Christian Durham Hall

Matrimonial finance makes up a considerable part of Christian’s practice.

Christian is regularly instructed in complex financial remedy proceedings at all stages of the case, with a particular emphasis on inherited wealth, matrimonial / non-matrimonial assets, dissipation of assets, conduct issues, needs (income and capital), cases involving trusts, extensive property portfolios, pensions, company accounts and more.

Christian is available to expeditiously undertake drafting and provide urgent advice on all aspects of financial remedy and trust cases. Christian is well known for being extremely flexible and being available for conferences even out of hours, at weekends, and during public holidays. Christian will go the extra mile to assist at any time with all aspects of the case.

Christian also regularly represents clients within TOLATA (cohabitation) proceedings, which compliments his expertise in the matrimonial finance arena. Christian has a particular specialism in cases involving a challenge to beneficial interests (constructing / constructive trusts), resulting trusts, declaration of trusts and proprietary or promissory estoppel. This is particularly relevant as Christian has also successfully argued these equitable doctrines for and against many intervenors’ interests having been joined to financial remedy (matrimonial) cases.

Furthermore, Christian has extensive experience involving Child Maintenance Service (CMS and Child Support Act) appeals at first tier and upper tier level.

Some of his notable cases include:

• Re H:  Multi day considerable high net worth asset financial remedy case involving issues such as short childless marriage (marriage later in life), significant non matrimonial assets, pre-nuptial agreement and the weight to be attached to the same, business assets, earning capacity and many more issues and arguments.
• Re B:  Multi day case involving a sizeable high net worth property portfolio and issues relating to tax issues and mechanisms of sale and transfers.
• Re I:  Multi day case involving considerable arguments about non-disclosure of assets, significant non matrimonial assets, sizeable pension issues and reasonably practical income and capital needs.
• Re G:  Significant issues over non-disclosure, adverse inferences, third party disclosure orders (to try and obtain disclosure from an unwilling and obstructive party), penal notices, adverse inferences to be drawn, and successfully obtaining a Hadgkinson Order.
• Re W: Financial remedy proceedings where the issue of transfer of jurisdiction raised with Scotland as this was preferable to the client’s case.
• Re F:  Dealing with the issue of litigation capacity or lack of and involvement of the Official Solicitor and appointed family friend to assist with the litigation.
• Re G and P: Six-day hearing (High Court) for an intervener facing an application pursuant to s.37 MCA 1973. Application dismissed following successful argument that the properties, and businesses (companies) were held by the client pursuant to beneficial interests. No reviewable dispositions. Substantial costs order made in the clients favour on the indemnity basis.
• Re D and W: Five-day hearing for another intervener facing a s.37 application. Christian successfully argued the properties were legally and beneficially held by the intervener. No reviewable dispositions. Application dismissed and costs awarded on the indemnity basis such were the adverse findings against the applicant.
• Re M, Re C:  Further cases (ongoing) involving interveners (for and against) where significant shareholding, properties in other jurisdictions, and numerous arguments over the validity (hard or soft nature) of loans between family members and other third parties.
• Re L: Four-day hearing representing the wife following a significant equity deal for the husband and considerable shareholding (total equity deal for the Company was £450 million). Substantial capital awarded on a needs basis (given pre and post matrimonial assets were argued) and generous maintenance for life. Physical health problems and covert video recordings (considerable argument over admissibility) played a key part of the hearing.
• Re C: Four-day hearing for the husband involving the wife’s inherited wealth and imminent disposal of parcels of land to a large national developer. Husband entitled to 40% of the net proceeds of land.
• Re M: Four-day hearing for the Claimant in TOLATA proceedings against a KC. Successfully argued properties held on resulting trust for the client.
• Re B: Four-day hearing for the Claimant in TOLATA and Inheritance Act proceedings involving arguments as to whether inheritance claims can usurp beneficial interests.
• Re M: Lengthy proceedings involving claims under the Inheritance Act representing a child. The estate paid a considerable sum for the purposes of reasonable provision and education.
• Re H: Advised at an early stage in a significant asset pool Inheritance Act claim by a partner where a child was born on out of wedlock. Advised to provide reasonable provision at an early stage and the case settled avoiding considering cost issues.
• Re B: Lengthy contested hearing where allegations of conduct were made that the wife (Christian’s client) had fraudulently taken out mortgages in the parties’ names. The test was not met for gross and obvious wanton dissipation of assets and a costs order made in the wife’s favour.
• A multi-day case involving allegations of personal conduct in which the court did take them into account due to a clear financial consequence to Christian’s client and loss of earning capacity and significant physical and mental health problems caused as a result. The issues and conduct in the case did include a ‘gulp and gasp’ factor and was too gross and obvious for the court to ignore.
• Child maintenance service appeals involving issues such as variations due to income producing assets and just and equitable exemptions. Also, cases where the income exceeds the statutory amount with a cross over with Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 cases.
• Re W: Successfully responded to an appeal on the grounds that the previous ruling had considered all factual matters when finding that the Husband had doctored bank statements during the proceedings.
• Lengthy proceedings involving farming and partnership disputes.
• Numerous Schedule 1 of the Children Act applications. In particular, Schedule 1 cases involving properties and other assets held in foreign jurisdictions.
• Numerous lengthy hearings involving issues relating to relevant personal, financial, and litigation conduct issues.
• Several cases involving Edgar v Edgar and Xydhias v Xydhias binding agreements prior to financial remedy proceedings, pre and post-nuptial agreements and challenges to valid Declaration of Trusts (including proprietary estoppel issues). Christian has extensive experience with early show cause applications, drafting, and for the court to determine issues of this nature at a preliminary hearing ultimately saving time, stress, money, and future uncertainty in the process.
• Christian also regularly deals with interim and interlocutory hearings for example for LSPO (Legal Service Payments Order), Maintenance Pending Suit, and general disclosure issue cases.

Christian has a wealth of experience and is a specialist in all areas of private law cases.

He is regularly instructed in cases such as:

• Internal and international relocation cases.
• Child abduction cases. Particularly cases involving the summary return of a child to this jurisdiction or abroad and Article 12 and 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention Cases.
• Specific Issue and prohibited steps order cases. Especially around school and medical provision (vaccinations, with Christian having been on (it is understood) the first case in the High Court involving opposition by a parent to a child receiving the Covid vaccination – publication awaited).
• Cases involving serious domestic and sexual abuse.
• Finding of Fact hearings. Christian is well known for having a forte with these cases.
• Parental alienating behaviours / significant influence and emotional harm cases. This is one of Christian’s specialist areas of practice.
• Challenges to live with orders. Some years ago now, Christian was involved in the case of Re A [2009] in the Court of appeal where a change of residence was considered in detail. This is arguable seen as one of the leading and seminal authorities on the issue. Christian drafted the skeleton argument for the father. The judgment is available here.
• Amongst many other types of private children cases and issues.

Notable Cases

• Re A:  Multi day case involving a father where there were allegations of alienating behaviours / negative direct and indirect influence by the other party. Findings made.
• Re C:  Multi day case opposing and responding to an application to remove a child permanently to another country. The application was successfully opposed.
• Re B and H:  Two ongoing complex and lengthy cases involving allegations of parental alienating behaviours, significant emotional harm and cross allegations involving issues such as sexual, physical harm (on the children and partner), and attempted abduction.
• Re I and M: Multi Day finding of fact hearing for the extremely vulnerable mother involving parents, also as minors. Issues around statutory rape and serious sexual assaults.
• Re W: Proceedings and final hearings representing the grandparents involving issues of implacable hostility, parental alienation, and internal relocation.
• Re W and P: Five-day private children final hearing for the father where findings of serious alienating behaviours were made against the mother who was a senior health professional. Change of living arrangements [residence] made to the father.
• Re M: One of the first specific issue order applications relating to the covid vaccination for a minor. Representing the r16.4 Guardian. Vaccination ordered.
• Re M: Five-day finding of fact hearing in private children proceedings representing a father (deputy head) and involving allegations of sexual assaults. Considerable telephone download analysis. Not all findings made. At the welfare hearing Christian undermined the s.7 report and considerable staying contact in favour of the father awarded.
• Re S – and similar case of Re R: for the Guardian in Private Children disputes. Following robust challenges to the experts and parents; invited the court to make findings of harmful influence on the children, implacable hostility, and alienating behaviours despite the psychologist’s opinion suggesting otherwise. The court did make the findings. In other words, the experts changed their minds in oral evidence.
• Many lengthy cases involving findings of fact with a specialism in parental alienating behaviours / influence / hostility and significant emotional harm.
• Re J – Appeal heard in the Court of Appeal where the length of a s.91(14) order was reduced on the basis of procedural irregularity and being too harsh / unfair.

Christian has an extensive previous track record of public children work whether he was led by a KC or was a leading junior against KCs which compliments his private children expertise. The cases have involved a considerable number of multi-week hearings in the Family and High Court covering issues such as:

• Significant sexual harm and abuse cases
• Fabricated and/or induced illness cases
• Significant non accidental injuries [NAI] cases
• Significant alienating behaviours / influence cases
• Contested adoption
• Child abduction and summary return cases
• Committal proceedings following inherent jurisdiction injunctions
• Cases involving the alleged murder of, or causing the death of the child or a parent
• Jurisdiction including habitual residence and Hague and non Hague countries
• Amongst many other cases and issues (too many to list)
• Many of Christian’s cases have also been reported.

In light of Christian’s wealth of experience in financial remedy proceedings and his commitment to a collaborative and resolution approach to cases; he welcomes instructions to conduct and represent parties at private FDR hearings.

Christian initially studied History, achieving a BA (Hons), and then went on to obtain a Postgraduate Diploma in Law, LL.M (Distinction) in Constitutional and Administrative Law, and then the Bar Vocational Course.

He was awarded the Shakespeare Memorial Scholarship by Grays Inn, and the Lord Williams of Mostyn Advocacy Award by Cardiff University.

He was also a Repton School Scholar.

He was called to the Bar by the Honourable Society of Grays Inn in 2009.

“Recommended expert.” Legal 500 2025

“Christian is everything you want when instructing a barrister. He is great with clients, his knowledge of the law is unrivalled, and he is an impressive advocate.” Legal 500 2023

Feedback from clients and solicitors on recent cases includes:

Re T [2026] – ‘I would just like to say thank you so much for all your help. You will never truly know how much it has meant to me, but even more so for [the child]. You were on top form throughout and absolutely amazing. Once again, from the bottom of my heart — and on [the child’s] behalf as well — thank you for everything. With my sincere thanks.’  [Private children case].

Re C [2026] – ‘It’s been a journey, I understand it’s your job and I understand you don’t get emotionally involved. That being said, you did a very good job, both with your eloquence in court and with the way you handled me.’ [International relocation case].

Re S [2026] – ‘I have just read the judgment in [the] case. Fantastic. Well done. So your fan club is growing.’ [Private children finding of fact case].

Re P [2026] – ‘Thank you so much I could not have done this without you.’ [Private children case].

Re M [2026] –‘I touched base with [M] to check she was ok and she sang your praises.’ [Private children case].

Re I [2026] – ‘Thank you so much for how you handled me and my case and especially with meeting with me for conferences out of hours and on a Bank Holiday when urgent maters arose. I could not have done it without you, and you were so professional.’ [Finance case].

Re B [2026] – ‘Very impressive indeed. Thank you.’ [Finance Case].

Re C [2026] – [after hearing my submissions]. ‘Wow. I wish I could do that.’ [Finance case].