Luke McLean

Overview

Private Children’s Law
In private law matters, Luke acts in disputes concerning child arrangements from initial hearings through to final hearings. He has expertise in conducting fact-finding hearings and final contested hearings often involving allegations of domestic abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour, parental alienation and change in residence. He is known for his structured advocacy and ability to deal with emotionally charged evidence with clarity and precision.

Public Law
Luke also maintains a busy public law practice, acting for both parents and local authorities. He regularly appears in Interim Care Order (ICO) hearings, Issues Resolution Hearings (IRH), and final hearings. He has substantial experience in cases involving allegations of domestic abuse, drug and alcohol misuse, neglect, and non-accidental injury.

His work includes acting in urgent applications, including obtaining Emergency Protection Orders and securing a last-minute recovery order in the High Court

Notable Cases

Re S (Fact-Finding: Domestic Abuse & Chronic Parental Conflict) – Central Family Court (2026)
Represented the Mother at a fact-finding hearing concerning domestic abuse and longstanding parental conflict. Narrowed the issues at the outset by preparing an agreed schedule of the Father’s admissions before cross-examining him on the remaining disputed allegations. The court made findings of physical aggression and found that the children had been exposed over many years to chronic and entrenched parental conflict, hostility and police involvement. A section 7 report was directed to determine future child arrangements.

Re A (Fact-Finding: Coercive & Controlling Behaviour) – Family Court (2026)
Represented the Mother at a  fact-finding hearing involving allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour. The court made findings that the Father physically impeded the Mother from leaving rooms, grabbed her wrist or arm, obsessively monitored her whereabouts and sought to exercise control over her clothing, travel, movements and, to a lesser extent, expenditure. The court found that, viewed cumulatively, the Father’s conduct amounted to coercive and controlling behaviour.

Re B (Fact-Finding: Sexual Abuse & Coercion) – Central London Family Court (2026)
Represented the Mother at a fact-finding hearing involving allegations of rape, repeated unwanted sexual touching, domestic abuse and post-separation pursuit. Cross-examined the Father and made detailed closing submissions addressing consent, delayed disclosure, affectionate communications following alleged abuse and the distinction between an ongoing sexual relationship and consent to individual sexual encounters.   The court did not make the specific finding of rape sought by the Mother but made findings concerning sexual coercion and unwanted sexual conduct.

Re R (Fact-Finding: Strangulation, Threats to Kill & Coercive Control) – Guildford Family Court (2026)
Represented the Mother at fact-finding hearing involving allegations of serious domestic abuse, with multiple witnesses and Lithuanian interpreters. The court made findings in the Mother’s favour of physical assault during pregnancy, assault and strangulation, an incident involving the Mother’s head being pushed into a mattress accompanied by a threat to kill, verbal and emotional abuse, coercive and controlling behaviour and post-separation harassment. The case involved contested evidence concerning alcohol and substance misuse, corroborative communications and extensive credibility analysis.

Re W (Habitual Residence: Spain/England) – Canterbury Family Court (2026)
Acted for the Mother in contested jurisdiction proceedings following dismissed Hague Convention return proceedings. Successfully argued that a 3-year-old child was habitually resident in England and Wales under s.3 Family Law Act 1986. The court confirmed jurisdiction, applying modern Supreme Court authority on integration and primary carer dependency.

Re S (Care & Placement Order: Overseas Family Placement Issues) – West London Family Court (2026)
Appeared for the Local Authority in 73-week care proceedings concerning proposed placement with family in India. The case involved complex issues of consular engagement, immigration documentation, Re E compliance, and delay versus permanence analysis. The court made final care and placement orders, concluding that adoption was the only realistic option.

Re J (Fact-Finding: Serious Domestic Abuse) – Watford Family Court (2026)
Represented the Mother in a fact-finding hearing involving allegations of physical violence, rape, coercive control, and substance misuse. The court found the majority of allegations proved, including serious sexual and physical abuse. Judgment engaged PD12J and required detailed triangulation of evidence and credibility analysis.

Re R (Contact Progression & PD12J) – Central Family Court (2026)
Represented the Father in contested final hearing concerning progression from long-term supervised contact in a PD12J case. Cross-examined Cafcass who opposed progression of contact, regarding risk, proportionality and absence of safeguarding concerns after two years of positive contact. The court ordered staged progression to unsupervised contact upon completion of a perpetrator programme going against Cafcass reccomendations.

Re N (Transfer of Residence) – Watford Family Court (2025)
Represented the Mother in protracted Children Act proceedings involving prior findings of domestic abuse and allegations of parental alienation. Following fact-finding and multiple failed Improving Child and Family Arrangements (ICFA) reintroductions, the court ordered a transfer of residence to the Father. Made immediate applications for permission to appeal and secured a short stay of the order. Case involved detailed cross-examination of Cafcass and complex PD12J and Presidential Guidance on Parental Alienation analysis.

Re H (Rape and Coercive Control) – Central Family Court (2025)
Appeared for the Mother in private law proceedings involving multiple allegations of rape, physical assault, economic abuse, and post-separation coercive control. At reserved judgment, the court found the allegations proved. Required careful handling of vulnerable witness evidence and submissions on welfare impact.

Re M (Public Law: Final Supervision Order) – Luton Family Court (2025)
Represented the Mother throughout the entirety of care proceedings and at final hearing. The court approved a 12-month supervision order with supported contact and a structured risk assessment before progression to unsupervised time. Issues included parental mental health, inconsistency, and proportionality in contact planning.

Re H (Final Care & Placement Order) – Milton Keynes County Court (2025)
Represented the Local Authority at a 3-day final hearing seeking care and placement orders. Cross-examined proposed Special Guardian on delay, insight, risk management and capacity. The court dispensed with parental consent and authorised placement for adoption.

Re E (Non-Accidental Injury Allegations) – East London Family Court (2024)
Appeared in 10-day final hearing involving alleged non-accidental burn injuries. Cross-examined paediatric and social work witnesses and made threshold submissions. The case involved complex factual dispute, forensic medical evidence, and issues of parental engagement and domestic abuse allegations.

Overview

Luke has experience dealing with private law family matters involving non-molestation orders, occupation orders, and transfer of tenancy. Luke has been involved with various fact-finding and final hearings under the Family Law Act 1996.

Overview

In financial remedy proceedings, Luke advises and represents clients across a range of matters from modest asset cases to those involving more complex financial structures. He is adept at identifying the key issues early and providing practical, commercially-minded advice.

Luke has also successfully represented clients in relation to parties seeking periodic payments for child maintenance and lump-sum payments under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

Luke is also able to represent parties involved in Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA) proceedings – he welcomes instructions in this area.

Notable Cases

Re H (Financial Remedies: s.37 MCA 1973 & Beneficial Ownership) – Reading Family Court (2026)
Represented the Husband at a preliminary issue hearing concerning the beneficial ownership of a property and the Wife’s application under s.37 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to challenge its transfer to the Husband’s mother, who intervened in the proceedings. Advanced submissions on resulting and constructive trusts, bare legal ownership, third-party property interests and the statutory intention to defeat financial claims. The Husband’s case was that his mother held 100% of the beneficial interest and that he had held legal title only, such that there was no beneficial interest capable of disposition under s.37; alternatively, any statutory presumption of intention to defeat the Wife’s claim was rebutted by the documentary conveyancing chronology.

S v W (Financial Remedies: Pension & Child Provision) – Central Family Court (2026)
Represented the Wife in contested final hearing concerning pension sharing (50–60%), child-focused periodical payments and jurisdiction under s.23 MCA 1973 in light of the Child Support Act. Case involved issues of disclosure, CMS interaction, statutory charge, Universal Credit treatment, and late evidential applications. Judgment reserved.

S v M (Financial Remedy: Property Division) – Central Family Court (2025)
Represented the Husband in a contested final hearing concerning whether a second property should be treated as matrimonial. The court held that the property remained non-matrimonial, but ordered the sale of the family home and division of the proceeds. The Husband received 50% of the net proceeds with a clean break order between the parties.

P V H & (Intervenor Debt Claim) – Central Family Court (2025)
Represented an intervenor seeking recognition of a £100,000 loan secured against matrimonial property. Successfully argued that the loan was genuine and not a sham. The court confirmed the validity of the legal charge and ordered repayment from the proceeds of sale after secured creditors, before discharging the intervenor from the proceedings.

G V G (Financial Remedy: Short Marriage) – Oxford Family Court (2025)
Represented the Wife in a two-day financial remedy final hearing concerning the status of a pre-marital property and alleged undisclosed savings. Cross-examined the Husband on property valuations, pension issues including the McCloud remedy, and financial contributions.

Overview

Luke is building a practice in court of protection work, particularly in relation to best interests determinations, mental capacity issues and lasting power of attorneys.

Notable Cases

Re E (Court of Protection: LPA, Capacity, Contact & Property/Financial Affairs) – Court of Protection (2025–2026)
Represented P’s two daughters in ongoing Court of Protection proceedings which initially concerned the management of P’s property and financial affairs and competing applications concerning deputyship, alongside challenges relating to P’s existing LPAs. Following a contested final hearing, the Court concluded that significant family conflict made appointment of a family member as deputy unworkable and directed the appointment of an independent panel deputy. The proceedings subsequently developed into separate and wider health and welfare, capacity and financial issues, including disputed restrictions on P’s contact with family members, P’s decision-specific capacity concerning contact, the validity and operation of the Health and Welfare LPA, and retrospective capacity at the time of significant historic transactions.

A v B 2024
Advised and represented the respondent in an application to revoke two LPA’s where it was alleged the donor was subject to undue influence.

Overview

Luke welcomes instructions in inquests and inquiries work. Before coming to chambers, Luke worked for a local authority on the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse carrying out a variety of tasks, including dealing with subject access requests and reviewing historical files.

Luke most recently worked on the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, carrying out tasks in preparation for the Phase 1 hearings.

Notable Cases

Re V (Inquest: Sepsis & Clinical Deterioration) – South London Coroner’s Court (2026)
Represented the family at an inquest concerning the death of a 48-year-old woman from sepsis caused by cerebral toxoplasmosis. The inquest examined failures in the transfer and consideration of ambulance observations, including elevated NEWS scores and abnormal respiratory rates, before the deceased was discharged from hospital. The Coroner found that the treating doctor had not read the ambulance handover documentation and that, had blood tests been undertaken, abnormalities were likely to have been identified and the deceased would have remained in hospital for further investigation and support.

Inquest into the Death of  Ms V – South London Coroner’s Court (2025)
Acted for the family in a contested inquest concerning alleged failures in sepsis recognition and discharge decision-making. Made detailed submissions seeking independent expert evidence in emergency medicine and infectious disease, raising issues of NEWS2 application and Article 2 engagement.

Overview

“Thank you for taking such good care of me during the court case. I never wanted to be in that situation, but you made every effort to make me as feel as safe as possible. I truly appreciate it.” – Client, 2024

“Luke represented me yesterday in my child arrangements matter. I was very impressed.” – Client, 2024

“You’ve done a good job today. Thank you.” – Client, 2024

“Overall, I would like to say many thanks for your service in this difficult case, which concluded in my favour.” – Client, 2023

“Thank you Luke. This is an amazing outcome!” – Solicitor, 2023

“Luke was happy to discuss the case and go through the evidence at length, meaning we were able to find the direct contradictions and faults in the prosecution’s case.” – Client, 2020

“Luke did an excellent job at drafting the representations which resulted in this case being discontinued.” – Kamal Channa, Solicitor, 2020

“A massive thank you to Luke who represented two of our clients pro bono this morning. Combined, they had been detained more than 13 months through a pandemic. Two bail grants.” – Bail for Immigration Detainees, 2020