JK v LM

The court may order funding for legal representation in both Children Act 1989 Schedule 1 and section 8 proceedings where this is necessary to secure appropriate legal services and equality of arms. In assessing ability to pay, the court may make robust assumptions where the payer’s financial disclosure is deficient. Historic costs may be funded where non-payment would prevent future representation.

A freezing order is available where clear evidence establishes unjustified dealings with assets giving rise to a real risk of dissipation to the applicant’s prejudice. A restriction may also be entered against registered land where necessary or desirable to protect the applicant’s claim.

The mother sought interim relief in ongoing private-law and financial proceedings concerning their six-year-old child. Her applications were for a legal services payment order covering section 8 and Schedule 1 proceedings, a freezing order over assets in England and Wales, a restriction against a Richmond property, and directions in the Schedule 1 claim.

The father, a Czech national living in the Czech Republic, appeared in person by video link. The mother relied on limited means, the father’s apparent wealth, deficient disclosure, and recent transactions involving family companies, a trust and property. The central issues were whether funding was necessary, whether there was a real risk of asset dissipation, and whether protection of the property claim justified a restriction.

1. The court granted the mother’s applications for a legal services payment order, a freezing order and a restriction against the Richmond property, and gave directions for the Schedule 1 claim.

2. The jurisdiction to fund legal costs in Schedule 1 and section 8 proceedings was undisputed. The court applied the equality-of-arms principle. The mother had limited means and faced significant litigation concerning both N’s care and the father’s proposed relocation application.

3. The father’s financial disclosure was selective and deficient. Applying the principles in Rubin v Rubin, the court was entitled to make robust assumptions about his ability to pay and was not confined to his own account of his resources. The court accepted that, without payment of historic costs, the mother would not reasonably be able to obtain appropriate legal services in the future.

4. The court deducted 15 per cent from the legal services payment order to reflect a modest notional detailed assessment. It recognised differing approaches in the Family Division but considered that an indemnity against all costs would be unusual.

5. Under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the evidence established dealings with assets which created a real risk of dissipation to the mother’s prejudice. It was therefore just and convenient to preserve the father’s interests in the Richmond property and UB Capital Limited. The father’s residence outside the jurisdiction and the apparent use of offshore or third-party structures strengthened the need for security.

6. Under section 46 of the Land Registration Act 2002, a restriction was necessary or desirable to protect the mother’s claim. The restriction was directed to have priority over any pending official search.