-
Overview
Gemma Borkowski practises in matrimonial finance and child law.
-
Matrimonial Finance
Gemma Borkowski specialises in matrimonial finance with a particular emphasis on high-net-worth cases involving multiple properties, business assets, trusts and third party interests. She has a wealth of experience having practised in matrimonial finance since joining Albion Chambers in 2006.
Gemma is known for her detailed preparation, clear advice, determination to fight the client’s cause and her strong advocacy. Gemma enjoys keeping up to date with the latest case law. She regularly speaks to solicitors at the Albion Chambers Matrimonial Finance Seminar and other events organised for solicitors.
Gemma sits as a Deputy District Judge in the Financial Remedies Court on the Midland Circuit, where she has been authorised to hear the more complex cases. In this role Gemma has concentrated on hearing the financial remedy final hearings and FDRs. Gemma frequently acts as a private FDR Evaluator when she positively engages with both sides to find a solution to their case, as a consequence of which Gemma is repeatedly chosen to act as a private FDR Evaluator by solicitors.
Recent cases in which Gemma has been involved include the following:
- K v K – Acting for W in case involving dispute over ownership of the FMH which was dealt with as a contested preliminary issue. Successfully resisted the H’s parents’ claim to 100% ownership the FMH where the parents had provided the entirety of the funds for the property on the basis that such monies were a gift.
- F v F – Acting for a H who had capital assets of circa £500,000 and pensions worth £600,000 whilst the W had capital assets of £170,000. H’s assets had been accrued prior to a nine-year relationship. Positive indication secured at FDR and case resolved on the basis of a lump sum of circa £40,000 to the W.
- I v I – Acting for W in case in which the H had a 50% interest in overseas assets worth around £1m which were illiquid and addressing the impact of this on the division of the assets in England.
- P v P – Acting for a H in case involving allegations of conduct, where the H had income of over £300,000 per annum and pension assets of over £1.2m. Issues of offsetting considered where H sought a clean break on the basis of the W receiving greater pension provision.
- S v S – Acting for W with assets of over £3m which had mostly been received from inheritance after the parties signed a pre-nuptial agreement. Issues as to whether the pre-nuptial agreement would be upheld and quantifying the real needs of the H.
- B v B – Acting for H in case involving trust assets worth around £2m and successfully resisting the W’s claim in relation to them.
- P v P – Acting for W in case involving land in relation to which there was a dispute over the validity of planning permission and an agricultural tie. Contrary to the opinion of the Single Joint Expert it was established that the planning permission was valid.
- B v B – Acting for W in a farming case with total assets of around £1.5m involving disputes with third party family members.
- M v M – Acting for H in case where H successfully resisted an application for a SJE valuation of his business and went on to retain the same based on the value of his stock alone.
- H v H – Acting for a W in a case with assets of £2m where £1.35m related to the value of the family business. Considering the competing approaches to the valuation of the family company and treatment of different asset types to secure a successful outcome for the W.
-
Child Law Private
Gemma also undertakes private law children work and recent examples of her work include:
- S v S – Acting for father where there were issues over (i) Whether the child should live with each parent for an equal amount of time (ii) Which school the child should attend and (iii) Whether the name of the child should include the father’s surname. CAFCASS was not supportive of the father’s case. After a three day contested hearing all issues were decided in favour of the father.
- H v H – Fully contested three day dispute over which parent a child should live with. Representing mother where CAFCASS had concluded that the child should live with father. The Court decided that the child should live with mother.
