A (A Child)

Financial provision under Children Act 1989, Schedule 1 is directed to a child’s needs. It does not import the matrimonial principles of sharing or compensation, and cannot provide for a carer’s financial needs after the child’s dependency ends.

A wealthy non-resident parent must provide financial information. However, where resources are plainly substantial, proportionate case management may permit a broad indication of wealth rather than detailed disclosure. Wealth remains relevant to the child’s reasonable budget and standard of living, but does not justify a context-free or former-spouse lifestyle. The child’s housing is a legitimate starting point for assessing capital and maintenance needs, not a fixed ceiling or tariff.

The mother sought financial provision for her son, S, under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989. The father, an absent unmarried member of a very wealthy family, accepted that he could meet any reasonable order but did not give detailed disclosure of his resources.

Bodey J ordered the purchase of the mother and child’s home, annual periodical payments of £204,000 in addition to specified expenses, and lump sums including payment of the mother’s debts. He later refused the mother’s application to vary the periodical payments. The mother appealed both orders, principally challenging the use of the so-called millionaire’s defence, the assessment of the child’s needs, and the absence of provision for the mother after the child’s dependency.

1. The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Schedule 1 provision is for the benefit of the child. The matrimonial concepts of sharing and compensation arise from marriage and have no application to a child’s Schedule 1 claim. Provision for a carer is legitimate only insofar as it enables the carer to care for the child during the relevant dependency. It cannot fund the carer’s independent future needs.

2. The millionaire’s defence survives in a qualified form. A party must provide the financial information required by the procedural rules, but the overriding objective may make a broad indication of very substantial wealth sufficient. Detailed investigation is not invariably required where it would be disproportionate and the parent can meet any reasonable award.

3. The father’s wealth was relevant both to his ability to pay and to the child’s reasonable standard of living. It did not remove the need for a reasoned budget or permit an award supporting an uncontextualised lavish lifestyle. The court had to prevent the child’s claim becoming a former spouse’s claim advanced through the carer.

4. The court approved the approach in Re P (Child: Financial Provision) [2003] EWCA Civ 837. The nature, value, size and location of the child’s home provide a practical starting point for assessing capital and income needs. That approach supplies useful boundaries but creates neither a fixed benchmark nor a ceiling for very wealthy cases.

5. Bodey J had drawn adverse inferences from the father’s non-attendance and non-disclosure, while avoiding a punitive award. His acceptance of the father’s exceptional affluence, his approval of the chosen home, and his rejection of the inflated budget disclosed no error of principle or discretion.

6. The later variation application was unmeritorious. The court stated that using such an application to revive an out-of-time challenge to the substantive order manipulates the procedural rules and should not result in an extension absent good and compelling reasons. The mother was ordered to contribute £25,000 towards the father’s appeal costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2014] EWCA Civ 1577, the court dismissed the mother’s appeal against the financial provision order and the subsequent refusal to vary it.

• High Court, Family Division (Bodey J): On 1 March 2013, the judge made a Schedule 1 order including the purchase of the child’s home, periodical payments of £204,000 per annum, specified additional expenses and lump-sum provision.

• High Court, Family Division (Bodey J): On 11 December 2013, the judge refused the mother’s application to vary the periodical payments order.