W v X

In a Schedule 1 claim, provision must be made for the benefit of the child, even where the child has experienced an exceptionally high standard of living. There is no tariff for awards in high-value cases. The court must assess the child’s needs in their particular context, including housing, education, welfare, the standard of living during the relationship and the father’s current lifestyle. A carer-related award may include household expenditure reasonably required to discharge caring responsibilities, but the court must guard against claims that principally benefit the parent. In substantial cases, the court may adopt a broad-brush approach rather than conduct a line-by-line budget analysis. Costs in Schedule 1 proceedings begin from a clean sheet, with conduct, success and admissible offers relevant to the outcome.

The applicant mother sought financial provision under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 for the parties’ eight-year-old child. The respondent father was exceptionally wealthy. The mother sought substantial maintenance, a lump sum, security, housing provision and funding for legal costs, including costs in related section 8 proceedings.

An interim award had been made by a deputy district judge. The mother’s application for permission to appeal that decision was refused by Lieven J. The final hearing concerned the appropriate level and form of Schedule 1 provision, the treatment of the mother’s resources and liabilities, security, and costs.

1. Schedule 1 framework. Orders must be made for the benefit of the child. The court considered the statutory factors, the child’s welfare, housing needs, the standard of living during the relationship and the father’s continuing lifestyle. There was no standard tariff for high-value cases; each case depended on its own facts and context.
2. Assessment of need. The child had lived for several years within a very high standard of living and would continue to experience that lifestyle with the father. The order should therefore provide a very comfortable lifestyle with the mother which was not totally out of keeping with the previous family lifestyle or the father’s current lifestyle. The court rejected an educative purpose in the award and excluded expenditure principally directed to preserving the mother’s former lifestyle.
3. Housing and maintenance. The child’s stability was best served by remaining in the family home. The father was ordered to meet the rent without the proposed cap, subject to an equivalent indexed property if the mother and child moved. A Household Expenditure Child Support Award of £225,000 per annum, indexed by CPI, was ordered until the later of completion of secondary school or conclusion of a first degree, including a gap year. The father was also to pay school fees and reasonable extras.
4. Lump sum and security. The mother was not required to use her £1.55 million assets to meet liabilities. The father was ordered to pay £559,000 for specified debts, HMRC liabilities and outstanding costs, including costs in the section 8 proceedings. Security was refused because the court did not consider the father likely to default, although the application for secured provision was adjourned generally.
5. Costs. Costs were governed by a clean-sheet approach under CPR 1998 rule 44.2. Given the disparity in resources and the child-focused nature of the claim, the fair starting point was that the father should meet reasonably incurred costs. The mother’s contribution through the sale of a watch adequately reflected legitimate criticism of her litigation conduct. The painting claim was not within the court’s power and no order was made on it.

• Family Court, interim proceedings: A deputy district judge made interim maintenance and legal-services decisions on 9 July 2024. Lieven J refused the mother’s application for permission to appeal on 14 March 2025.
• Family Court: The present court determined the final Schedule 1 application and made financial provision orders.