Maughan v Wilmot

Where a child maintenance order is inadequate because a child has progressed to tertiary education, the court may vary the order to provide equivalent support to that awarded for older siblings. The court may backdate the variation and permit enforcement of arrears exceeding one year where the circumstances justify it. An advance lump-sum payment for future maintenance may be ordered in an unusual case where the payer has persistently avoided responsibility and early closure is appropriate. The court may also maintain or modify protective orders, including a freezing order, to secure payment of maintenance, costs and receivers’ expenses.

The applicant sought variation of periodical payments for the parties’ youngest child, E, so that support continued through tertiary education. She also sought enforcement of historic arrears, payment of substantial unpaid costs, a lump sum covering past and future tertiary-education support, continuation of a freezing order and protection from direct email harassment.

The respondent challenged the hearing on jurisdictional and service grounds, relied on alleged proceedings in Germany, and failed to attend despite being given permission to make his application. The court rejected the adjournment application and determined the financial and protective applications.

1. Adjournment and jurisdiction. The respondent’s application for an adjournment was dismissed. The German proceedings concerned parentage and did not assume jurisdiction over child maintenance. In any event, even such a pronouncement would not destroy the jurisdiction of the Family Court, which was well established.
2. Variation and lump sum. The periodical payments order was varied so that E received equivalent support to her older siblings during tertiary education. The court awarded monthly payments, backdated to 1 July 2017, producing arrears of £12,799.42. It also ordered a lump sum of £24,599.46 covering past and future tertiary-education support. Although unusual, payment in advance was appropriate because of the respondent’s persistent attempts to avoid his child-support responsibilities.
3. Arrears and costs. Permission was granted to enforce arrears exceeding one year. The applicant’s child-support arrears, costs, tertiary-education award and the receiver’s claims were calculated at approximately £593,598, against recoveries of £396,929. The resulting deficit of approximately £196,669 was awarded against the respondent.
4. Protective orders. The receiver was authorised to liquidate frozen funds to discharge the award. A freezing order over specified properties, bank and pension assets and insurance funds was continued at £300,000, but excluded funds held with Turkish Airlines. The respondent was restrained from communicating with the applicant’s solicitor at her private email address. The judgment was permitted to be disclosed.

The judgment records that the Court of Appeal dismissed the respondent’s earlier appeal concerning service by email and directed that the stay on the variation application be discharged. No citation for that decision is stated in the judgment. The present judgment then determined the outstanding financial and protective applications at first instance.