header-logo header-logo

14 February 2017
Issue: 7735 / Categories: Movers & Shakers
printer mail-detail

Justine Cadbury—Spratt Endicott

justine_cadbury_-_pr_image_2

Firm appoints matrimonial law barrister

Spratt Endicott Solicitors has strengthened its family law department with the recent appointment of specialist matrimonial barrister Justine Cadbury.

Justine, a highly respected figure in the field of family law, formerly practiced out of the leading matrimonial chambers Queen Elizabeth Building (QEB), in London, before moving to Oxfordshire. She spent 10 years working out of QEB, and brings with her a wealth of knowledge and experience across all aspects of family law.

Justine was called to the Bar by Middle Temple in 2001 before completing her pupillage at QEB, where she practiced as a barrister until 2011. Her work included representing clients at all levels, from tribunals to the magistrates’ court and the Court of Appeal. She has extensive experience of family law litigation, including cases that involved aspects such as complex financial arrangements, forces and services pensions, foreign property and UK-based and overseas trusts. She has also acted in a wide variety of private law children cases.

Justine said: “I am delighted to be joining Spratt Endicott’s family department. My busy practice at QEB gave me a very wide range of experience in all kinds of family law litigation, from complex financial disputes to emotionally charged Children Act cases, and gave me the privilege of working with some of the most distinguished practitioners in the field.”

“I am looking forward to using my experience to assist clients at Spratt Endicott. My approach is empathetic and pragmatic. I am very well attuned to the stress and upset that family disputes involve, and aim to achieve the most successful outcome for the client’s individual circumstances and help them move towards the future as positively as possible.”

Patrick Mulcare, director and head of family law at Spratt Endicott commented: “We are extremely pleased to have Justine join our department. As a firm of solicitors, it’s very unusual to bring in a barrister. Justine’s appointment helps to set us apart from others in the profession, augmenting our knowledge and skillset. Justine is originally from Banbury and has deep roots in the local area, which combined with her extensive knowledge of the full legal process, puts her in a wonderful position to help and advise our clients as they recognise both her capabilities and her empathetic approach.”

Issue: 7735 / Categories: Movers & Shakers
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers to be joined by leading family law set, 4 Brick Court, this summer

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Real estate and construction energy offering boosted by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Firm bolsters real estate team with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
A wave of housing and procedural reforms is set to test the limits of tribunal capacity. In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold charts sweeping change as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 begins biting
Plans to reduce jury trials risk missing the real problem in the criminal justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, David Wolchover of Ridgeway Chambers argues the crown court backlog is fuelled not by juries but weak cases slipping through a flawed ‘50%’ prosecution test
Emerging technologies may soon transform how courts determine truth in deeply personal disputes. In this week's NLJ, Madhavi Kabra of 1 Hare Court and Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers explore how neurotechnology could reshape family law
A controversial protest case has reignited debate over the limits of free expression. In NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson examines a Quran-burning incident testing public order law
The courts have drawn a firm line under attempts to extend arbitration appeals. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed of the University of Leicester highlights that if the High Court refuses permission under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, that is the end
back-to-top-scroll