When autocomplete results are available use up and down arrows to review and enter to go to the desired page. Touch device users, explore by touch or with swipe gestures.

Call: 2007 | Solicitor: 1980

Stuart Fuller

Albion Chambers

Broad Street Bristol BS1 1DR

  • Overview

    For the majority of his 27 years as a solicitor (initially in Brighton but mainly in Kent) Stuart specialised in children law, having been a member of the Children Panel since 1985 and conducting advocacy at FPC, County Court and High Court levels. Following his transfer to the Bar in March 2007 he practised at 4 Brick Court (the chambers of Janet Mitchell), a specialist family law set in London, until moving West and joining Albion Chambers in August 2010. Since 2007 he has appeared on a number of occasions in the Court of Appeal and once in the House of Lords.

    Stuart has vast experience in both public and private law children work, with a particular interest in the former. He travels throughout the Western Circuit (and sometimes beyond) representing parents, children (on direct instructions and through Children’s Guardians), local authorities and other parties in care proceedings, other public law Children Act work and applications concerning adoption.

    He has frequently been involved in lengthy and complex fact-finding hearings at High Court level, relating to child deaths, non-accidental head injury, other serious physical abuse, FII and sexual abuse.

    Not least because of his experience as a solicitor, Stuart believes strongly in the benefits of early involvement in proceedings, of continuity of representation and of working as a team with his clients and instructing solicitors.

    Stuart has been led by a number of senior KCs and has himself conducted several heavyweight cases as a leading junior. His caseload is such that he often finds himself opposed by King’s Counsel.

Stuart Fuller


“Stuart has very in-depth knowledge and he is immensely experienced.”

“Stuart is fantastic and is able to assist on complex matters; he will go above and beyond.”

Chambers and Partners 2024 

Reported cases

  • Re L (Adoption Order: Identification of Possible Father) [2020] 2 FLR 225 – represented the child in an appeal concerning the extent to which it is necessary for paternity to be established, against the mother’s wishes, when the mother has relinquished the child for adoption.
  • Re G (A Child: Section 38(6) Assessment) [2020] 1 FLR 1204 – represented the child, supporting an appeal by the local authority against a direction for a residential assessment before the circumstances of the child suffering multiple injuries had been established.
  • Re A, B and C (Adoption: Notification of Fathers and Relatives) [2020] 1 FLR 1157 – represented local authority in one of three conjoined appeals dealing with how decisions should be made by local authorities as to whether putative fathers and/or extended family members should be notified of proceedings.
  • Re JL and AO (Babies Relinquished for Adoption) [2017] 1 FLR 1545 – represented one of two local authorities in linked cases concerning the jurisdictional basis where parents from Eastern European countries relinquish a baby for adoption in England and Wales and whether, in the case of AO, there was any mechanism for transferring the proceedings to Hungary (the parents’ state of origin) or placing the baby in Hungary contrary to the wishes of the parents.
    • Re HA (No. 2) [2015] EWHC 1310 (Fam) – led by Marcus Scott-Manderson KC, represented a local authority in care proceedings where following an Article 15 transfer to Lithuania the proceedings stalled, a new set of care proceedings was issued in England and the High Court found that it had jurisdiction to hear the new care proceedings in spite of the earlier Article 15 transfer.
  • BCC v NGN Ltd and ors [2013] 1 FLR 1205 – represented the child on an application by the local authority for a reporting restriction order following care proceedings in which “concerns of an unusual nature” about events in a foster placement, followed by the death of one of the foster carers, had come to the attention of the Sun newspaper.
  • Re L (Paternity Testing) [2010] 2 FLR 188 – represented local authority in an appeal concerning DNA testing via a putative half-sibling.
  • Re KB (Interim Care Order) [2010] 1 FLR 1211 – represented father on appeal by Children’s Guardian against refusal of interim care order.
  • Re L-W (Enforcement and Committal) [2010] EWCA Civ 1253 – represented child through Rule 9.5 Guardian in Court of Appeal when consideration was given to the meaning of “make available for contact” and to methods of enforcing orders for contact.
  • M v M (Abduction: Settlement) [2008] 2 FLR 1888 – represented a Polish father who had for the second time abducted his children to England.
  • Re B [2008] 2 FLR 141 – represented the appellant children in the “standard of proof” case in the House of Lords (led by Stephen Cobb KC), having previously represented them without a leader in the six-week fact-finding hearing before Charles J.

Cases of interest

  • Represented a father at a fact-finding hearing in proceedings that commenced at a time when the father was (wrongly, as it turned out) suspected of having killed the mother; allegations concerned the father’s behaviour towards the children and towards the deceased mother, including during periods of intense local authority involvement.
  • Led by Paul Storey KC, represented a mother, in an infant death fact-finding involving a conflict between the evidence of the pathologist and of the Part 25 expert witnesses.
  • Represented a child (through their CG) in proceedings in which the LA plan (successfully opposed by the CG) was to move the child from early permanence foster carers to the care of relatives who had been positively assessed but with whom the child had no pre-existing relationship.
  • In Exeter, co-represented with Carla Flexman (Colleton Chambers) a mother in a fact-finding hearing involving alleged scalding, a fractured skull and serious alcohol abuse; the injuries were found not to have been deliberately inflicted.
  • Led by John Vater KC, represented a mother in care proceedings that began with allegations of FII and the hoarding of medication but ended with the children remaining at home (with one subject to a supervision order). Local authority also represented by leading counsel.
  • In Exeter/Plymouth, led by Kate Brunner KC representing a father in a multi-handed intra-familial sexual abuse fact-finding hearing in which all parties were represented by leading and junior counsel.
  • In Swindon, appeared as leading junior (with James Cranfield) representing a mother at an infant death fact-finding hearing before a High Court Judge in which the local authority, the father and an intervener were represented by leading and junior counsel. The intervener was found to have caused the death, though a number of other findings were also made.
  • In Exeter, led by Kate Branigan KC before a High Court Judge, represented adoptive parents in lengthy and complex care proceedings involving (among other allegations) irregularities about the way in which children from Eastern Europe had come to be adopted.
  • Represented a mother in an alleged abusive head-injury case (retinal haemorrhages, acute subdural haemorrhages including spinal haemorrhages, hypoxic-ischaemic injury, unexplained chronic SDH), involving a low-level fall witnessed only by other young children. Four expert medical witnesses. Allegations not proved, children returned home.
  • In Worcester, secured exoneration of the parent against whom the primary allegations were made in a sexual abuse fact-finding where the parents were a same sex couple.
  • In Exeter, representing a mother in care proceedings (including a lengthy fact-finding hearing) before a s9 High Court Judge involving allegations of FII and “doctor-shopping”; the children remained in the family under a shared care arrangement involving the mother and extended family members.
  • Successfully represented a local authority at a fact-finding hearing concerning allegations of sexual abuse going back to 2003. There had been no prosecution, much of the police material had been destroyed or gone missing and there were conflicts between what victims and witnesses had said at the time and what they now recalled.
  • Represented a local authority at a fact-finding hearing concerning the death of a previous child of the family. Complex medical evidence as the child had a unique combination of genetic disorders. Opposed by leading counsel for both parents and for an intervener.
  • Represented an intervener in care proceedings where the central allegation was of an autistic teenager being encouraged to make false allegations of sexual abuse against a number of people said to be involved in occult practices.
  • As leading junior (with Gemma Borkowski), successfully represented a Local Authority in a two-week fact-finding hearing before a High Court Judge. A finding was made that the child’s father, who had previously been found not guilty of murder, had deliberately caused the death of the child’s older sibling. Both parents and the child were represented by leading and junior counsel.
  • Obtained permission in the face of Local Authority opposition for former foster carers, with whom the child in question was no longer placed, to apply for an adoption order.
  • Successfully represented a teenager against whom sexual abuse allegations were made by a half-sibling in private law proceedings.
  • Represented a medical consultant who was a respondent parent in care proceedings. Following argument in the High Court the Local Authority decided not to continue with their application for an order.
  • Represented a father against whom serious allegations of sexual abuse as part of a “ring” were made. Stuart led a junior member of his former chambers in a fact-finding hearing in Canterbury that ran for 16 days, with 24 witnesses including five paediatricians.


  • MA (Cantab)

Professional memberships

  • Western Circuit
  • FLBA
  • ALC