Robin Tolson QC
Call 1980 QC 2001
Judicial Office Recorder, Deputy Judge of the High Court, Leader of the Western Circuit between 2007 and 2010.
Download vCard direct to your email contacts
Areas of Practice
Family Law
Robin Tolson QC is one of the country’s leading specialists in all aspects of the law relating to children and families. Robin practises nationwide mainly in children’s cases, and frequently appears for all sides, but in particular parents, in heavy care cases. He also practises in ancillary relief and has a special interest in family cases involving issues of public and administrative law. He speaks at and chairs national conferences on the law relating to children.
In silk he has represented amongst many others the children in Re: S; Re: W – the “starred care plans” case; the Williams’ family in their ground-breaking civil action for wrongful removal of their children; and the mother in Re: C in which the Court of Appeal approved the award of damages for breach of human rights in family cases. He appeared for Natallie Evans in her well-publicised fight for the use of her stored embryos. He is currently representing the children in the application for judicial review of Cafcass’ failure to appoint guardians in care cases. He appeared as himself in the Channel 4 drama/documentary on embryology “Born with 2 mothers”.
Robin has two daughters and in his spare time he pretends he is still an athlete and is thoroughly mediocre in several sports.
Amongst the complimentary comments from his professional colleagues to have appeared in the directories, there may be some truth in this one: “very articulate and very committed, he is also popular with clients”.
Reported Cases
- FM v MM, X Council and others [2010] EWCA Civ 67 (to be reported)
The making of a residence order in favour of the mother with very generous contact to the father did not fall outside the ambit of a judge’s discretion where the other possible orders were a shared residence order, or a residence order in favour of the father with very generous contact to the mother, and therefore the distinction between the orders was fine, and where also, the judge had adopted the option urged by the children’s guardian - Re D (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ (to be reported)
An application for contact by a sexually abusive father and his parents in the face of opposition from the mother. The Court of Appeal approved the suspended residence order (at the time a unique solution to this kind of case) made in favour of the grandparents by the judge at first instance. It was permissible for a judge to have made a contact order that included contact with the paternal grandparents and indirect contact with the father of a mother’s sons, in circumstances where the father had sexually abused his step-daughter for a prolonged period of time. - Re D [2009] EWCA Civ 472; [2009] 2 FLR 668
A preliminary hearing to determine the facts in a case of serious non-accidental injury to a young child. The trial judge determined that the father was responsible. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal, substituting an indeterminate finding that one or other of the parents was responsible. Judges in care proceedings were not to strain to identify the perpetrator of non-accidental injuries to children or to start from the premise that it would only be in an exceptional case that it would not be possible to make such an identification. If it was not possible to identify a perpetrator it was a judge’s duty to state that as his or her conclus - Williams v Newport City Council (unreported)
An action for damages brought as a result of an allegedly negligent diagnosis of sexual abuse and negligent actions in removing children into care for a period of 2 years was settled by consent. - Re C (A Child) [2009] EWCA Civ 72
A judge had been entitled to make a residence order in respect of a five-year-old boy in favour of his paternal grandmother, who was 70. Though it was an unusual course, it was appropriate given the law’s bias in favour of a placement within the wider family and the grandmother’s track record of commitment to the child. - Evans v United Kingdom (2008) EHRR 728
The UK policy of requiring consent to the use of fertilised embryos in all circumstances did not offend against the human rights of the applicant – a cancer victim for whom the embryos represented her last opportunity for the birth of a child to whom she was genetically related. - Re DM [2007] EWHC 2343
A case involving the extent to which evidence in family proceedings might not be disclosed to a party. - Re B [2007] EWCA Civ 556
Parents at risk of losing a child forever should have confidence in the fairness and even-handed nature of proceedings. Therefore, in the instant care proceedings, a mother would be permitted to instruct an independent expert to assess her parenting ability. - RE P [2007] EWCA Civ 2
On the facts, an award of damages was not “necessary to afford just satisfaction” within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 s.8(3) where a local authority had breached the human rights of a parent in failing to consult her before abandoning a care plan designed to rehabilitate her with her baby. - Newport City Council v Williams [2006] EWHC 3671
Care proceedings were dismissed following a false diagnosis of sexual abuse. The judge commented on the widely differing views as to the diagnosis of sexual abuse in the UK and overseas. - H v H (QUEEN’S PROCTOR INTERVENING) 2006] EWHC 2989 (Fam)
Where a wife had signed a divorce agreement in Japan but had left the country before completion of the registration procedure required under Japanese law for the divorce to become valid, there was no reason under the Family Law Act 1986 s.51(3) to refuse recognition of the divorce in England; nor were there any public policy grounds for refusing recognition since the divorce had taken place more than 20 years previously and both parties had since remarried. - IN THE MATTER OF B (CHILDREN) [2006] EWCA Civ 1186
In care proceedings, where it was alleged that injuries to an 11-month-old child were non-accidental, the judge erred in finding that the mother had exaggerated evidence without giving her an opportunity to deal with that point in evidence. The medical evidence was not such that the only conclusion that could be drawn was that the child’s injuries had been caused by shaking. - J v (1) C (2) E (A CHILD) (2006) [2006] EWCA Civ 551
Since marriage was exclusively the union of a man and a woman the phrase “the other party to that marriage” in the Family Law Reform Act 1987 s.27(1)(b) Act referred to a man. - NP v (1) SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (2) MLC (A CHILD) BY HIS GUARDIAN
A judge hearing an application under the Children Act 1989 s.39 to discharge a final care order did not have the jurisdiction, if he decided to discharge it, to substitute an interim care order. If the court was minded to discharge the care order, the only Children Act 1989 Part IV order it could substitute was a supervision order. In the absence of evidence that it was in the child’s best interests to discharge the care order, the order would remain. [2005] EWCA Civ 1329 - OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL v (1) DP (2) RS (3) BS
The court gave guidance as to the approach to be taken in public law child-care cases where a clinician who had treated the child in question was to be invited to take part in a meeting of the jointly-instructed experts. [2005] EWHC 2156 (Fam) - OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL V (1) DP (2) RS (3) BS (BY HIS CHILDREN’S GUARDIAN)
Once properly constituted care proceedings had been commenced within the statutory context of the Children Act 1989 Part IV, they remained lawfully established unless and until they were either concluded or withdrawn. The fact that no party was positively seeking a public law order was insufficient to render otherwise lawful proceedings unlawful in so far as those proceedings might consider various findings of fact. [2005] EWHC 1593 (Fam) - RE W (CHILDREN)
In care proceedings, an application under the Human Rights Act 1998 should be issued at the earliest possible opportunity before the removal of the relevant children. [2005] EWCA Civ 642 - A COUNTY COUNCIL v (1) F (2) M (3) X (A CHILD THROUGH ITS GUARDIAN)
Where the father was identified as the perpetrator of injuries to his first child, a care order was made in respect of his second child because the father was considered a risk to small children and the threshold criteria had been satisfied. However, a care order was not made in respect of his eight-year-old stepson as it was not in his best interests. [2004] EWHC 2720 (Fam) - NATALLIE EVANS V AMICUS HEALTHCARE LTD & ORS
The clear policy of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 was to ensure continuing consent from both partners from the commencement of IVF treatment to the point of implant of any frozen embryos created in the process and against that background the court should be extremely slow to recognise or create a principle of waiver that would conflict with the Parliamentary scheme. [2004] EWCA Civ 727 - NATALLIE EVANS v (1) AMICUS HEALTHCARE LTD (2) HOWARD JOHNSTON (3) ROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL BATH NHS TRUST (4) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH (5) THE HUMAN FERTILISATION & EMBRYOLOGY AUTHORITY : LORRAINE HADLEY v (1) MIDLAND FERTILITY SERVICES LTD (2) WAYNE HADLEY (3) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH (4) THE HUMAN FERTILISATION & EMBRYOLOGY AUTHORITY
The female claimants were not entitled to use frozen embryos created by IVF treatment after the claimants had separated from their male partners who had withdrawn their consent to treatment. [2003] EWHC 2161 (Fam) - RE S & ORS : RE W & ORS SUB NOM RE W & B (CHILDREN) : W (CHILD) (CARE PLAN) (The “starred care plan” case)
Recommendations
Chambers UK 2012
- The set was recently strengthened by Robin Tolson QC, who joined from Southernhay Chambers. “He is always excellent in human rights and childcare cases,” say sources.
Chambers UK 2011
- Robin Tolson QC is a silk of choice for complex children work, as “he is an eloquent advocate who is able to summarise a case beautifully”.
Legal 500 2011
- Robin Tolson QC is recommended
