Frederick Tatham


Frederick Tatham

Contact details


  • Private Client Top 35 Under 35


Trained at Farrer & Co. (2010-2012); qualified into the Family Team in 2012


Oxford University (Classics); BPP Law School, London

Freddie works on a broad range of family law matters, both contentious and non-contentious, and often with an international element. These include divorce, complex financial disputes, pre-nuptial agreements and cohabitation. Freddie also deals with issues of child contact and residence.

Freddie was part of the team advising in the landmark case of Prest v Petrodel in the UK Supreme Court. It was an extremely complex divorce case, the importance of which extends far beyond family law and into vital aspects of company law.  The case was recently selected by the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, as one of the five most significant cases heard since the Supreme Court was established.

Freddie has spent three months on a Family Law secondment in Hong Kong and was recently named as one of eprivateclient's "Top 35 Under 35", an award designed to identify, recognise, promote and introduce the rising stars of the private client practitioner community. Freddie has also been recognised by Private Client Global Elite as a “One to Watch 2017”.

Reported cases

  • 23 November 2016
    Goddard-Watts v Goddard-Watts [2016] EWHC 3000 (Fam)
    Re-hearing of financial remedies application following non-disclosure, court proceeding to build upon fairness of previous award rather than start with a ‘blank slate.’
  • 18 September 2015
    Mackay v Mackay [2015] EWHC 2860
    A High Court judge recused himself from hearing a dispute over a final consent order for financial provision when it transpired that he and the husband had a friend in common.
  • 12 June 2013
    Prest v Petrodel [2013] UKSC 34
    A case of major importance in family and corporate law, involving the doctrine of piercing corporate veils.
  • 08 July 2015
    KG v LG (No 2) [2015] EWFC 64
    A former wife’s successful application for an appeal where her former husband was guilty of non-disclosure at the time of the divorce regarding his interest in two trusts