Tammy Summers Public Access Client
It is my firm belief that the preparation that you (John Hudson) put into my case, put me in the strongest position to win in court. Your attention to detail no doubt saved me huge sums of money - and my home. Your manner was at all times professional, your advice balanced, accurate and factual with a knowledge clearly built on years of practical experience within the law and court system. I can say without doubt that you are the best Barrister I have seen work. In court you were excellent, striking exactly the right balance of assertiveness and respect and making strong arguments where appropriate. Furthermore you were absolutely fearless in your approach to cross examination. I sincerely cannot thank you enough.
Peter Stones Public access client
Thank you for...John (Hudson)'s excellent input with this matter which resulted in a positive outcome.
Bruce & Monika Gwynne Public Access Clients
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you [John Hudson] very much for your professional advice, without which things would not have gone so smoothly.
Rebecca Manley, Solicitor Advocate St Helens Law
I recently instructed John (Hudson) to attend an FDR Hearing. John was kind enough to speak with me by telephone before the Hearing and also inform me of the outcome immediately after. The result was favourable to my client and I would not hesitate in instructing John in the future.
The Legal 500 Directory
John Hudson is a matrimonial finance specialist. (2014 Edition)
The Legal 500 Directory
John Hudson is noted for his financial remedy expertise.
David Brown, Partner Wartnaby Hefford
Effective communication and a good knowledge of what to expect from the Court. Very satisfied indeed. Impressed. (John Hudson).
John is a Member of:
Horses & Divorces
Appeal by husband against ancillary relief orders. Appeal dismissed. S v S  EWHC 519 (Fam)
The couple had been married for 11 years and had no children. The joint net assets were agreed to be £3m. Upon marriage, the wife had given up part-time work in a financial PR company to undertake interior decorating and part-time book-keeping. The husband worked in the City on a salary of £60,000 plus bonuses. There were two properties; a flat in London that the husband had just sold for £900,000 and a home in the country that provided the wife, in particular, with the room to keep horses.
The crucial issues to be decided in this appeal were whether the wife's housing costs should include an element that would allow her to buy a property large enough to accommodate her horses and whether there should be joint lives periodical payments. Counsel for the husband contended that the original order had, in essence, placed too much weight on the need for the wife to maintain her horses and lifestyle at the expense of the husband's own expectations. She also argued that it was unfair that there was no expectation placed on the wife to seek to improve her income level.
In this judgment, The President reviewed the evidence and the orders before concluding that the district judge was not plainly wrong as the case was "peculiarly one for the "feel" of the District Judge in the particular circumstances". He did however point out that the wife should expect to have to fund the horses herself if the husband's income should fall in the future.