Robert Cole

Robert is known for his attention to detail, ability to identify and address the issues at play and his expansive knowledge of the law. It has resulted in him being recognised as one of the senior practitioners in financial remedy work, both as a practising barrister and as an evaluator and arbitrator. His reputation and standing is such that he has been repeatedly invited to lecture to the judiciary at the Judicial College on topics such as accountancy issues, the approach to companies and the impact of life expectancy in financial remedy cases and to the Network of Independent Forensic Accountants as well as to Resolution Groups and at the FLBA Annual Conference.

Robert has been a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators since 2018.

Robert is the Head of the Family Team at Broadway House Chambers.

“Robert Cole has in-depth experience acting as both a Private FDR evaluator and arbitrator in complex financial remedy cases. Cases before him often involve complex share disputes” (Chambers & Partners, NCDR, 2026)

“I’ve also used Robert Cole as a private FDR judge and Arbitrator. He was really well prepared, gave clear indications at the pFDR. He was great to work with as an Arbitrator and provided helpful input with case management throughout the process.” (Solicitor feedback, 2026)

Robert Cole is regularly appointed as a pFDR evaluator across the country, sitting on average 6 times per month. His 35 years’ experience and recognised specialism in financial remedy cases, particularly those cases involving corporate entities, and his practical understanding and realistic approach to the issues of risk and liquidity, springboard/non-matrimonial asset arguments and the range of available outcomes make him an excellent evaluator in complex money cases. He is ranked nationally in Chambers and Partners under ‘Non-Court Dispute Resolution’.

Robert was one of the earliest practitioners in the North to qualify as an arbitrator and as such, has built up a wealth of experience in the past 7 years. As with his role as a pFDR evaluator, his detailed approach, ability to address the issues before him and skill in identifying a fair outcome make him a stand-out arbitrator in complex financial remedy cases.

Private Financial Dispute Resolution

H v W (2025): Primary dispute concerned value and treatment of the shares in the family business, established in 1960s and incorporated in 2000s with H being gifted a proportion of the shares at that time just prior to the marriage; the majority of the shares were acquired during the marriage. The business had a total value of over £4,000,000. H proposed a Wells-type order to W of a percentage of the shares; W sought a lump sum. Resolution of the case required an assessment of any ‘court-discount’ to the SJE valuation, (as per Martin & HO v TL) and pre-martial springboard on the lump sum and an assessment of viability of the Wells-type share transfer. Also, consideration of a de-merger to share corporate assets as an alternative.

H v W (2025): Family business had been sold prior to separation and the proceeds shared between the parties by H paying funds to W, which she used to buy a new home. H asserted a concluded agreement; W stated that this had not constituted a full settlement and had been without disclosure and legal advice. The issues were complicated by spending/investment of funds held by them since distribution. Case required assessment of the PNA, determination of what assets should be included and whether add-back arguments had merit.

H v W (2025): Both parties held shares in a family company, which had been formed by H’s father over 20 years prior to the marriage. There were opposing expert reports as to the value of the shares that were c £1M apart. Both valuations were based on a multiplier of EBITDA, plus surplus assets (equity value). Indication required an assessment of the value of the shares, adjustment for any pre-marital springboard and source of the shares, and discount to the shares to reflect risk & an indication of a manageable payment timescale.

H v W (2025): H a retired high-profile sportsperson. Issues as to liquidity and risk in investments held by H, informing a balanced division of the resources, H & W’s earning capacities informing term of global pps, and capital and income needs of both parties.

H v W (2025): Disputed issues: value of H’s interest in LLP, which included capital venture projects, valued by the SJE at over £2M (although W challenged the core information supplied by H for the value); what court discount and minority discount should apply to the value; post-separation endeavour; potential tax liability on overdrawn DLA and how needs should be addressed. W sought a Wells-type order due to uncertainty/undervalue in value of H’s shares. H proposed discounted lump sum.

Arbitration

H v W (2024): 3-day arbitration. H worked offshore with significant tax-free income. W returned to UK on separation. W had health problems impacting on ability to work. Limited capital. Issue as to assessment of W’s capital and income needs. Determination on housing need and term and quantum of pps reflective of needs, adjusted to reflect finding on W’s conduct.

H v W (2025): 4-day arbitration. Primary issue how the assets held in the family-owned limited company should be distributed. H argued for liquidation and sharing; W argued for demerger of assets into 2 newcos held by each party. Dispute as to which of the specific properties should be held by which party. W sought pps during a period of retraining. H argued for a clean break in light of rental income available. Issue as to standard of housing for each party and income needs.

H v W (2025): 3-day arbitration. H worked abroad. W had been primary carer, remaining in UK. Issue as to housing needs for each with children, when H back in UK and given W’s continued role as primary carer. Timescale of W’s return to work and level of income informing duration and quantum of spousal pps.

H v W (2025): 2-day arbitration. Dispute as to lump sum payable to W on sale of FMH and whether her capital needs required a departure from equality in her favour. Agreed clean break and equalised pension provision, subject to lump sum issue. Equality found to meet needs – outcome was determined by consistent application of sharing principle to all assets (i.e. cannot apply sharing to one category of assets but needs to another).

H v W & others (2025): 3-day arbitration. Dispute as to whether debt owed to third parties (H’s parents) was a hard loan, soft loan or gift. Further whether shares in private limited company in which H and his parents were shareholders were matrimonial or not. Having determined those issues and assessed the assets to be shared, the outcome was cross-referenced to the parties’ needs. Application of the sharing principle required adjustment to ensure W’s capital and income needs could be fairly met on a clean break.

E: clerks@broadwayhouse.co.uk

T: 0113 246 2600 or 01274 722 560