Walker v Jeffries & S (A Child)

In a claim for financial provision for a child, an award made in an earlier case must not be used as a benchmark from which to scale the housing fund according to the payer’s wealth. Each case must be decided on its own facts. The court must focus on the child’s needs and welfare as distinct from the parent’s personal aspirations. It should examine the consequences of losing a familiar home, school and friends, whether a move is necessary, and whether it risks harm. Where a first-instance discretionary decision rests on such errors, the appellate court may allow the appeal. If it lacks current evidence to exercise the discretion itself, further evidence and submissions are required.

The mother sought full financial relief for her daughter under section 15 of the Children Act 1989. The parents had never married. Bennett J assessed the father’s wealth at about £4 million and ordered an £800,000 housing fund. In reaching that figure, he compared the case with Re P (Child) (Financial Provision) [2003] EWCA Civ 837, where a £1 million housing award had been made for a substantially wealthier father.

The mother appealed on the quantum of the housing fund. The central issues were whether Bennett J had treated the earlier award as a benchmark and whether he had sufficiently separated the child’s welfare and interests from the mother’s personal housing aspirations.

Appeal allowed unanimously. Bennett J’s discretionary determination of the housing fund could not stand.

1. The court accepted that Re P (Child) (Financial Provision) [2003] EWCA Civ 837, also reported at [2003] 2 FLW 865, had not imposed a ceiling on future awards. However, Bennett J had treated its £1 million award as a benchmark and scaled it down to reflect the father’s lesser wealth. That was an erroneous approach which had materially contributed to the result. Each case had to be decided on its own facts and evidence.
2. The complaints concerning the daughter’s future schooling and the disparity between the parents’ homes were rejected. Nevertheless, the judge had failed to focus separately on the daughter’s needs and interests. The mother’s manipulative or egocentric conduct could justify rejecting her personal aspirations, but it did not taint the child’s distinct interests. The proper inquiry required consideration of the consequences of losing the familiar home, school and friends, whether a move was necessary given the father’s resources, and whether it risked harm to the child’s welfare.
3. The court recognised the caution in Lord Hoffmann’s speech in Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360 against an excessively textual analysis of a trial judgment. That caution did not prevent appellate intervention where the judgment disclosed material errors of principle. Since the Court of Appeal lacked sufficient up-to-date information to exercise the discretion itself, further submissions were required concerning the preparation of evidence and whether the fresh decision should be made by the Court of Appeal or the Family Division.
4. The fresh assessment should take account of the broad range of possible properties between the polarised alternatives advanced below.

Thorpe LJ additionally observed that separate representation for the child may be advantageous in a section 15 claim where conflict between the parents risks obscuring the child’s needs. Laws LJ agreed with the reasoning, and Hallett LJ agreed with the proposed course.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was initially refused on paper. Following an oral hearing on 19 April 2005, limited permission was granted to challenge the quantum of the housing fund. On 15 March 2006, the appeal was allowed: [2006] EWCA Civ 479. Further submissions were directed on the evidence and on whether the fresh exercise of discretion should be undertaken by this court or the Family Division.
• High Court Family Division: Bennett J, on 13 August 2004, determined a claim under section 15 of the Children Act 1989 and ordered an £800,000 housing fund for the child. That determination was under appeal.