A (Schedule 1, Overspend, Costs Clawback)

Factual and Procedural Background

The parties are the Mother and the Father, parents of a child born in 2020. The Mother applied on 3 June 2020 for financial provision for the child under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989, seeking periodical payments (including interim orders), settlement of property, and lump sums related to the child's upbringing. The court has jurisdiction to top up a maximum Child Maintenance Service assessment.

Most issues were compromised by July 2021, including a housing fund for a property occupied by the Mother and child, lump sums for furnishing, agreed child maintenance payments incorporating a carer's allowance, car finance repayment and replacement provisions, educational costs funding, and security installations. The parties also agreed confidentiality undertakings.

Five significant issues remained: whether the Father should clear all of the Mother's liabilities; whether additional periodical payments should be made for childcare/nanny costs; a lump sum for a prospective medical operation for the Mother; lump sums related to security and moving costs for the new property; and the start date for the agreed periodical payments.

The Mother sought to clear personal debts and unpaid legal fees amounting to approximately £316,133, additional periodical payments of £36,000 per annum reducing to £24,000 for childcare until the child’s 18th birthday, a lump sum of approximately £9,000 for a medical operation, £13,000 for security and moving costs, and immediate start of maintenance payments. The Father opposed these claims on various grounds and proposed lower sums.

The proceedings began before the child's birth, with interim hearings resulting in maintenance orders, interim lump sums, and costs allowances. The Mother appealed some interim decisions but was largely unsuccessful. The final hearing took place remotely over three days in February 2021, with some technological difficulties noted but a full and fair hearing ensured.

The Mother suffers from health issues and has a history of financial difficulties, including personal debt and unpaid legal fees. The Father is a high-net-worth individual with substantial income and capital. The Father does not participate in the child’s life but acknowledges financial responsibilities. The Mother’s business as an online influencer generates minimal income, and there are concerns about her financial management and credibility.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Father should clear all of the Mother's liabilities to ensure she is debt free in the child's best interests.
2. Whether the Father should pay additional periodical payments to enable the Mother to employ a nanny or provide regular childcare, either for respite related to her health or to facilitate career rebuilding.
3. Whether the Father should pay a lump sum for the Mother's prospective medical operation.
4. Whether the Father should pay lump sums for security and moving costs related to the new property.
5. When the agreed periodical payments should commence.

Arguments of the Parties

Mother's Arguments

• The Mother seeks clearance of all personal debts and unpaid legal fees, asserting these arose in relation to the child's birth and upbringing.
• She claims additional periodical payments for a nanny to provide respite care due to health problems and to enable career development for future financial independence.
• She requests lump sums to cover a prospective medical operation and security/moving costs for the new home.
• She contends that the maintenance payments should start immediately.
• The Mother emphasizes the child's best interests and her role as the primary carer, seeking financial support accordingly.

Father's Arguments

• The Father objects to paying all of the Mother's personal debts, attributing their increase to her reckless and irresponsible overspending.
• He opposes additional periodical payments for a nanny, suggesting that agreed maintenance and nursery fees can cover childcare needs.
• He disputes the necessity and validity of the requested lump sums for the medical operation and security costs.
• The Father proposes a reduced capital payment and suggests repayment of some costs through docking maintenance payments over time.
• He argues that the maintenance payments should start when the Mother has purchased her new home.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began with the statutory framework under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989, emphasizing the child’s best interests as a constant influence. The court recognized the parties’ compromise on major financial provisions but focused on the outstanding issues.

Regarding the Mother’s debts, the court accepted that the interim maintenance order was insufficient but found the Mother’s spending largely extravagant and reckless, funded by borrowing from family and financial institutions. The court distinguished between hard debts (bank and credit card) which should be cleared by the Father, and family loans which the Mother must address herself.

On legal fees, the court noted the exceptionally high costs, including an unsuccessful appeal and overspend, but ordered the Father to pay all legal fees subject to a clawback provision and the Mother pursuing a solicitor and own client assessment. This balanced the Father’s objection to paying for unsuccessful costs with the need to avoid the Mother’s insolvency, which would harm the child.

The court rejected the Mother’s claim for additional periodical payments for a nanny, considering that agreed maintenance and nursery provision would suffice. The Mother’s failure to provide a viable business plan or credible evidence for career development maintenance was a key factor.

The court also dismissed lump sum claims for medical operations and security costs due to lack of supporting medical evidence and credibility concerns, ordering only a lump sum for moving costs.

The agreed periodical payments of £8,000 per month were ordered to start immediately, reflecting a fair and generous assessment of the child’s and Mother’s reasonable needs without rewarding excessive spending.

Throughout, the court critically evaluated the Mother’s credibility, noting evasiveness, lack of insight, and misleading statements, while finding the Father a truthful and reasonable witness. The court emphasized the need for responsible financial management by the Mother going forward.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final orders were as follows:

• The Father shall pay the Mother £61,500, comprising £60,000 as backdated maintenance and £1,500 for moving costs.
• The Father shall pay the Mother's unpaid legal fees subject to the clawback provision and the solicitor and own client assessment.
• The agreed periodical payments of £8,000 per month shall start immediately.
• The Mother's claims for additional periodical payments for a nanny and for other lump sums (medical operation, security costs) are dismissed.
• No order as to costs is made.

The decision ensures the child’s needs are met generously while imposing limits on the Mother’s financial claims, reflecting concerns about her spending and credibility. The Mother will be free of hard debt but remains responsible for family loans. The ruling underscores the court’s role in balancing child welfare with reasonable financial stewardship and discouraging unreasonable claims disguised as child benefit. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the court applied established principles to the facts.