Damian is regularly instructed on both public and private family cases.
Damian has successfully represented local authorities and parents at finding of fact hearings. Damian has been involved in non-accidental injury cases featuring numerous medical experts, as well as several cases involving allegations of sexual and physical abuse. Damian takes a hands-on approach to the preparation of the case and works closely with the professional client to assist with drafting schedules of allegations or reviewing witness statements. Damian has experience dealing with hearings involving expert evidence, ABE evidence and cross examination of children and vulnerable people.
Prior to joining chambers Damian spent time working at two local authorities, where he developed an in-depth knowledge of public law cases involving a wide range of issues, including secure accommodation, FGM, FII, NAI and cases involving fatal injuries.
LA v H (2023): Damian successfully represented a local authority who brought findings that a young baby sustained a skull fracture and was shaken. The case involved complex medical evidence from a variety of disciplines, including neuroradiology, neurosurgery, haematology, paediatrics, and psychiatry.
LA v M (2023): Damian represented a father in public law proceedings who faced allegations of historic rape and physical abuse against the children. The court dismissed all the findings and the children were placed in his care.
R v B (2023): Damian successfully represented a mother bringing allegations of rape, controlling and coercive behaviour and physical abuse. The client was extremely vulnerable and had mental health difficulties. The case involved a large amount of medical evidence.
LA v T and Others (2022): Damian represented a father who was alleged to have sexually abused his child. The case involvement arguments of law about the admissibility and weight of an ABE interview which did not comply with best practice guidance.
LA v R and Others (2022): Damian represented the local authority for a case where one child was deprived of her liberty in a secure children’s home.
LA v H and Others (2022): Damian represented a father who was alleged to have sexually abused his child. Damian successfully resisted any findings being made against his client, and the child was placed in his care at an interim stage, following the fact-finding hearing.
LA v H and Others (2022): Damian represented a father who was alleged to have administered unprescribed medication and caused a fractured rib to his child. Damian successfully resisted any findings being made against his client.
LA v O and Others (2021): Damian represented a local authority in a final hearing in the High Court for a complex case involving children being removed from their adoptive parents.
C v C (2021): Damian represented a mother in private law proceedings. The father had removed the child from mother’s care and pursued findings that mother had inflicted non-accidental injuries. No findings were made, and Damian successfully argued the child should return to the mother’s care.
LA v K and Others (2021): Damian represented a local authority pursuing findings of non-accidental injuries against a 3-month-old child. Damian worked closely with the local authority to provide comprehensive advice on the strength of the evidence and the appropriate findings to pursue, including drafting the schedule of findings sought.
R v H (2021): Damian represented a mother in a complex private law finding of fact. Mother sought 14 findings against father, father sought 12 findings against mother. The court made all the findings sought by mother, and none of the findings sought by father.
Damian accepts instructions in financial remedy claims. He welcomes instructions prior to the issue of proceedings and prefers to see cases through from the First Directions Appointment to the Final Hearing.
Damian also accepts instructions to represent clients engaged in alternative dispute resolution such as mediation and private FDR’s.
W v H (2023): Damian represented an applicant wife in a complex financial remedy case involving parties who had been married twice. The case involved consideration of the validity of a consent order made following the parties first divorce which the husband sought to rely on even after the parties re-married.
W v H (2023): Damian represented an applicant wife seeking a financial remedy following her divorce. After detailed cross examination the court was satisfied the respondent husband had not provided full and frank disclosure to the court. The court was also persuaded that the husband’s pension which was accrued completely before the marriage should be shared with the wife.