GN v MA

Where a financial claim for a child has recently been fully adjudicated, a substantially identical renewed application may be struck out as having no reasonable grounds or as an abuse of process. The court may also determine the application summarily where a further hearing would serve no useful purpose and dismissal is overwhelmingly likely. Under Children Act 1989, Sch 1, the court must consider the statutory financial factors and all the circumstances, including a recent detailed determination and the effect of indexation. Claims for additional holidays, medical expenses or legal costs should not ordinarily be advanced piecemeal where the existing award was intended to cover the child’s reasonable needs.

The mother applied under Sch 1 to increase periodical payments for her seven-year-old son and sought additional sums for holidays, medical expenses and legal costs. She also sought orders concerning a trustee and substantial repair works at the property occupied by her and the child.

The existing periodical payments order had been made after a detailed hearing. The mother’s later application for an increase had been dismissed, and her appeal had been dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court subsequently refused permission to appeal. The father applied to strike out or summarily dismiss the renewed application.

The issues were whether the renewed financial claim was legally recognisable and, alternatively, whether it should be dismissed after a summary assessment. The court also considered the outstanding legal-costs claim and the two property-related issues.

1. Periodical payments and ancillary expenses. The application for increased periodical payments was dismissed or struck out. The mother’s claim had already been considered in detail by the court, reviewed on appeal, and was not a genuinely new claim. The reasoning in Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14 did not prevent summary disposal because that case concerned claims which had never been adjudicated upon, whereas the present claim had been finally determined.
2. Under clause 4 of Sch 1 to the Children Act 1989, the court considered income, earning capacity, property and other resources, financial needs and responsibilities, the child’s resources and needs, disability, education and all the circumstances. The existing indexed award remained suitable and appropriate. Ordinary changes in individual expenses, including insurance costs, were matters for budgeting within the award and did not justify reopening the assessment.
3. The court reaffirmed the practical objection to piecemeal applications for holidays and medical expenses. Those applications were dismissed because the existing arrangements were intended to address the child’s reasonable needs and repeated satellite applications generated disproportionate expense and aggravation. The approach to indirect benefit for the child through the reasonable welfare of the primary carer was drawn from Re P [2003] 2 FLR 865 (C.A.).
4. The mother’s claim that the father should pay an approximately £49,000 bill owed to Withers was dismissed. The parties had compromised the earlier detailed-costs process at £70,000. Requiring the father to pay the further bill would undermine that compromise and the previous costs determination.
5. The proposed replacement trustee and the £160,000 repair-cost dispute raised justiciable issues. The parties were directed first to attempt negotiation or mediation. If unresolved, those issues could return to the court, preferably before the same judge if available.

1. Court of Appeal: The mother’s appeal against refusal to increase periodical payments was dismissed on 8 December 2014, with judgment delivered on 10 December 2014.
2. Supreme Court: Permission to appeal was refused on 16 April 2015.
3. High Court (Family Division): The renewed application was dismissed or struck out, while the two D Square issues remained capable of further determination.