Liam Kelly

Notable Cases

• V v V [2024] EWFC 380 (B)

  Liam appeared on behalf of the appellant husband (“H”). H suffered a catastrophic injury in 2020 resulting in his tetraplegia. Following the accident, a critical illness insurance payment, charitable donations, and donated materials and labour resulted in a home being purchased and adapted to meet the needs of husband and family. At first instance, the court determined the FMH should be sold and the proceeds divided as to 55:45 in favour of the husband. On appeal, the court accepted the decision was wrong. At first instance, the court had failed to properly weigh the significant needs of H generated by his injury, requiring security of accommodation. Allowing the appeal, the court discharged the order for sale, transferred the FMH to H, and provided for W to receive 75% of the net sale proceeds upon sale following a future trigger event. 

  Click here for Judgement 

• Re T (Children: Publication of Judgment) [2024] EWCA Civ 697

  Re T (Children: Publication of Judgment) [2024] EWCA Civ 697

  Liam, led by Michael Jones KC, represented the respondent father in the Court of Appeal. The mother appealed the decision of Arbuthnot J to publish the parties’ names once the youngest child, T, turned 18 in August 2026. The Court allowed the appeal; a fair balance could not be struck between the rights and interests engaged when publication would be 2 years later. 

  Click here for Judgement

• T (A Child) (No.2) (Transparency: Publication of the Party’s Names), [2024] EWHC 161 (Fam)

  The Court determined the public interest in identifying the parents outweighed the Article 8 rights of the mother and children who opposed unanonymised publication. The Court considered publication to be consistent with the children’s best interests as it would allow them to gain full insight into the case, with which to make informed choices in the future. The impact on their right to respect for their private lives is relatively limited. In contrast, the public interest in publication identifying the parents is significant. Liam represented the father, led by Michael Jones KC.

  Click here for Judgement

• Re T (A CHILD)(s9(6) Children Act 1989 orders: Exceptional Circumstances: Parental Alienation) [2024] EWHC 59 (Fam)

  Liam was instructed by the father to represent him at a rehearing of his application following an appeal. Proceedings had been ongoing for over 10 years, and significant findings of parental alienation had been made against the mother. At first instance, a Circuit Judge had found the matter to be exceptional and considered the child arrangements order should continue until T reached 18. At the rehearing, the Court determined that whilst the proceedings were exceptional, the Court did not consider it could go against the wishes and feelings of T, now aged 15, when he expressed he did not wish to spend time with his father. Liam was led by Michael Jones KC at the hearing. 

  Click here for Judgement

• A Borough Council v E and Others (No.2) (Refusal of Secure Accommodation Order)[2021] EWHC 2699 (Fam)

  Liam was instructed by the local authority, led by Peter Rothery, in respect of a renewed application for a secure accommodation order pursuant to S.25 of the Children Act 1989.

  Click here for Judgement

• D (A Child) [2021] EWCA Civ 787

  Liam was instructed to represent a Mother with learning disabilities in care proceedings following the birth of her child. On behalf of the Mother, Liam opposed the Local Authority care plan to separate the Mother from the child. The Court having made the decision to separate, and placing the child into foster care, Liam sought an urgent stay in the Court of Appeal, the same being granted. An application for permission to appeal and to appeal the decision to separate was made and subsequently heard on an urgent basis, Liam now being led by Julia Cheetham KC at the substantive hearing. The Court of Appeal granted permission and allowed the appeal.

  Click here for Judgement

• A Borough Council v E and Others [2021] EWHC 183 (Fam)

  Liam was instructed by the Local Authority in care proceedings with regards to a child with complex mental health needs subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Orders. Later led by Julia Cheetham KC, the Local Authority sought approval of the Court to place the child in an unregulated placement whilst subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Orders remained and OFSTED regulation was sought.

  Click here for Judgement