Is Marilyn Stowe’s law firm supporting Gordon Dadds firm of solicitors to engage in a smear campaign against the Wife in Welch v Welch divorce case?

IMG_4173If you live in London or in the UK and you watch the news you definitely know who Marilyn Stowe is and what she represents in the legal industry: confidence of legal news reporting.

It was brought to our attention that the firm of solicitors Gordon Dadds engaged in a smear campaign in the Welch v Welch divorce case to influence the courts and the public in favour of their client, Denis Welch – the Husband and to discredit Vivien Welch – the Wife, who has pending divorce applications in the Family Courts and the Court of Appeal in order to obtain a fair share of the matrimonial assets.

We first discovered the Welch divorce case on Marilyn Stowe’s website, Stowe Family Law LLP, under the blog section dated 6 November 2015. However, we noticed that this blog was written in a very different format and provided no links to any Judgments to support the evidence and allegations as presented by the blog writer to allow him to discredit and smear the Wife in the media, before the public and before the Judges from outside the courtroom.

We were intrigued as to why there was such a smear campaign against the Wife by a non-representing firm of solicitors – Stowe Family Law LLP, with a reputation to publish everything they get their hands on once they have evidence to rely on and provide the web links. Was the Welch v Welch divorce case a mistake for the held famous TV personality Marilyn Stowe who is described as “one of the most formidable and sought-after divorce lawyers in the UK and for her law firm when it published the blog on the Welch case without linking any proof to sustain the accusations it made against the Wife to smear her and her on-going divorce case in the UK courts?

Upon contacting the law firm Stowe Family Law LLP last Friday, no one wanted to take the blame for the blog or disclose on what evidence the firm relied on for its blog on the Welch v Welch case. We were informed that the editor Cameron Paterson, who left the office early on Friday, wrote the blog and the firm was not able to comment on his blog and actions.  The firm confirmed to investigate how the story was provided to them and on what evidence the editor relied on when he published the accusations against the Wife in Welsh v Welsh case.

The blog by Cameron Paterson was a pure smear campaign against the Wife in order to help Gordon Dadds secure a win for their client, the Husband – Denis Welch and influence the Judges from beyond the courtroom.   Gordon Dadds law firm regards itself as “one of London’s most forward thinking law firms“.

Denis Welsh

LinkedIn website:  Denis Welch

Chairman One World Maritime; Director Asia Pacifc International Maritime Contractors Association (IMCA)

How far are family solicitors willing to go to ensure a win for their client? How legal are their actions? Or should we call the smear campaign actions of Gordon Dadds ‘forward thinking’? Is this the future of persuading the Judges from beyond the courtroom on who is in the right and who is in the wrong – through media pressure and a smear campaign against the other party?

How did Stowe Family Law LLP get the Welch story to support the smear campaign against the Wife and why would they not report their source and evidence?

We investigated and evidence shows that the smear campaign was deployed by no other but by the legal professional and associate solicitor – Emma Morris – who wrote and signed her name to the Media Alert Press Release document “Commentary from leading law and professional services firm Gordon Dadds“.  Her Media Alert document is dated XX October 2015 and it was submitted to the media marketing company ‘Infinite Spada‘.  The contact addresses on Emma Morris’ Media Alert Press Release document are Ryan McSharry / Helen Scott at Infinite Spada including their telephone number and their respective email contact details.

Numerous questions can be raised by an impartial mind as to how far family solicitors are willing to go to ensure a win for their client!

Did Gordon Dadds orchestrate the civil restraint order against the Wife for self-protection of the Husband for non-disclosure of his assets as well as for their own protection following their own wrong doing in the Welch case?  We learned that Gordon Dadds is under Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) investigation for allegations of misleading the court and other serious professional misconduct.  Essentially, it is alleged that the firm has actively participated in the fraud alongside the Husband including tampering with court documents and making false statements under Oath.

The Husband’s barrister in the divorce proceedings is Patrick Chamberlayne, QC of 29 Bedford Row Chambers in London.   He was able to obtain from his colleague Judges 99% of the proceeds from the matrimonial house for the Husband although the Wife clearly presented numerous non-disclosure of assets and fraud activity on the part of the Husband. The Wife appeared on numerous occasions as a litigant in person, which immediately qualified her as an untrusted source, given that she was left without any finances and facing eviction from the matrimonial home while fraud evidence against the Husband is still pending before the courts and with the authorities. The Husband’s barrister also obtained assets belonging to the Wife in favour to the Husband.


The Welch case is proof that the UK family courts support the men, wealthy men that is, who can afford legal representation and services of a well known and unconditionally trusted barrister.

We also learned that there is evidence with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) against Gordon Dadds and associate solicitor Emma Morris including allegations for engaging in misleading the court, tampering with court documents, perjury, making a false statement, failing to act with integrity, aiding and abetting money laundering.

We will continue to follow the Welch case as it develops in the courts and with the SRA.  It may or may not bring comfort to the public on how the SRA investigates a complaint against a large firm of solicitors and an associate solicitor.

At the hearing on 3 December 2015 in the Court of Appeal before Lord Justice McCombe, his Lordship refused to hear the appeal the minute he sat down and seeing councils for both parties. His Lordship found the matter to be annoying and an unfortunate case as both parties did not find a way to reach an agreement before the court date, as his Lordship ordered in a previous court order. The Welch case was sent back to the High Court, Family Division, and to put pressure on the family court his Lordship provided a short stay of execution for the sale of matrimonial house which may require multiple applications (multiple fee payments of £155) to the High Court if the court was to delay the application to hear the Wife’s applications.

The Husband’s barrister, Patrick Chamberlayne QC, insisted that the matter be sent back to Mr Justice Holman who was in agreement with the Husband’s position. His Lordship did not dismiss Mr Justice Holman from the case and did not order a new Judge with fresh eyes on the matter. No order as to costs was made on the day of the hearing in the Court of Appeal.

Elements of the Welch case to take note of:

  • – non-disclosure of assets by the Husband and High Court permission to allow for such non-disclosure;
  • – full legal representation for the Husband while the Wife was able to only sporadically afford legal representation;
  • – Husband obtains 99% of the matrimonial home while the Wife is to be made homeless and put in further debt;
  • – Husband’s legal team use of ‘forward thinking’ to implicate the media during court proceedings to gain advantage for their client while slandering the Wife before the courts and the public;
  • – SRA investigation into Gordon Dadds and associate Emma Morris’ behaviour and legal practice; and
  • – who knows who may be the only solution to a favourable UK divorce for one party; however, this leads to “improper performance” by an authority which is contrary to the Bribery Act 2010.

The Wife’s legal position and story. Click here.