Kevin Farquharson

Degree:

BA (Hons) First Class; Middle Temple Queen Mother Scholar (2010/11) and Middle Temple Lord Diplock Scholar (2009/10); Ede and Ravenscroft National Award for Academic Excellence (2008 runner up).

Year of call and Inn:

2011; Middle Temple

Professional Membership:

FLBA; CoPPA

Email:

kevin.farquharson@albionchambers.co.uk

Specialist Areas:

Child Law

Court of Protection

Public Access Areas:

Child Law

Court of Protection

Practice Overview:

Kevin Farquharson is a specialist practitioner in private and public Children’s law, and Court of Protection. A former social worker, Kevin gained valuable frontline experience in the fields of adult social care and child protection, both of which provide him with a unique level of additional understanding in respect of his specialist areas of practice as a barrister. Prior to becoming a social worker, Kevin was a company director for eight years. Kevin is well known for his thorough approach to every case, his clear advocacy in court, and his ability to quickly build a rapport with clients.

Public Access:

Kevin Farquharson is licensed to accept work under the Public Access scheme, and has been instructed in a number of private law children matters.

Areas of Practice

Public Law Children

Tab 1 Title:

Kevin is regularly instructed on behalf of local authorities, parents and guardians, either seeking or opposing applications for care, placement and/or adoption orders. Kevin also represents parties in applications to discharge public law orders, and is regularly instructed to provide preliminary written advice on the merits of such applications. Kevin has experience of being led by Queen’s Counsel in this field, and receives instructions in matters spanning all levels of the Family Court, including the High Court.

Cases of interest:

Re W [2016] EWHC (Fam) (Aug’16): Ten-day final hearing following a three-day fact finding, representing the respondent father in an application for care and placement orders following discovery of a healing bone fracture in one of his children. Counsel successfully argued against findings that his client had willfully caused the injury, and was further successfully arguing for the return of the children until late in the proceedings when previously concealed information came to light in respect of serious and very recent DV between the parents. Consequently, final orders were made.

Re K [2016] EWCC (Fam): Three-day fact finding concerning allegations of serious domestic violence and threats of honour-based violence, representing the respondent mother, the alleged victim. Findings successfully challenged on account of there being a lack of primary evidence. Children returned to the parents’ care.

Re R [2015] EWFC (Fam): Three-day interim removal contest representing the respondent mother opposing the removal of her four children on the grounds of physical abuse and neglect. Successfully challenged the asserted interim threshold and kept all 4 children in the mother’s care.

Re W [2015] EWFC (Fam): Five-day final hearing representing a father with learning difficulties, in a relationship with the mother of the child who also had learning difficulties. Case involved a multitude of complex evidence concerning the parents parenting capacity and how that could be supported in the community.

Re LN [2014] EWFC (Fam): Eight-day combined fact find and final hearing representing the Local Authority in an application for care and placement orders involving extensive expert evidence in relation to non-accidental injuries, historical sexual offences and concerns surrounding parental mental health.

Re C (A Child) [2014] EWCC B50 (Fam): Four-day final hearing representing a very young mother with learning difficulties in an application for care and placement orders in relation to her baby son. This complex case attracted media attention from the Today Programme (Radio 4), which was particularly interested in the lack of support provided by local authorities to young mothers caught in the child protection cycle.

Clerks:
Michael Harding
E: michael.harding@albionchambers.co.uk
T: 0117 311 0302

Julie Hathway
E: julie.hathway@albionchambers.co.uk
T: 0117 311 0305

Marcus Harding
E: marcus.harding@albionchambers.co.uk
T: 0117 311 0314

Private Law Children

Tab 2 Title:

Kevin specialises in private law child arrangement disputes, including applications for change of residence, as well as disputes concerning Specific Issues and Prohibited Steps, including: removal from the jurisdiction, removal of parental responsibility, change of surname and change of school. Kevin also receives instructions to provide preliminary written advice on the merits of such applications. Kevin has been led by Queen’s Counsel in this area of law, and receives instructions in matters spanning all levels of the Family Court, including the High Court.

Cases of interest:

Re A [2017] EWFC (Fam): Counsel successfully argued that due to a history of serious DV and a lack of interest and involvement from the respondent father: (i) the child’s surname should be changed to that of the mother (ii) parental responsibility should be revoked from the father (iii) the father’s application for contact should be dismissed.

Re D [2017] EWHC (Fam): After cross examination of the expert witness, counsel successfully argued that the terms of a Female Genital Mutilation Order should be varied to allow the family to travel internationally.

Re M [2017] EWFC (Fam): Despite the proximity to the father, and indeed proximity of the original school to the applicant mother, counsel successfully argued that the mother should be given permission to change the child’s school.

Re G [2016] EWHC (Fam) (Jun’16): Eight-day fact finding representing the respondent mother in relation to historical allegations by her of serious sexual and domestic violence against the mother and one of the children. Some findings of physical violence made by the court.

Re A [2016] EWFC (Fam): Representing the respondent father in a three-day fact finding hearing. Counsel successfully argued at the outset that all eight allegations against the client should be dismissed on account of them being poorly pleaded, a lack of primary evidence in support of the allegations, and them having an overall lack of relevance to the immediate issues in the case. The judge agreed.

Re B [2016] EWFC (Fam): Counsel successfully argued, relying on Articles 10 and 18 of the UNCHR, for the implementation of unsupervised direct contact for a father who held traditional orthodox Christian beliefs, including (inter alia) that woman should assume a subservient caring and homemaking role in society, and that homosexuality was immoral; the mother contended that the father’s beliefs would cause developmental and emotional harm to the child. The father undertook not to share his beliefs until the child reached the age of 18.

Re S [2015] EWCC (Fam): Counsel successfully argued following two days of evidence that the child’s residence should be transferred to the father. The mother had shown herself incapable of supporting contact. The child moved to the father’s full time care two days later.

Re H [2015] EWFC (Fam): Counsel successfully argued against a change of residence despite the court finding: (i) that the mother held an irrational and unreasonable belief that the father would sexually harm the subject child, and (ii) the mother was willfully obstructing contact as a consequence of her irrational beliefs.

Clerks:
Michael Harding
E: michael.harding@albionchambers.co.uk
T: 0117 311 0302

Julie Hathway
E: julie.hathway@albionchambers.co.uk
T: 0117 311 0305

Marcus Harding
E: marcus.harding@albionchambers.co.uk
T: 0117 311 0314

Court of Protection

Tab 3 Title:

Kevin has been a member of the Albion Court of Protection team since its inception in 2011. As a former social worker with experience in Adult Social Care, he has invaluable ‘insider’ experience of the complexities of this field of practice from the perspective of social workers, local authorities and family members.

Kevin regularly represents local authorities, family members and litigation friends, including the Official Solicitor, in all manner of cases brought under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. He is also instructed to provide written advice in relation to merits, or other the specific matters pertaining to potential or existing applications under the the MCA 2005.

Kevin is known for his attention to detail, clear advocacy, and his ability to quickly build rapport with his clients. He has also been led by Queen’s Counsel in the Court of Protection.

Cases of interest:

Re N [2016] (CoP): Representing the respondent local authority in an application for a best interests determination issued by P’s sister, contending that P should remain in his home, whilst LA contending that his needs were better served in a care home. Counsel successfully defended a costs application against the authority which had been issued as a consequence of the LA filing evidence late resulting in delay and the need for a further hearing.

Re A [2016]: Representing A via the Official Solicitor in a s.21A challenge specifically focusing on the best interests determination within the Standard Authorisation procedure. Case involved full consideration of all matters pertaining to P’s care, residence and treatment, and matters pertaining to how best to maximise P’s participation in decision making.

Re SP [2016] (CoP): A complex case representing P via her litigation friend during which counsel exposed the unlawful procedure followed by the LA. The case also involved difficult interrelated safeguarding matters in respect of one of P’s friends, relevant to best interest decisions regarding her contact with that person and the management of P’s property and affairs which had previously been managed by that person.

Re S [2016] CoP: A complex case representing the mother of P who sought declarations that P’s best interests would be better served in a different care setting and that his DoL could be managed in a less restrictive manner. Counsel successfully argued that there should be a change of care home and that restrictions on contact and certain activities were disproportionate and should be relaxed. Counsel successfully argued that CCG funding was being unlawfully capped. Case also involved complex matters of historical sexual abuse against P and the relevance of that to P’s presenting needs.

Re G [2016] (CoP): Representing the applicant local authority in circumstances where the original DoL was unlawful, and associated decision making regarding care assessments under the Car Act 2014 were also prima facie unlawful. As a consequence, the Official Solicitor sought costs and HRA damages against the local authority. At final hearing counsel successfully defended the costs application and reached agreement with the OS on future care implementation such that the OS undertook not to pursue a claim for HRA damages against the local authority.

Re M [2015] (CoP): Representing the applicant local authority, the substantive application was brought under s.21A, but other matters requiring careful consideration included: (i) the capacity of P to revoke an LPA some 18 months previous, and the consequences if she did not (ii) interrelated safeguarding matters regarding the historical and current management of P’s finances (iii) complex family dynamics and competing views in respect of what was in P’s best interests in terms of care, residence and treatment.

Re H [2015] (CoP): Counsel representing P’s RPR in a s.21A appeal. Matters of capacity were clear, but in addition to P’s DoL, there were significant best-interest complexities concerning variety of health and welfare issues including whether or not P should undergo serious and potentially life changing treatment, and whether or not she should move home.

Re MK [2014]: Led by Queen's Counsel. HHJ Marston concluded following a ten-day trial, that M, the client’s daughter, had been unlawfully deprived of her liberty for 14 months. The court ordered that the daughter should be returned to the full-time care of her mother. This was somewhat of a landmark case which represents the longest unlawful deprivation of liberty since the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The costs awarded against the LA is also the largest in the history of the MCA.

Clerk:
Stephen Arnold
E: stephen.arnold@albionchambers.co.uk
T: 0117 311 0310

Download CV