings. Despite longstanding fractious relationship between the parties agreement brokered.

Family Law Act proceedings:

S v O (Barnet Family Court) Successfully aided the respondent in discharging a Non-Molestation Order at final hearing.

T v T (Kingston County Court) Successfully secured a non-molestation order for the applicant daughter who had faced unrelenting molestation from the respondent mother. The applicant was particularly vulnerable due to her learning difficulties.

A v A (Barnet Family Court) case concerning serious allegations of domestic abuse. After hearing evidence, the Judge acceded with submissions for the imposition of a non-molestation order and occupation order.

Financial proceedings:

I v I – (Croydon Family Court) Successfully represented the respondent wife at a financial remedies final hearing. The applicant’s case was dismissed, and it was determined that there was to be a clean break between the parties.

R v R (Romford Family Court) – detailed and thorough representation of the applicant husband at a Financial Dispute Resolution Appointment. The judge gave a strong indication against the wife’s request for deferred sale of the property and acceded with the submission for equal division of the wife’s pension provision.

C v C v A (Cambridge County Court) – Representation of an intervener who claimed to have an interest in matrimonial assets. Complex questions where raises about the validity of agreements entered in to between the intervenor and respondent husband, whether the court could be satisfied that there was an existence of a beneficial interest via constructive trust, and whether the disposition of £50,0000 to the intervener was a reviewable disposition pursuant to section 37 MCA 1975.

H v S (Peterborough Family Court) – Representation of party in TOLATA proceedings.

Abduction

G v J – (The High Court) Representation of the applicant father in abduction proceedings in the High Court.

CIVIL:

Joy regularly appears in a range of civil matters, including personal injury, credit hire and road traffic accidents. Joy is frequently instructed on behalf of claimants and defendants in, a range of hearing and trials. Joy provides written advice on liability, causation, and quantum, and also drafts pleadings. Joy has found her extensive knowledge of civil procedure has been transferable to her family practice, where she is able to tactically utilise the Family Procedure Rules to her clients’ advantage.

DIRECT ACCESS:

Joy is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public and professional clients under the Direct Access (or Public Access) scheme.

Articles / Publications

“Give and Take” Counsel Magazine, October 2013 edition

Memberships

• Attorney General ‘Junior junior’ scheme
• FLBA – Family Law Bar Association

Education

• LLM, Master of Laws, London School of Economics and Political Science (Distinction
• BPTC, Bar Professional Training Course, City Law School (Very Competent)
• LLB, Bachelor of Laws, The University of Sussex (Upper Second Class)

Scholarships and Awards

• City Law School Human Rights Scholarship 2012
• John Smith Scholarship for Law 2011-2012
• Winner of the Sussex Law School Senior Moot competition; DMH Stallard Mooting Prize 2008/2009
• Outstanding Achievement Award at the University of Sussex Students’ Union 2008/2009