Nicholas Yates

About My Work

Nicholas was called to the Bar in 1996 after graduating from Trinity College, Cambridge.

He has represented a number of well-known celebrities, FTSE 100 CEOs, royalty and others in the public eye.

Described as “an exceptionally persuasive advocate”, “astonishingly good” and “incredible on his feet” (by Chambers & Partners), his “combination of emotional intelligence, intellectual rigour and charming and persuasive advocacy puts him in a league apart” (The Legal 500). In one edition of The Legal 500 they described him as having “one of the best legal minds at the family Bar”.

Nicholas specialises in financial remedy cases (including Civil Partnership and Schedule 1 claims) involving substantial assets, complex company valuations, trusts, tax issues and international dimensions.

He also drafts nuptial agreements and advises on their enforceability, as well as representing clients on jurisdiction matters, marriage/non-marriage cases and Inheritance Act claims.

Nicholas is highly regarded by the professionals with whom he works and is quick to establish a solid rapport with his clients to achieve their goals in a straightforward, timely and cost-efficient way.

He is well-known for his negotiation skills and the quality of his written and oral arguments, as well the numeracy within his financial presentations.

His international practice has included work in Jersey, France, Macau and he often appears in The Cayman Islands, where he has also been called (ad hoc) to the Bar, including in the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal. He has also been called to the Bar in The British Virgin Islands.

He has also given expert evidence as to English law in foreign jurisdictions.

Notable Experience

• ES v SS (No.2) [2024] EWFC 59 The second part of the case set out below. This judgment deals with whether a family trust, which comprised a Nuptial Settlement that held some private equity investments, should be wound up (as sought by my client) or retained, as husband wished. The judge decided that it should be wound up and the value distributed to the parties.
• ES v SS [2023] EWFC 177 A Private Equity case involving significant issues of non-disclosure where the parties previously settled their case on the basis the wife (my client) was to receive c.£9m of c.£24.5m, but where a business interest was then realised that had been materially undervalued. The husband received c.€50m for his interest in that entity alone. The case considered the appropriate treatment of assets owned prior to the marriage, where those assets had been mixed in with the parties’ marital assets and, in various instances, gifted to the wife; complex valuation issues in respect of multiple business interests held through a private equity structure, where there was evidence from rival accountants and how the wife was to share fairly in the private equity investments made through the private equity fund that were made after the marriage, but had some connection with the marriage.
• Nicolaisen v Nicolaisen [2023] 1 FLR 1163 A High Court jurisdiction trial heard by Mr Justice Moor, involving concurrent proceedings brought by the parties in England, Norway and Austria. The principal issues were whether (i) the wife had been habitually resident in England to the requisite standard when she brought her petition, and (ii) in the event that England did have jurisdiction, it was the appropriate forum. The case engaged the Marinos versus Munro debate as to the correct test for habitual residence under EC Regulation 2201/2003 (“Brussels II”) and also the transitional Brexit provisions in relation to jurisdiction. Acted for the husband and won. This is a landmark jurisdiction case.
• CG v SG [2023] EWHC 942 (Fam) The husband’s business had been valued by a single joint expert at £8.8m. Both parties made successful Daniels v Walker applications for their own expert valuers. The wife’s expert used the same approach as the single joint expert to achieve a value of c.£18.85m. Husband’s expert said that the business had no meaningful value as it was, in effect, the husband himself, which could not be purchased with which the judge broadly agreed. The novel aspect of this case and judgment was on the issue of costs. The judge considered the relevant rules and authorities and found that the wife’s reliance on her expert’s report was wholly reasonable and that the financial landscape did not become clear until very late and the preference of the husband’s expert’s view only became clear in cross-examination. And, therefore, there should be no cost penalty to wife.
• DJ v BJ [2019 (2) CILR 511] (The Cayman Islands) A financial case concerning the interpretation and effect of a pre-nuptial agreement and whether the husband should be held to the terms of it which were extremely beneficial to the wife.
• Al-Baker v Al-Baker (No 2) [2016] EWHC 2510 (Fam) Application by wife under Part III. Her husband’s assets were worth over £100m. The main issues were the value of the worldwide assets, the extent of husband’s non-disclosure, the drawing of adverse inferences against him and whether the wife could obtain a 50/50 sharing outcome under Part III (as opposed to under the MCA 1973). The wife did get a sharing outcome of c.£63m – the largest award yet under Part III.