Julie is a strong, diligent advocate who has an in-depth working knowledge of family law and is able to provide clear and concise advice to clients. She is persuasive both outside and inside court, and she is a skilled and knowledgeable negotiator.’
Legal 500 2025
Julie is a member of the Family Team.
Prior to joining Chambers in 2019, Julie gained significant experience as a Solicitor specialising in both public and private children’s law. This included eleven years experience as both a Senior Solicitor and In-House Advocate for Greater Manchester Local Authorities. Julie therefore has a depth of knowledge regarding local authority policies and procedures.
Julie has a reputation for being hard working, thoroughly prepared and concise in her analysis of the facts and legal issues. Her approach is always fair, balanced, professional, calm and measured whilst being friendly and approachable. Given her prior professional experience she has an understanding of the pressures solicitors work under and in line with the ethos of Cobden House Chambers is always happy to discuss cases with solicitors before or after hearings by telephone or email including on an informal basis prior to instruction.
Julie is the Chair of Child Concern, a registered charity in Manchester working to further and improve knowledge and practice in the law relating to children. She is committed to and responsible for organising seminars and conferences to meet that aim.
Julie enjoys a wide and varied practice. She is regularly instructed to act on behalf of parents and carers, local authorities, children (both through their Guardian’s and directly on behalf of those children who are competent) and interveners at all stages of public law proceedings.
Julie has particular expertise in cases involving the following but not limited to: death of a child or children, inflicted injuries to children, sexual abuse, physical abuse, chronic neglect, fabricated or induced illness, secure accommodation, deprivation of liberty safeguards, wardship, issues of mental capacity involving the instruction of the Official Solicitor, forced marriages, female genital mutilation and adoption. Julie has been involved in a number of high profile cases involving organised crime groups including Child Criminal Exploitation. She has represented the local authority at Inquests in cases where a deceased child or young person has been under the care or responsibility of children’s (social) services.
Julie is accredited to cross-examine children or vulnerable witnesses having successfully completed the FLBA’s Advocacy and the Vulnerable Person’s training programme.
Julie’s representation often entails drafting of documents which includes written openings, case summaries, threshold documents, skeleton arguments and written advices in preparation of hearings.
Julie represents both parents and children through their Guardian’s appointed under Rule 16.4 at all stages of private law proceedings. She has acted for parties both alleging and disputing serious allegations including of emotional, physical and sexual abuse.
HX v A Local Authority & Ors (Application to Revoke Adoption Order) [2020] EWHC 1287
Represented the local authority in a birth father's application to revoke an adoption order.
The Family Division judge rejected the birth father’s application under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to revoke an adoption order made in November 2019, despite levelling criticisms at the local authority and Children's Guardian over a lack of rigour and urgency to identify him during the course of the earlier care proceedings.
A Local Authority v M and F
The case involved consideration of the proportionality and necessity of a finding of fact hearing in accordance with the Oxfordshire Principles (Oxfordshire County Council v DP, RS and BS [2005] EWHC 1593) and the statutory framework
The issue which had arisen was whether it was right and necessary to engage in disputed elements of fact finding in circumstances where it appeared that they had no direct bearing on the final care plan of the Local Authority, that being the children should remain living with their respective family carers under the auspices of care orders.
A v B [2023] and [2024]
Appeared on behalf of the Applicant non-biological mother in the case of M (A child) (No 1) [2023] EWFC 312 (B) and M (A child) (No 2) [2024] EWFC 99 (B) Judgments were handed down on 13 April 2023 and 2 May 2024.
Acted on behalf of the Applicant non-biological mother in this case. The Applicant (‘A’) initially made an application for contact with a child in care. However, by the final hearing applications had been made for the discharge of a care order, a Child Arrangements Order ‘lives with’ in the Applicant’s favour, restrictions to be placed on the exercise of the Parental Responsibility of the Respondent biological mother (‘B’), contact to remain supervised and an order under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 to be made for a period of 5 years.
Judgment (13th April 2023)
Judgment (2nd May 2024)
The Honourable Society of Middle Temple
Northern Circuit
Family Law Bar Association
Child Concern
This site uses cookies that enable us to make improvements, provide relevant content, and for analytics purposes. For more details, see our Cookie Policy. By clicking Accept, you consent to our use of cookies.
