Daniel Currie

Public law

In public law, Daniel represents parents, children (directly and via their guardian), intervenors and local authorities at all stages of proceedings. Daniel welcomes instructions to draft documents such as skeleton arguments and threshold documents and is able to turn around documents quickly.

He has experience representing vulnerable clients with learning disabilities and mental health difficulties. Daniel regularly appears in the High Court in his own right and as a led junior and has appeared at all levels up to the Supreme Court.

Daniel has acted in cases involving factual issues such as historic and ongoing sexual abuse of children (including fabricated allegations of the same), honour-based violence and non-accidental injuries, including brain injuries. He has experience analysing large volumes of complex medical evidence, expert testimony, and phone records.

Daniel has particular experience of proceedings involving international elements, including placement outside the jurisdiction, habitual residence disputes and international abduction. Daniel has acted in multiple such matters in the High Court, including as sole counsel, and has provided several seminars on these issues. He is happy to advise at an early stage in all matters and understands the need for swift advice in cases with international elements.

Daniel often provides in-house training at firms and talks at seminars. Daniel welcomes instructions to provide written advice and is often instructed to advise on complex areas of law.

Daniel drafts the Association of Lawyers for Children’s monthly newsletter, ensuring he is across developments in the law and policy relating to children.

Private law

Daniel represents all parties, including parents, grandparents, wider family members and children in private law matters. He has a particular interest in matters involving complex issues such as international relocation, implacable hostility, improper retention of a child after contact, parental alienation, domestic abuse and sexual assault.

Daniel has a particular experience of cases with an international element, including child abduction and applications to relocate a child to a different jurisdiction, having successfully represented parties in such proceedings. He understands the value of early and continuous advice in such matters and aims to work closely alongside those who instruct him. He has delivered seminars on international issues.

Daniel regularly advises upon and represents clients in matters involving complex areas of law, such as surrogacy. He has an interest in matters involving the acquisition and termination of parental responsibility and has conducted and advised upon matters involving such issues.

Cases

• Cheshire West and Chester Council v The Mother & Ors [2026] EWFC 278 (B): Daniel appeared against leading counsel in a case concerning allegations of intrafamilial sexual abuse in relation to which a critically flawed investigation took place. The judgment gives useful guidance as to the process to be adopted by child protection agencies investigating such allegations. Judgment available here.
• The Local Authority v The Mother & Ors [2026] EWFC 122 (B) & [2026] EWFC 166 (B): The first judgment followed a fact-finding hearing as to the cause and perpetrator of injuries to a baby. Daniel represented the local authority and reduced over 13,000 pages of medical, phone and police disclosure to a forensic chronology and written opening. All findings sought on the local authority’s behalf were made as drafted. Fact-finding judgment available here. Later, Daniel successfully resisted an application for a Resolutions Model assessment by the parents following findings that the mother had inflicted injuries to their baby, and the father had failed to protect them. Welfare judgment available here.
• Re X and Y (Children: Adoption Order: Setting Aside) [2026] UKSC 13: Led by Lorraine Cavanagh KC, Daniel appeared in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Association of Lawyers for Children. The judgment concerned whether the court has any jurisdiction to set aside a validly made adoption order other than by way of an appeal. It contains an important discussion of the law in relation to use of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The judgment is available here: Re X and Y (Children: Adoption Order: Setting Aside) [2026] UKSC 13.
• Re S (Wardship: Removal to Ghana) [2025] EWCA Civ 1011: Daniel was led by Lorraine Cavanagh KC on behalf of an intervener in the Court of Appeal. The case related to a child who had been relocated to Ghana by his parents against his wishes and was applying for orders requiring his parents to repatriate him to the UK from Ghana. The judgment is available here.
• A Local Authority v R (2024): Daniel was second junior to Kerry Holt on behalf of a parent in proceedings which culminated in a three-week composite fact-finding and final hearing concerning a head injury to a young child.
• A Local Authority v R (2024): Daniel was led by Karl Rowley KC on behalf of a parent in a matter before the High Court which concerned whether a plan of rehabilitation to the parents’ care should be governed under the auspices of a care order or supervision order following findings of serious inflicted injury being made against a parent. The children were ultimately rehabilitated under a supervision order.
• A Local Authority v K (2023-2024): Daniel was led by Lorraine Cavanagh KC in a matter before the High Court relating to complex issues of habitual residence regarding a teenage runaway, involving six potential nations in which the young person could have been found to be habitually resident. Daniel gained experience of urgent and out of hours applications before the High Court involving the Tipstaff.
• Re C, D and E (2021-2023): Daniel represented the mother as a second junior to Rachael Banks in a lengthy and complicated matter before the High Court, which involved an 18-day fact-finding hearing. The matter involved heavily contested cross-allegations regarding issues such as rape, honour-based violence and female genital mutilation. Further complicated issues, including alleged breaches of reporting restriction orders and arguments as to whether a party had waived legal professional privilege, arose during the course of the proceedings. The matter concluded with a no contact order against the father and a number of ancillary protective orders, including orders limiting the father’s parental responsibility.
• D v A Local Authority (2022): Daniel represented the respondent local authority in a 2-day hearing in the High Court, seeking dismissal of the parents’ application for discharge of care orders in respect of a large sibling group. This was a complex case with a long history of High Court proceedings, involving children who suffered from very rare medical conditions. Daniel successfully sought dismissal of the parents’ application and section 34(4) and 91(14) orders at an interim stage.
• A Local Authority v H (2020-2021): Daniel successfully represented the local authority as a second junior to Neil Owen-Casey appearing against leading counsel in a matter which involved a number of complex issues. The matter was protracted and involved coached and coerced allegations of sexual abuse against a parent, placement outside the jurisdiction, abduction of a child from foster care, media scrutiny, and vigilantism by an online campaign group. During the course of the case, Daniel advised on a range of issues, such as application to limit a parent’s participation in care proceedings.

Daniel acts in matrimonial finance and divorce matters. Daniel now regularly represents clients in matters involving multiple millions and has represented parties within matrimonial finance proceedings of a range of complexity both as sole counsel and as a led junior, including those in the High Court involving non-disclosure, business interests and fraud.

Daniel is always available to advise on matters pre- and post-proceedings and understands the importance of achieving continuity of counsel.

Daniel contributed to the report by the Financial Remedies Court Sub-Group of the Transparency Implementation Group. Daniel is also available to deliver training and seminars, having recently given talks on transparency, FDR privilege, and adverse inferences at the Matrimonial Finance Team Breakfast Seminar series.

Alongside Samantha Hillas KC, Daniel summarises the significant judgments published each month for the Judicial College meaning he is always on top of the most recent case law.

Cases

• S v S (2023-2024): Daniel represented a wife acting in enforcement/variation proceedings following a husband attempting to put assets beyond the wife’s reach via a company structure post-final hearing. The various transactions were set aside following an analysis of the activities of the company and their compliance with the company’s own Articles. Awaiting publication pending the husband’s criminal trial.
• Z v Z (2020-2023): Daniel successfully represented a husband in proceedings before the High Court which concerned an alleged fraudulent divorce in Pakistan over a decade prior. The matter ultimately concluded at a final hearing which involved findings of fact in relation to whether the Pakistan divorce took place and the application of the Family Law Act 1986 regarding the recognition of overseas divorces. Costs were awarded in his client’s favour.
• Rose v Rose & Ors [2022] EWFC 192: Daniel acted as junior counsel to Samantha Hillas KC in a case involving ‘one of the most flagrant breaches of the duty of full and frank disclosure that has come before the Courts.’ There were £5.5m of hidden assets, which were traced via analysing several thousand pages of disclosure received pursuant to wide-ranging third-party disclosure orders. The case involved issues such as complex trust and corporate structures, offshore bank accounts, adverse inferences, and the publication of an un-anonymised judgment. In proving the level of non-disclosure, Daniel also drafted allegations of fraud against the husband.

Daniel appears regularly in Court of Protection matters relating to health and welfare and property and affairs. Daniel has assisted with complex cases relating to the capacity to consent to sexual relations and the use of the internet.

Daniel is instructed to act on behalf of P, the local authority, and intervenors. Daniel has been instructed in matters involving complex capacity disputes and serious allegations against his client, including a matter in which his client was accused of attempting to murder P.

Daniel is available to advise upon matters relating to the Court of Protection. Daniel has advised upon disputes as to local authority designation and has drafted opinions in relation to property and finance disputes.

• BA Jurisprudence (Law), University of Oxford
• Bar Professional Training Course, BPP University

• Gray’s Inn
• Wales and Chester Circuit
• Family Law Bar Association
• Association of Lawyers for Children: Executive Committee member and member of the Young ALC Sub-Committee
• Advocate: Chambers Pro Bono Co-Champion

• ‘Privilege and the FDR: Is the orthodox view under threat?’, Family Law Journal [2024] Fam Law 1545. Available in the December issue of Family Law (paywall)
• ‘Is adoption a lifelong status? Adoption orders and the inherent jurisdiction in the Supreme Court’, Family Law Journal [2026] Fam Law 989. Available in the September issue of Family Law (paywall)
• Association of Lawyers for Children Monthly Newsletter
• Judicial College Family E-Letter: Monthly contributor to the Financial Remedies section.

“Daniel is a first choice of counsel, particularly in complex private law children matters. He is an exceptional barrister; pragmatic and professional, while possessing an approachable and sympathetic manner with clients that puts them at ease.” Legal 500 2025, Rising Star

• Gray’s Inn Lord Justice Holker Scholarship.
• BPP University Programme Leader’s Award.