Paul Infield specialises in family finance disputes, particularly those involving businesses, having over 35 years’ expertise in this area. He deals with the whole range of matrimonial finance, cohabitation cases and Inheritance Act claims, and also in professional negligence actions arising out of such disputes.
He is also an experienced mediator who specialises in mediating TOLATA, Inheritance Act and negligence cases against solicitors and barristers arising out of family finance cases. He is qualified to act as an arbitrator in financial disputes under rules of the Institute of Family Law Arbitrators (www.ifla.org.uk).
Paul is a member of Duke Corporate Education’s Global Learning Resource Network, for whom he carries out executive training for major companies worldwide.
- Financial remedies upon divorce or on dissolution of civil partnership, particularly those involving businesses, trusts and disputes over property owned with or by third parties
- Disputes between former cohabitees over property and maintenance for children
- Disputes under the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependents) Act
- Drafting and advising on pre–nuptial, separation, and cohabitation agreements
- Professional negligence claims relating to the above areas of work
- Private FDRs
Appointments & Memberships
- Family Law Bar Association
- Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (MCIArb)
- Member of the Institute of Family Law Arbitrators
- Bencher of Inner Temple
- Reviewer for the Bar Pro Bono Unit
- Chairman, Suzy Lamplugh Trust (2009–2016)
- Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts
- Trustee of the London HIV Chaplaincy
- Member of Resolution
Birch v. Birch  UKSC 53,  1 WLR 2959, SC and  EWCA Civ 833,  All ER (D) 34 (Aug), CA
Ex-wife’s application to vary a consent order to extend the period in which she had to either release ex-husband from mortgage or sell the house
Birch v. Birch  EWCA Civ 833,  All ER (D) 34 (Aug), CA
Ex-wife attempt to vary a consent order dismissed by Court of Appeal on the grounds that it sought substantially to undermine the basis of the original order. He will be part of the team representing the husband in the wife's appeal to the Supreme Court in May 2017.
D v D
(Financial Provision: Lump Sum Order)  C.P. Rep. 4; (2000) 2 T.C.L.R. 54; 65 Con. L.R. 1;  2 E.G.L.R. 81;  33 E.G. 82;  N.P.C. 79: Whether and when a deferred lump sum order could be made.