A (A Child)

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns the child of an absent and unmarried father of substantial wealth. The mother appealed the quantum of periodical payments ordered for the benefit of the child, then aged nearly five years, by Judge Bodey on 1 March 2013 under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989. An application to vary this order was refused on 11 December 2013. Other prospective challenges suggested by the mother were not pursued. The mother was initially represented by counsel but later appeared in person and was represented by new counsel on appeal. The father did not appear personally and disclosed limited financial information. The appeal court granted permission to appeal both the March and December 2013 orders and heard the appeal on its merits.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Does the so-called "millionaire's defence" still have a proper place in Schedule 1 proceedings?
2. By what principled criteria should a Schedule 1 award be calculated?
3. To what extent can the carer's allowance element take into account the future needs of the carer for the emotional welfare of the child?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The "millionaire's defence" should have no place in Schedule 1 applications, drawing analogy from its rejection in matrimonial financial disputes following key House of Lords decisions.
• The court should have ensured adequate disclosure of the father's assets; failure to do so or to draw adverse inferences led to an artificial ceiling on periodical payments.
• The court erred by limiting the child's housing requirements or using them as a proxy for appropriate maintenance rather than considering the father's capacity to provide a luxurious lifestyle.
• The mother should receive periodical payments sufficient to support her own housing and maintenance needs after the child's dependency ends, which was not ordered.
• Schedule 1 awards should be calculated by reference to the father's wealth and reasonably reflect an ultra-rich standard of living rather than being confined to a budget based on accommodation needs.
• The carer's allowance element should include provision for the carer's future financial security, benefiting the child's emotional welfare.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the father's legal arguments beyond his counsel's submission that he could afford any order subject to reasonableness, and his limited disclosure of financial details.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the application of the "millionaire's defence" within the context of Schedule 1 proceedings, distinguishing it from matrimonial financial relief where sharing and compensation principles apply. It held that while the defence survives to some extent, courts must require sufficient disclosure to understand the scale of wealth but are not obliged to engage in detailed financial examinations in very wealthy cases, endorsing a broad outline approach.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that the award should be based solely on the father's wealth or that the Schedule 1 provisions allow compensation or sharing analogous to matrimonial cases. It noted that the child's needs must be assessed in context, typically starting from the home environment, as established in Re P, and that extravagant budgets unrelated to the child's needs, such as nightclub memberships, are not appropriate.

The judge's findings, including adverse inferences regarding the father's wealth and rejection of artificially low budget ceilings, were upheld. The court confirmed that the award should enable the child to live in circumstances not too dissimilar from the father's affluent lifestyle but does not extend to providing for the mother's future financial security beyond the child's minority.

The court also addressed procedural concerns, condemning the mother's application to vary the order as an abuse of process intended to circumvent appeal time limits.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was DISMISSED.

The court upheld the original order for periodical payments and refused to vary it. It confirmed that the "millionaire's defence" remains applicable in Schedule 1 proceedings but only to the extent of requiring some disclosure without detailed financial scrutiny. The decision clarifies that Schedule 1 claims focus on the child's needs rather than sharing or compensation principles applicable in matrimonial cases. The ruling emphasizes judicial discretion in assessing reasonable maintenance in wealthy cases and rejects attempts to extend awards for the carer's future financial benefit beyond the child's dependency. Procedurally, the court warned against manipulative applications to extend appeal time limits. No new legal precedent was established beyond reaffirming existing principles and their appropriate application.