Hubbry Logo
Nicholas MostynNicholas MostynMain
Open search
Nicholas Mostyn
Community hub
Nicholas Mostyn
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Nicholas Mostyn
Nicholas Mostyn
Nicholas Mostyn
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Sir Nicholas Anthony Joseph Ghislain Mostyn[1] (born 13 July 1957 in Lagos, Nigeria) is a retired British High Court judge, who was assigned to the Family Division.[2]

Key Information

Early life

[edit]

The son of a British American Tobacco executive from North Wales, Mostyn was born in Nigeria, and grew up there and in Venezuela and El Salvador. After his parents divorced, he was educated at Ampleforth College alongside Edward Stourton where they won the Observer Mace debating prize.[3] He then studied law at the University of Bristol.[2]

Career

[edit]

Mostyn was called to the bar in 1980, initially undertaking beginner’s family work such as County Court domestic violence cases. He took silk in 1997. In 2000/01 he was on the losing side of the husband in the White v White case, where the judge ruled that "there should be no bias in favour of the money-earner and against the home-maker and the child-carer."[3]

Mostyn was professionally successful in a number of notable cases including that of the wife of footballer Ray Parlour, and in the 1,000 day marriage case on behalf of the wife of a leading City of London fund manager where no children where involved. Some journalists used the nickname "Mr Payout."[3] At the height of his earnings, he is said to have charged £500 an hour.[4] He was retained by Fiona Shackleton in Paul McCartney's divorce case against Heather Mills.[2] Like other barristers Mostyn undertook pro bono cases where he thought there was an important issue of law involved, such as issues arising from the functions of the Child Support Agency:[3]

I think the performance of the CSA has been the greatest failure of public administration in the history of this country. The figures are simply mind-boggling. In its history, it has assessed about £8bn in child maintenance, and managed to collect about £4bn at a cost of £3bn. You might as well just pay them out of taxes. And the government's proposed reforms of the CSA are hopeless. The basis of the CSA is that child maintenance will be done by administrative assessment by a bureaucrat by reference to a formula – that was introduced in 1993. It did not work! They then had another act of Parliament to try and sort it out in 1995. It did not work! Labour came in, full of good intentions, 'We're going to sort this out, it's going to be brilliant'. Act of Parliament in 2000 – total failure! So if I was given a free bill in Parliament, it would be that. Abolish the CSA.

Mostyn became an assistant recorder in 1997, and both a recorder and a deputy High Court judge (in the Family Division) in 2000.[2] He was appointed as a High Court judge on 20 April 2010, on the retirement of Mr Justice Bennett.[5] He was knighted on 11 May 2010.[1]

In 2015, Mostyn was removed from a case after he failed to follow a relevant ruling of the Supreme Court concerning rights of disabled people (namely that they have the same right to "physical liberty" as non-disabled people).[6][7][8] This was the second such occurrence.

His last sitting was 28 July 2023 and he officially retired on 14 December 2023.

Mostyn labels himself "Catholic, Welsh and Wagnerian",[3] enjoys smoking, hunting, windsurfing and skiing; and follows ("generally despairingly") Southampton F.C. and the England cricket team.[2]

Podcast

[edit]

Mostyn has Parkinson's disease. Since March 2023 he has been one of the co-hosts of the podcast Movers and Shakers which is about renowned public figures and their life with Parkinson's. Recordings are made in a Notting Hill pub and the presenters (Mostyn, Rory Cellan-Jones, Gillian Lacey-Solymar, Mark Mardell, Paul Mayhew-Archer, and Jeremy Paxman) discuss "the highs and lows, trials and tribulations, of living with the condition".[9][10][11] In March 2024 The UK Broadcasting Press Guild made Movers and Shakers its 'UK Podcast of the Year'.[12]

Notable cases

[edit]

As counsel

[edit]
  • Karen v Ray Parlour: won more than £4m in 2004 in a divorce against the settlement former Arsenal F.C. footballer, where it was ruled that Karen's efforts to curb Parlour's addiction to the 'laddish' footballer drinking culture meant she had played an important role in his career. She was awarded a £250,000 lump sum, an annual personal maintenance allowance of £406,500, two tax-free homes, £37,000 maintenance for their three children, and 37.5% of his future earnings.[3]
  • Miller v Miller: City of London fund manager Alan, who was married to Melissa for less than 1000 days, was ordered to pay her £5m of his reported £65m fortune. No children were involved.[3]
  • Sandra v Sir Martin Sorrell: won the ex-wife of the CEO of advertising group WPP, a 40:60 share of marital in 2005, a sum of £29m after being "marginalised and dehumanised" by her husband during their 32-year marriage. The payout included a £23.4m lump sum, £2m in bank deposits, the family's £3.25m home, and two parking spaces valued at £200,000.[3]
  • Shan v Harry Lambert: in 2001, won £7.5M for the ex-wife of the newspaper proprietor. Harry Lambert who was represented by Martin Pointer QC. In 2002 after an appeal by Harry, the figure was increased by £2.6m, half Lambert's £20m fortune. Lambert described his ex-wife's contribution to their 23-year marriage as "revolving around children and the microwave," the judge quoted White v White back to him.[3]
  • Zeta v Francois Graff: won the model, socialite and actress £10m on divorcing diamond heir Francois in 2003. The settlement included a London property and a jewellery collection, from a family worth more than £100m. Mostyn described the settlement as a "crushing victory."[3]
  • Sir Paul McCartney v. Heather Mills: in which Mostyn was retained by McCartney's solicitor Fiona Shackleton,[13] before Mills' solicitor Anthony Julius, leading to them being known during the case by the media as the "legal dream team."[2]
  • Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer v second wife, Carolyn Freud: Mostyn represented the Earl. After losing the right to have the case heard in a closed court session, the Earl was upset at the final settlement. Mostyn, a keen farmer, named his latest batch of seven pigs after his thoughts on the case's high court judge, Mr Justice James Munby: James, Munby, Self-regarding, Pompous, Publicity, Seeking, Pillock. The Earl later unsuccessfully sued Mostyn.[14]
  • Katrin Radmacher v Nicolas Granatino: Mostyn represented Nicolas Granatino against millionairess, Katrin Radmacher. Mrs Radmacher was represented by Richard Todd QC. Mrs Radmacher was successful in effecting a change in the common law so that pre-nups were no longer void for public policy reasons.[15]

As judge

[edit]
  • Re AA: Mostyn presided as judge and authorised an NHS Trust to deliver a child by emergency caesarian section, as the mother was judged to have lacked capacity to have consented to the operation herself. The mother was an Italian citizen who was visiting the UK; during her visit she suffered a severe psychological episode. The child was later the subject of a care application by Essex County Council.[16][17]
  • RF v Secretary of State for Work And Pensions [2017] EWHC 3375 (Admin) (21 December 2017): Mostyn ruled that the DWP had been engaging in practices that were "blatantly discriminatory against those with mental health impairments and which cannot be objectively justified. The wish to save nearly £1 billion a year at the expense of those with mental health impairments is not a reasonable foundation for passing this measure." Ministers had earlier rewritten the law in order to be able to ignore the outcome of a tribunal that resulted in similar conclusions. The DWP decided not to appeal after Mr Justice Mostyn's ruling.[18][19][20]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Nicholas Mostyn

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Sir Nicholas Anthony Joseph Ghislain Mostyn (born 13 July 1957) is a retired British who served in the Family Division of the , specialising in financial remedies and . Educated at the , where he earned an LLB in 1979, Mostyn was called to the Bar by the in 1980 and built a 30-year career as a focusing on high-value and ancillary relief cases, including leading roles in landmark appeals such as White v White (2000) and Miller v Miller (2006). Appointed a deputy judge and Recorder in 2000, he ascended to the bench in 2010, receiving a knighthood upon elevation, and later took charge of the Royal Courts of Justice "money list" in 2013. From 2018 to 2022, he acted as National Lead Judge of the Financial Remedies Court, driving reforms including the standardisation of procedures via the Good Practice Protocol and the development of practitioner tools like At A Glance and Financial Remedies Practice. Mostyn advanced principles of open justice through judgments such as Hasan v Ul-Hasan (2021), critiquing excessive secrecy in family proceedings, and Gallagher v Gallagher (2022), which opposed routine anonymisation. Diagnosed with in 2020, he conducted his final hearing on 28 July 2023 and formally retired on 14 December 2023.

Early life and education

Childhood and family background

Nicholas Anthony Joseph Mostyn was born on 13 July 1957 in . He was the son of Jerome John Joseph Mostyn, a executive originally from , and Mary Anna Ghislain Medlicott. Mostyn's early years were marked by frequent relocations due to his father's international postings with , leading the family to live in , , and . He later described this peripatetic existence as "very disordered," with no stable sense of home or roots. His parents, who were devout Catholics, had married young—his mother at age 18 and father shortly after turning 20—but divorced when Mostyn was 13 while residing in ; the proceedings involved dramatic elements, including alleged kidnappings and Mostyn being made a ward of court. The family dynamics reflected instability, as his parents collectively entered seven marriages: their initial union followed by three apiece, with his father remarrying women who produced half-siblings from and elsewhere, and his mother wedding a smuggler among others. Mostyn had three brothers and two sisters: Mark Francis Joseph Ghislain Mostyn (born 1959), Joanna Charlotte Mary Ghislain Mostyn (born 1963), Giles Patrick Joseph Ghislain Mostyn (born 1967, died 2014), and Anna Teresa Joan Mostyn (born 1973).

Schooling and university

Mostyn attended , a Catholic independent in , following his parents' divorce. At Ampleforth, he participated in debating, partnering with Edward Stourton to win the Observer Mace schools' debating competition in 1975 by arguing in favor of a on British membership in the . He subsequently pursued legal studies at the , earning a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree in 1979. During his time at Bristol, Mostyn was mentored by law professor Nigel Lowe, whose guidance influenced his early interest in legal practice. The university later honored him with an honorary Doctor of Laws degree in recognition of his judicial contributions.

Practice as a barrister

Mostyn was called to the bar by the in 1980 and undertook under at 1 Hare Court (formerly 1 Mitre Court). He conducted his first case as a on 9 June 1981, initially handling entry-level matters such as proceedings in county courts. Over the ensuing years, his practice evolved toward specialization in matrimonial finance, focusing on high-value financial remedies in proceedings. In 1997, Mostyn was appointed Queen's Counsel at the age of 39 and became an Assistant Recorder the same year. As , he represented clients in landmark appellate cases shaping principles of asset division and prenuptial agreements, including White v White (appearing for the husband), Lambert v Lambert (securing £7.5 million for the wife), Miller v Miller (securing £5 million for the wife in a short marriage), and Radmacher v Granatino (his final case at the bar, influencing prenup enforceability). He also acted in Parlour v Parlour and the Sorrell divorce (securing £29 million for the ex-wife of advertising executive ). Mostyn's clientele included high-profile figures such as Princess Diana, (in his divorce from , alongside solicitor ), and the ex-wives of Harry Lambert and . In 2000, he was appointed a Recorder and authorized to sit as a Deputy Judge while continuing his bar practice, and he was elected a Bencher of the in 2005. His 30-year tenure at the bar emphasized innovative approaches, including co-founding Class Legal in 1992 for case management software and authoring practitioner guides like Financial Remedies Practice.

Specialization in matrimonial finance

Mostyn specialized in matrimonial finance as a , focusing on high-value financial remedy disputes following . He practiced in this area for 30 years, handling "big money" cases involving substantial assets and often representing high-profile clients. His approach emphasized numerical precision in settlements, including the development of the first electronic Duxbury program for calculating lump-sum equivalents of periodical payments. Appointed Queen's Counsel in 1998, Mostyn appeared in landmark and cases that shaped principles of asset division. In White v White (2000), he represented the husband throughout the proceedings, contributing to the establishment of the "yardstick of equality" for matrimonial property sharing, despite the outcome favoring the wife. In Miller v Miller (2006), acting for the wife in a short of under three years, he secured a £5 million lump-sum , reinforcing equal sharing of marital acquest even in brief unions. He also represented the husband in Radmacher (formerly Granatino) v Granatino (2010), where the upheld the enforceability of prenuptial agreements subject to fairness considerations. Other notable representations included Lambert v Lambert (2002), where he obtained £7.5 million for the wife, and Sorrell v Sorrell (2005), securing £29 million for Martin Sorrell's former wife from the media tycoon's assets. In McCartney v Mills (2008), Mostyn acted for , resulting in a £24.3 million settlement for . He further co-authored At a Glance: Financial Relief (first edition 1992), a practitioner guide on matrimonial finance that reached its 33rd edition and remains a standard reference. By the mid-2000s, Mostyn was regarded as one of Britain's leading barristers, commanding fees of £500 per hour and earning at least £800,000 annually, with a reputation for aggressive advocacy in complex asset-tracing and valuation disputes. His cases advanced causal principles of contribution and needs-based adjustments to the sharing regime, prioritizing empirical asset classification over discretionary judicial intuition.

High-profile cases as counsel

Mostyn represented Sir , alongside solicitor , in his divorce from , which concluded in March 2008 with Mills awarded a lump sum of £24.3 million, periodical payments of £35,000 per year for their daughter, and retention of the family home. The case involved a five-day hearing in the before Mr Justice Bennett, marked by public acrimony and Mills' initial claim for £125 million, which Mostyn contested as disproportionate to McCartney's wealth and the four-year marriage duration. In the landmark Miller v Miller; McFarlane v McFarlane UKHL 24, Mostyn acted for the appellant wife, , in a conjoined appeal addressing fairness in ancillary relief for short marriages and compensation for relationship-generated disadvantages. The Lords upheld principles of equal sharing and needs-based awards, resulting in Miller receiving a £5 million from her manager husband's assets after a 2.5-year , establishing precedents for lump-sum payments in brief unions without children. Mostyn secured over £4 million for Karen Parlour in her 2004 divorce from footballer after a 3.5-year preceded by , with the ruling her contributions warranted 37% of family assets despite the husband's opposition. He argued the settlement avoided sex-based discrimination, emphasizing non-financial contributions, though the judge later criticized the husband's "laddish" lifestyle in upholding the award. Representing Sandra Finestone (Lady Sorrell) against advertising executive Sir in 2005, Mostyn obtained a £29 million settlement—approximately 40% of marital assets—for the wife after a 20-year , amid claims she had been marginalized in family life. The divided assets on a discretionary basis, factoring in the couple's three children and Sorrell's WPP Group earnings, marking one of the largest payouts at the time.

Judicial role

Appointment to the High Court

Nicholas Mostyn was appointed a judge assigned to the Division on 1 April 2010, succeeding Mr Justice Bennett upon the latter's retirement. This followed his designation as Queen's Counsel in 1997 and his role as a Judge since 2000, during which he handled complex matters as a recorder and assistant recorder from 1997. The appointment process for judges in at the time involved recommendation by the to the , who forwarded selections to the monarch for formal approval; Mostyn's selection reflected his established expertise in matrimonial finance litigation, including leading cases that shaped principles of asset division in divorce. Upon appointment, he received a knighthood, as is customary for judges, and took the name Mr Justice Mostyn. His judicial oath was administered in the context of the Family Division's emphasis on resolving high-value disputes with transparency and consistency, areas where his prior bar practice had demonstrated rigorous application of statutory frameworks under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

Tenure and retirement

Mostyn was appointed a of the Family Division on 20 April 2010, succeeding Mr Justice Bennett upon the latter's retirement. He served in this role for 13 years, specializing in financial remedies cases and contributing to the development of precedents in matrimonial finance. During his tenure, Mostyn held leadership positions within the Family Division, including National Lead Judge for the Financial Remedies Court (FRC), head of the 'money' list at the Royal Courts of Justice, and Judge in Charge of Court 50. He relinquished these administrative roles on 26 April 2022, citing completion of key reforms in financial remedy procedures. Mostyn was diagnosed with in 2020, which progressed to affect his judicial duties. His final sitting as a occurred on 28 July 2023, after which he retired early at age 65—approximately nine years before the age of 75—due to the condition's impact. His official from the took effect on 14 December 2023.

Notable judgments as a judge

Mostyn J's judgments in the Family Division of the High Court frequently addressed the application of section 25 of the to financial remedies, emphasizing a structured yet discretionary approach to sharing marital assets while prioritizing needs in cases of disparity. In N v F EWHC 586 (Fam), he examined the treatment of pre-marital wealth in a 20-year marriage where the husband brought significant assets into the union, ruling that such wealth should be fact-specifically assessed for exclusion from sharing, but that the wife's needs could justify partial ring-fencing if unmet by marital acquest alone; he awarded her approximately £5.25 million, reflecting a blend of needs provision and equal division of post-marital gains without fully shielding pre-acquired property. This decision underscored that pre-marital assets are not presumptively non-matrimonial but require forensic analysis under statutory criteria, rejecting rigid presumptions in favor of case-specific fairness. In short-marriage cases, Mostyn J clarified the limits of judicial discretion against equal sharing principles derived from White v White 1 AC 596. His ruling in FF v KF EWHC 1093 (Fam) dismissed a husband's against a £4.25 million clean-break award to the wife after a of less than two years, holding that "needs" in financial remedies denote a reasonable reflective of the marital rather than bare subsistence, and that no guideline mandates term-limited spousal maintenance solely due to brevity; the award was upheld given the husband's substantial wealth exceeding £100 million. Similarly, in E v L EWFC 60, following a childless of about three years, he ordered a £1.5 million lump sum to the wife—equating to 50% of the identifiable marital acquest—rejecting the husband's plea for unequal division based on duration or absence of children, as these factors alone do not constitute the "white leopard" exceptional circumstances needed to depart from sharing under Miller v Miller UKHL 24. Mostyn J also issued landmark rulings advancing open justice in family proceedings, challenging entrenched secrecy norms. In DL v SL EWHC 2621 (Fam), he articulated principles for media reporting of ancillary relief hearings, permitting anonymized publication where public interest outweighs private harm, thereby defining the balance between Article 8 privacy rights and Article 10 freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. This theme culminated in cases like Gallagher v Gallagher EWFC 63, where he invoked Jeremy Bentham's maxim—"Where there is no publicity there is no justice"—to advocate transparency in financial disputes, arguing that opaque proceedings foster perceptions of arbitrariness and undermine rule-of-law principles. Over his final two judicial years, he delivered 11 substantive decisions reinforcing public administration of family law, positioning it as integral to democratic accountability rather than exceptional.

Contributions to family law

Development of equal sharing principles

Mostyn's judicial contributions to the equal sharing principle in matrimonial finance built upon the landmark ruling in White v White UKHL 54, which established equality as the default "yardstick" for dividing marital assets under section 25 of the , absent compelling reasons to depart. As a judge from 2010, Mostyn consistently applied and refined this principle, emphasizing its role in ensuring fairness by treating the marital partnership as equal regardless of traditional roles or contributions, while delineating boundaries for non-matrimonial assets and exceptional circumstances. His approach prioritized identifying the "marital acquest"—assets generated during the marriage— for equal division, often rejecting arguments for discrimination based on non-financial factors. In WM v HM EWFC 25, Mostyn rejected claims of "special contribution" by the higher-earning spouse, arguing that such assertions undermine the statutory emphasis on equality and risk reintroducing discriminatory assessments of versus breadwinning roles. He advocated a linear for valuing business assets accrued over time, approving equal of the marital portion while ring-fencing pre-marital elements only where clearly separable, as in cases involving inherited or pre-acquired wealth. This judgment provided practical guidance, cautioning against subjective discounts that could erode the principle's objectivity, and influenced subsequent courts to apply rigorously to post-tax, post-debt resources. Mostyn extended the principle to short and childless marriages in E v L EWFC 60, ruling that duration or absence of children does not justify departure from equality, as "a is a " and the statutory criteria under section 25 do not privilege procreation or longevity per se. Here, despite a three-year union with no offspring, he ordered equal division of the marital acquest, dismissing the husband's argument that childlessness implied lesser commitment; instead, he stressed empirical fairness over presumptions, awarding the wife half of accrued assets while excluding unilateral pre-marital holdings. This decision clarified that exceptions require "good reason," such as egregious conduct or needs imbalance, not mere relational brevity, and critiqued prior "White leopard" cases for inconsistent application. Regarding non-matrimonial property, Mostyn's rulings, such as in OG v AG EWFC 52, apportioned assets based on marital integration: for instance, he classified 80% of a as matrimonial due to joint efforts, subjecting it to equal , while preserving 20% as non-marital. In extrajudicial commentary, like his 2022 speech, he described as non-rigid—"not a Procrustean "—but insisted on equal division of identifiable marital property to avoid arbitrary judicial discretion, while noting modifications for post-separation where one party's efforts predominate. These positions, drawn from appellate scrutiny and , reinforced equal as a causal outcome of marital , prioritizing verifiable over subjective merit.

Advocacy for open justice

Mostyn has long championed the application of the open justice principle to proceedings, particularly financial remedies, arguing that secrecy erodes public confidence and the . In BT v CU EWFC 87, he articulated the "Mostyn Thesis," asserting that family cases should be publicly reported unless protected by statute, with anonymity granted only on clear and cogent evidence of strict necessity, drawing on the constitutional rule established in Scott v Scott AC 417. This stance challenged the prevailing "cult of secrecy" in family courts, where anonymization is routinely imposed without adequate justification, as evidenced by data from the Financial Remedies Court showing 71 of 84 judgments anonymized between September 2023 and March 2025, often with baseless threats. During his judicial tenure, Mostyn applied these principles in multiple rulings, rejecting blanket and advocating for media access to case facts even if judgments were anonymized, as in Xanthopoulos v Rakshina EWFC 30, where he emphasized that insufficient transparency fails to uphold justice. He co-proposed a standard Reporting Permission Order with HHJ Hess to standardize transparency in financial remedy hearings, aiming to balance under Article 8 ECHR with freedom of expression under Article 10, while critiquing judicial overreach in cases like Clibbery v Allan EWCA Civ 308 for unlawfully extending reporting bans. Post-retirement, he continued this advocacy through initiatives like supporting the Financial Remedies Transparency Pilot while decrying its presumptive restrictions as unlawful without parliamentary backing. In lectures such as "A Priceless Inheritance: Family Law, Open Justice and the Rule of Law" delivered to the Bar Council on 2 July 2025, Mostyn called for legislative reform to mandate open hearings per the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857's original intent, rejecting family law's isolation as a "desert island" exempt from civil norms. Similarly, in his 7 October 2025 Cayman Islands lecture "Open Justice in the Modern Age," he urged video archiving of hearings, public access to core documents, and emulation of the Court of Protection's transparency model, citing examples like the anonymized £231 million award in PN v SA EWFC 141 as emblematic of unjustified opacity. These efforts underscore his view that open deters misconduct and enables scrutiny, as affirmed by Lords Woolf and Rodger.

Critiques of judicial discretion and secrecy

Mostyn has repeatedly criticized the pervasive secrecy in family court proceedings, particularly in financial remedy cases, arguing that it contravenes the constitutional principle of open justice established in Scott v Scott AC 417, which mandates public access to trials unless strict necessity—such as protecting children or —demands derogation. In Gallagher v Gallagher EWFC 52, as lead judge of the Family Remedies Court, he rejected anonymization for a high-value involving a couple worth over £100 million, ruling that routine anonymization of judgments lacks statutory basis and is unlawful without parliamentary authorization, as family procedure rules cannot override binding precedent. He emphasized that open justice applies even to private hearings, which bar physical attendance but not reporting, and dismissed arguments for blanket secrecy as unsupported by evidence of harms like . In a 2022 speech, Mostyn described the practice of closed-door hearings, anonymous judgments, and perpetual reporting restrictions as a "very bad example of desert island syndrome," isolated from civil litigation norms where compulsory disclosure occurs openly without such curbs. He contrasted this with historical precedents, such as the Victorian Divorce Court under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857, where public hearings deterred misconduct, and critiqued modern anonymization—evident in 716 orders issued in 2025—as eroding public confidence and understanding of judicial outcomes. Mostyn argued that anonymizing high-profile awards, like the £231 million in PN v SA EWFC 141, obscures scrutiny and creates policy inconsistencies, as appeals would likely be public; he advocated a balancing exercise under Articles 6, 8, and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights only when "clear and cogent evidence" justifies restrictions. Regarding judicial discretion, Mostyn has contended that its scope in , especially matrimonial finance, is overstated and often amounts to structured value judgments rather than unfettered choice, critiquing characterizations of it as "woolly" or absolute as leading to inconsistent outcomes across similar cases. In a 2019 address to the Family Law Association, he dissected discretion under the , asserting no true "unfettered discretion" exists, as decisions must adhere to rules like the sharing principle for matrimonial assets and needs-based assessments via algorithms such as Duxbury for capitalizing income requirements. He advocated subordinating discretion to clear guidelines and a two-stage process—first ring-fencing non-matrimonial assets, then equal sharing of the rest—to ensure like cases are treated alike, reducing subjective variability and enhancing predictability. Mostyn maintained that rubrics imposing standard —common in family judgments—fail to legitimize , lacking injunctive force without legislation and inapplicable to financial remedies under section 12 of the Act 1960. His broader campaign, including monographs and lectures like "Open Justice in the Modern Age" in 2025, posits that unchecked discretion and foster perceptions of arbitrariness, undermining the ; he urged legislative reform for transparency while constraining judicial leeway through and metrics.

Controversies and criticisms

Recusals and allegations of

In January 2015, the Court of Appeal recused Sir Nicholas Mostyn from the ongoing divorce proceedings between David Mann and Shelley Mann after finding that his conduct demonstrated excessive hostility towards David Mann, including threats of for non-payment of and use of intemperate language that rendered him unsuitable to continue adjudicating the case. The judges noted Mostyn's "robust" and "tenacious" approach had crossed into apparent , particularly in his handling of enforcement issues amid the couple's protracted £2 million dispute. Later in October 2015, Mostyn was again removed from a case by the Court of Appeal concerning whether care arrangements for a severely mentally disabled constituted a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 of the . The recusal stemmed from his "passionate views" and "tenacious adherence" to a personal legal analysis that distorted impartial fact-finding, marking the second such removal within the year and highlighting concerns over his ability to detach from preconceived positions. These incidents drew commentary on Mostyn's judicial style, previously noted for its assertiveness from his days as a high-profile dubbed "Mr Payout," but no broader pattern of was formally alleged or upheld beyond these specific recusals. Mostyn continued his tenure on the bench without further reported recusals tied to bias claims.

Debates over family law precedents

Mostyn's approach to child relocation precedents, particularly his critiques of Payne v Payne EWCA Civ 166 and related authorities like Poel v Poel 1 WLR 1469, has fueled significant debate within circles over the balance between parental and welfare. In Payne, the Court of Appeal established a framework prioritizing the relocating parent's reasonable proposals and the potential harm to that parent from refusal, often resulting in approval of applications—predominantly by mothers as primary carers. Mostyn, drawing from his experience as both advocate and judge, contended that this test creates an effective presumption in favor of relocation, sidelining a holistic assessment of the under the welfare paramountcy principle in section 1 of the Children Act 1989. In refusing a relocation bid, he explicitly noted that Poel and Payne "have the tendency to almost invariably allow applications to succeed, save where there is or where the proposal is manifestly unreasonable," highlighting a perceived systemic tilt that discourages robust opposition from the non-relocating parent. This stance has amplified calls for appellate or legislative , with Mostyn's observations cited by reformers advocating a single-stage welfare evaluation without sequential emphasis on the applicant's perspective, arguing it would reduce incentives for strategic relocations that disrupt established contact arrangements and post-separation. Supporters, including practitioners concerned with empirical outcomes showing high relocation success rates (estimated at over 80% in some analyses), praise Mostyn's emphasis on evidence-based scrutiny, such as international questioning long-term adjustment in relocated families. Critics, however, defend Payne as pragmatic guidance that acknowledges the primary carer's role in daily welfare and the practical realities of modern mobility, warning that abandoning it could flood courts with protracted welfare disputes, increase costs, and inadvertently penalize economically dependent parents—often women—whose proposals are rooted in genuine needs like career or family support networks. Mostyn's interventions, including earlier arguments as Queen's Counsel that Payne was "outdated and heavily criticised" domestically and abroad, underscore a broader tension in precedents favoring applicant-centric tests over neutral checklists, influencing subsequent cases like Re D (Leave to Remove: ) where similar flaws were aired. While no wholesale overturn has occurred, his rulings have prompted incremental shifts, such as heightened scrutiny of proposals' feasibility and impact on sibling or paternal bonds, though detractors from child rights organizations argue this risks entrenching gender stereotypes by presuming maternal applications warrant skepticism. These debates reflect empirical variances in relocation data—e.g., studies indicating poorer outcomes for children when contact diminishes—and underscore Mostyn's push for precedents aligned with causal factors like attachment stability over presumptive parental rights.

Opposition to traditional marriage incentives

In October 2014, at a conference organized by the group Resolution, Sir Nicholas Mostyn argued that holds no inherent advantage over in terms of relationship stability, stating there was "no evidence to suggest married relationship is more stable than cohabitation." He criticized the legal system's preferential treatment of , including its provision of "special protection to wives" through equitable asset distribution upon , which he deemed discriminatory and akin to creating "two classes of adjudication" based solely on . Mostyn proposed abolishing such marital-specific rights and extending the full framework of financial remedies—despite its flaws, or "warts and all"—to cohabiting couples to eliminate distinctions. Mostyn characterized state endorsement of marriage's unique status as "social engineering," asserting that "it is not the role of the state... to go round telling people how they should form their relationships." He acknowledged that marriage benefits from fiscal privileges, such as advantages, but framed these as unjustified given the purported equivalence of marital and cohabitational unions. This stance implicitly opposed policies incentivizing traditional marriage through legal or economic preferences, favoring instead a neutral approach that prioritizes individual relational choices over institutional promotion of lifelong marital commitment. These views were articulated in response to judges like Sir Paul Coleridge, who have advocated for policies reinforcing 's societal value. Critics, including researchers from the Marriage Foundation, contested Mostyn's empirical claim, citing data showing that only 1 in 8 children from cohabiting couples reach age 16 with both parents intact, compared to higher stability in intact marriages, with benefits extending to child outcomes in , and . Such evidence, drawn from longitudinal studies, underscores a causal link between marital permanence and stability, challenging the premise of equivalence advanced by Mostyn.

Personal life and health

Marriage and family

Mostyn married Joanna Willis in 1981; the couple had four children: Henry, Daisy, Gregory, and Charlie. As of 2007, they had been married for 26 years, with children aged between 9 and 20. Mostyn, a part-time and stay-at-home mother who managed a , was described as distraught following the marriage's breakdown. In 2010, after 29 years of marriage, Mostyn left his wife for Liz Clarke, a and of Mark Saunders, who had been killed by police in a 2003 . The affair led to divorce proceedings, with Lucy Mostyn citing ; the marriage was dissolved in 2011 after 31 years. Mostyn subsequently married Clarke and, as of 2024, resides with her in Chelsea; he has grandchildren from his first marriage.

Diagnosis with Parkinson's disease

In May 2020, Sir Nicholas Mostyn was diagnosed with , a progressive neurodegenerative disorder characterized by motor symptoms such as tremors, rigidity, and bradykinesia. The diagnosis occurred while he was serving as a judge in the Family Division of the , where he had been appointed in 2010. Mostyn has publicly described the condition's impact, noting symptoms including sleep disturbances and night terrors, which he has attempted to manage through various means, such as experimental treatments trialed abroad. Unlike terminal illnesses with a defined prognosis of less than six months, Parkinson's in his case does not qualify under proposed assisted dying legislation, prompting his advocacy for broader reforms to address non-terminal but debilitating progressive diseases. The diagnosis led to his from the bench in 2023, approximately three years prior to the mandatory age of 75, as the disease's progression affected his judicial duties. Following retirement, Mostyn co-founded initiatives like the King's Parkinson's Charitable Fund in June 2024 to support research and awareness.

Post-retirement activities

Podcast and public engagement

Following his retirement from the High Court in July 2023, Sir Nicholas Mostyn co-founded the podcast Movers and Shakers in February 2023, which focuses on the experiences of individuals living with Parkinson's disease. The program features Mostyn alongside co-hosts Rory Cellan-Jones, Gillian Lacey-Solymar, Mark Mardell, Paul Mayhew-Archer, and Jeremy Paxman, all diagnosed with Parkinson's, discussing practical challenges, societal perceptions, and potential advancements in treatment. Episodes often include guest experts on medical research and policy, with the podcast gaining recognition for its candid, peer-led approach to raising awareness about the condition's daily impacts. In January 2024, Mostyn launched Law & Disorder, a weekly co-hosted with Baroness Helena Kennedy and Lord Charlie Falconer, addressing contemporary legal controversies such as judicial transparency, reforms, and the erosion of international legal norms. The series emphasizes rigorous debate on topics like the "rules-based order" in global affairs and domestic sentencing policies, drawing on the hosts' expertise in law and . Notable episodes have critiqued recent political developments, including international conflicts and legislative changes, positioning the podcast as a platform for Mostyn's post-judicial on open justice and legal accountability. Beyond podcasts, Mostyn has engaged publicly through media interviews, including a July 2024 discussion in Spear's magazine on his transition to public commentary and legacies. In July 2025, he appeared on advocating for financial penalties as alternatives to imprisonment for certain serious offenses, arguing that affluent offenders could "buy their freedom" to alleviate while maintaining deterrence. These engagements reflect Mostyn's continued influence in legal discourse, often highlighting empirical critiques of judicial and penal systems without deference to prevailing orthodoxies.

Campaign for assisted dying reform

Sir Nicholas Mostyn, diagnosed with , has publicly advocated for broadening the scope of legislation in to encompass individuals enduring intolerable from incurable conditions, beyond the current proposal limited to those with a terminal prognosis of six months or less. In October 2024, he stated that the anticipated Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would offer "no use at all" to patients like himself, as the disease typically allows exceeding six months despite progressive deterioration leading to severe incapacity. Mostyn emphasized that his campaign stems from a desire to avoid what he describes as a "poor death" characterized by loss of and unbearable , rather than hastening death solely due to a fixed timeline. In written evidence submitted to the parliamentary committee scrutinizing on 28 2025, Mostyn argued for redefining eligibility to prioritize relief from suffering over strict terminal criteria, contending that neurodegenerative diseases like Parkinson's impose "intolerable" end-stage burdens including immobility, cognitive decline, and dependency. He testified that the proposed safeguards, such as approval for each case, were impractical given judicial resource constraints, estimating the court lacked capacity to handle the anticipated volume without compromising efficiency. Mostyn rejected expansions to non-sufferers meeting only the six-month threshold, insisting the law should target empirical suffering from irremediable conditions, drawing parallels to to refuse treatment even if it hastens death. Mostyn's advocacy gained prominence following the bill's second reading approval by MPs on 29 November 2024, where he described existing prohibitions on assisting suicide as "absolutely bizarre" for decriminalizing suicide itself while criminalizing aid, potentially forcing individuals to travel abroad to clinics like Dignitas. He has engaged in public discourse through podcasts and media, including the Movers & Shakers series in late 2024, framing his position as a principled response to causal realities of progressive illness rather than ideological preference. Critics of broader reform, including medical and disability rights groups, have raised concerns over potential coercion or devaluation of disabled lives, though Mostyn maintains safeguards like multiple medical assessments and waiting periods can mitigate such risks without judicial overload. His efforts align with ongoing debates, where public support for assisted dying exceeds 70% in polls, yet legislative progress remains tied to precise definitions of eligibility and oversight.

Lectures and ongoing influence

Following his retirement from the in July 2023, Sir Nicholas Mostyn has delivered lectures advocating for enhanced transparency in proceedings and adherence to open justice principles. In the Bar Council's Law Reform Lecture on 2 July 2025 at Gray’s Inn, Mostyn described as a form of , underscoring the need for transparency to maintain public confidence and an independent judiciary. He invoked Earl Loreburn's assertion that open represents an "almost priceless inheritance," arguing against secrecy in family cases to uphold the over conventional legal practices. Mostyn reiterated these themes in his Distinguished Guest Lecture, "Open Justice in the Modern Age," delivered on 7 October 2025 at the Law Courts in . He criticized excessive anonymisation, noting 716 such orders in family proceedings that year as eroding and , contrary to the strict necessity test established in Scott v Scott AC 417. Citing cases like PMC v Cwm Taf and PN v SA EWFC 141, where anonymity lacked sufficient justification, Mostyn proposed reforms including video archiving of hearings, streamlined access to skeletons and expert evidence, and limits on derogations from . He highlighted international examples, such as Australia's Federal Court livestreaming (with 1,300 viewers for a single 2024 trial) and the PACER system's provision of over 1 billion documents at low cost, as viable models for reform. Through these engagements, including a on "The Importance of " at the 2025 Cayman Islands Conference, Mostyn sustains his influence on legal discourse, contributing to monographs and policy discussions that challenge secrecy in family courts and promote empirical accountability.

References

  1. https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/who-are-the-judiciary/senior-judiciary-list/retired-senior-judiciary-under-75/
  2. https://www.bristol.ac.uk/law/news/2024/in-conversation-with-sir-nicholas-mostyn-.html
  3. https://www.middletemple.org.uk/bencher-persons-view/33902
  4. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/knighthood-for-nicholas-mostyn
  5. https://financialremediesjournal.com/mr-justice-mostyn-an-appreciation-on-his-forthcoming-retirement/
  6. https://www.judiciary.uk/appointments-and-retirements/high-court-retirement-of-the-honourable-sir-nicholas-anthony-joseph-ghislain-mostyn/
  7. https://www.bristol.ac.uk/graduation/ceremonial-guide/sir-nicholas-mostyn/
  8. https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/divorce-judge-in-court-battle-after-affair-with-shot-barrister-s-widow-7573574.html
  9. https://www.thepeerage.com/p7677.htm
  10. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2007/jul/15/familyandrelationships
  11. https://www.facebook.com/565317430/posts/british-judge-born-in-lagos-nigeriaread-sir-nicholas-anthony-joseph-ghislain-mos/10161771522887431/
  12. https://www.esu.org/changing-lives/edandnick/
  13. https://spearswms.com/law/sir-nicholas-mostyn-ex-judge-and-family-law-legend-on-his-next-chapter/
  14. https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/biography/sir-nicholas-mostyn
  15. https://judicial.ky/team/the-honourable-sir-nicholas-mostyn/
  16. https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/training-events/calendar/law-reform-lecture-2025.html
  17. https://classlegal.com/blogs/knowledge-base/financial-remedies-conference-2025-our-speakers
  18. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-11580907
  19. https://expatriatelaw.com/speakers/sir-nicholas-mostyn/
  20. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/sir-nicholas-mostyn-lawyer-paul-mccartney/
  21. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/feb/18/law.celebrity.mccartney
  22. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060524/mill-6.htm
  23. https://financialremediesjournal.com/miller-v-miller-mcfarlane-v-mcfarlane-2006-ukhl-24-2006-1-flr-1186/
  24. https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/miller-v-miller-mcfarlane-v-mcfarlane.php
  25. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/jul/08/football.claredyer
  26. https://vlex.co.uk/vid/sorrell-v-sorrell-793814453
  27. https://www.iafl.com/news-blog/2010/nicholas-mostyn-qc-appointed-to-bench/
  28. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5901/cmpublic/TerminallyIllAdults/memo/TIAB17.htm
  29. https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/high-court-appointment
  30. https://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/nicholas-mostyn-appointed-to-the-high-court
  31. https://financialremediesjournal.com/content/the-valediction-of-sir-nicholas-mostyn-the-abdication-of-the-monarch-of-the-mountainous-principality-of-court-50.e9cc5021eac045f8a6deee63ecf13095.htm
  32. https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/mostyn-to-retire-early
  33. https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/judgments/n-v-f-2011-ewhc-586-fam/
  34. https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/judgments/ff-v-kf-2017-ewhc-1093-fam/
  35. https://becket-chambers.co.uk/articles/e-v-l-2021-ewfc-60-fam-short-marriages-section-25-criteria-and-white-leopards-reconsidered/
  36. https://dbfamilylaw.wordpress.com/2015/09/22/mostyn-j-and-the-open-justice-principle/
  37. https://www.stewartslaw.com/news/no-publicity-no-justice-transparency-in-financial-remedy-proceedings/
  38. https://www.judiciary.uk/speech-by-mr-justice-mostyn-family-law-not-the-poor-relation/
  39. https://www.familylawweek.co.uk/judgments/wm-v-hm-2017-ewfc-25/
  40. https://financialremediesjournal.com/content/unilateral-assets-and-short-marriages-after-e-v-l-another-white-leopard.724872536e1540f4a247bbf01afa5d72.htm
  41. https://www.mishcon.com/news/e-v-l-ewfc-60-fam-mostyn-j-considers-short-and-childless-marriages-company-valuation-and-costs
  42. https://www.stewartslaw.com/news/does-a-short-and-childless-marriage-means-a-smaller-financial-settlement/
  43. https://familybrief.org/199-2/non-matrimonial-assets/
  44. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2021/87.html
  45. https://financialremediesjournal.com/a-priceless-inheritance-family-law-open-justice-and-the-rule-of-law/
  46. https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/asset/948789CA-F8D6-4A80-885397F091CDFC95/
  47. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2022/30.html
  48. https://www.phb.co.uk/article/transparency-and-privacy-family-courts-at-a-crossroads/
  49. https://judicial.ky/wp-content/uploads/2025-distinguished-guest-lecture-open-justice-in-the-modern-age-by-sir-nicholas-mostyn-UPDATED-10132025.pdf
  50. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2022/52.html
  51. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/routinely-anonymised-family-judgments-unlawful-says-remedies-lead/5112766.article
  52. https://www.judiciary.uk/speech-by-mr-justice-mostyn-to-the-hong-kong-family-law-association/
  53. https://financialremediesjournal.com/the-use-and-misuse-of-the-rubric-in-the-family-courts/
  54. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11381729/Hostile-divorce-judge-thrown-off-case.html
  55. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2935194/The-judge-known-Mr-Payout-thrown-bitter-18-year-2million-divorce-case-using-intemperate-language.html
  56. https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/england-high-court-judge-recused-excessive-hostility-towards-man-divorce-payments
  57. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/judge-removed-from-case-over-tenacious-adherence-to-his-own-analysis/5051724.article
  58. https://www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/mounting-support-for-a-review-of-poel-and-payne
  59. http://thecustodyminefield.com/the-relocation-campaign/
  60. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2800896/marriage-no-better-cohabiting-legal-rights-abolished-adulterous-judge.html
  61. http://www.christian.org.uk/news/downgrade-marriage-family-judge-suggests/
  62. https://www.thetimes.com/best-law-firms/profile-legal/article/judge-leaves-his-wife-for-widow-of-shot-barrister-3nqxqlzhs97
  63. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/britains-top-divorce-judge-is-divorced-himself_n_925595
  64. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/13/expected-assisted-dying-bill-no-use-to-parkinsons-patients-nicholas-mostyn
  65. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPvlxlxCD8U/
  66. https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/movers-shakers
  67. https://www.moversandshakerspodcast.com/team/sir-nicholas-mostyn
  68. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/movers-and-shakers-a-podcast-about-life-with-parkinsons/id1677410087
  69. https://www.moversandshakerspodcast.com/
  70. https://www.counselmagazine.co.uk/articles/law-disorder
  71. https://open.spotify.com/episode/4UFlWzZkKdnoEJa6DQXJeG
  72. https://podotpods.com/law-disorder/
  73. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpoTHGAtlXg
  74. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/28/nicholas-mostyn-unbearable-suffering-assisted-dying-law/
  75. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2egl17pvldo
  76. https://www.the-independent.com/news/uk/max-hill-mps-parkinsons-jeremy-paxman-high-court-b2687906.html
  77. https://www.moversandshakerspodcast.com/news/%25E2%2580%2598as-an-ex-high-court-judge-i-back-assisted-dying.-but-the-new-law-is-arbitrary-and-discriminatory%25E2%2580%2599-with-mps-voting-in-favour-of-the-monumental-bill%252C-parkinson%25E2%2580%2599s-sufferer-sir-nicholas-mostyn-explains-his-personal-crusade-to-change-the-law
  78. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jan/28/expand-assisted-dying-bill-to-help-those-with-parkinsons-and-dementia-mps-to-hear
  79. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgr0ex0q8gwo
  80. https://financialremediesjournal.com/the-valediction-of-sir-nicholas-mostyn-the-abdication-of-the-monarch-of-the-mountainous-principality-of-court-50/
  81. https://judicial.ky/speakers-family-law-conference-2025/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.