Kirsten James v Stephen Seymour

In a conventional child-maintenance assessment, the Child Maintenance Service formula may provide a useful starting point, but it is not binding and may be rejected. For original applications involving earned income between £156,000 and £650,000, an adjusted formula may provide a Child Support Starting Point, subject to the nature of the claim, shared care and other stated limitations. The adjusted methodology is unsuitable for variation applications, HECSA claims, four or more children, largely unearned income, or a parent living on capital.

Every award remains subject to the discretionary balancing exercise under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 or Children Act 1989. Costs may properly be ordered where dishonest non-disclosure, non-compliance, refusal to negotiate openly or an unreasonably advanced claim has materially obstructed settlement.

The mother appealed from HHJ Vincent’s decision on an application to vary a consent order governing child and spousal maintenance. The first-instance judge increased child maintenance, directed the father to pay school fees and extras, enforced an indemnity, and ordered the mother to pay half the father’s costs. She rejected the mother’s reliance on an extended CMS formula, her disparity-of-lifestyle argument and her challenge to costs.

The appeal raised whether the judge had been required to use the CMS formula as a starting point, whether the quantum of child maintenance was inadequate, and whether the costs order was wrong. It also raised issues concerning the reporting of the earlier proceedings and anonymity.

1. Permission to appeal was granted on Ground 1, but the appeal was dismissed. Permission was refused on Grounds 2 and 3.

2. The CMS formula remains a useful and logical starting point in a conventional, non-HECSA child-maintenance case involving an original application, where the paying parent’s relevant income exceeds £156,000 but is below £650,000. The formula is not mandatory. The court may adopt, adjust or reject it.

3. An Adjusted Formula Methodology may be used to derive a Child Support Starting Point in that income range. It adjusts for the number of children, pension contributions, school fees and extras, and the level of shared care. It is not apt for a variation application, a HECSA claim, four or more children, largely unearned income, or a parent living on capital.

4. In a variation application, the appropriate starting point is normally the value of the original order adjusted by inflation, because Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 31(7), requires the court to identify the change of circumstances since the original order.

5. The starting point is only a loose guide. The court must undertake the discretionary balancing exercise required by section 25(3) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, or paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989, and must consider a budget carefully. A decision-maker may accept or reject the starting point without fear of appellate review.

6. A disparity-of-lifestyle comparison is generally meaningful only in a HECSA claim. It did not require an increase in conventional child maintenance here, and the first-instance judge’s assessment was not arguably wrong.

7. The court endorsed principles that deliberate non-disclosure, dishonest behaviour, refusal to negotiate openly, failure to comply with procedural directions, and an unreasonable claim that stymies settlement may justify a costs order, provided the paying party has the means to pay. The mother’s conduct justified the order for half the father’s costs.

8. Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 does not impose a blanket reporting ban. Anonymity requires a proper necessity and proportionality assessment and a valid order. The court lifted secrecy concerning the earlier proceedings but directed that the children should not be named or photographed.

• High Court (Family Division): permission to appeal was granted on Ground 1, but the appeal was dismissed. Permission was refused on Grounds 2 and 3.
• Family Court: HHJ Vincent dismissed the variation application in substantial part, increased child maintenance to £1,100 per month per child, ordered payment of school fees and extras, enforced an indemnity, and ordered the mother to pay half the father’s costs. The decision was reported as A Wife v A Husband [2022] EWFC 154.