Goodman v Walker

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns financial remedy proceedings under Children Act 1989, Schedule 1, brought by the Applicant mother against the Respondent father. The parties have two children, born in 2020 and 2023 respectively. The mother is the primary carer and resides in Sussex, while the father, a professional footballer, lives in Cheshire with his wife and their four children. The parties have never cohabited, and the father's relationship with the mother ended prior to the birth of the second child. The case has generated substantial public and press interest due to the father's celebrity status.

The mother's initial financial application relating to the older child was resolved through a series of hearings, appeals, and a consent order in 2022, which included provision for housing, child maintenance, lump sums for debts and furnishings, childcare costs, and motor vehicle replacement. Following the birth of the second child, the mother initiated further financial remedy proceedings in June 2023, seeking to extend and augment the previous provisions.

Interim orders and a private financial dispute resolution took place without settlement. The substantive hearing was adjourned by one day to accommodate the father's professional commitments and held in July 2024. The court also considered transparency issues regarding media attendance and publication of the judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether and to what extent the previous financial orders relating to the older child should be extended or varied in respect of the younger child and ongoing needs.
2. The appropriate quantum and structure of child periodical payments and lump sum payments for housing, childcare, furnishings, and other capital needs under Children Act 1989, Schedule 1.
3. The validity and continuation of specific order provisions, including the 'protected housing budget' clause and cohabitation trigger clause.
4. The appropriate approach to transparency and publication of court proceedings and judgment in light of statutory restrictions and competing Article 8 and Article 10 rights.
5. The resolution of disputed arrears and costs related to interim child maintenance payments.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant Mother's Arguments

• Seeks removal of the 'protected housing budget' clause limiting housing provision if moving beyond a 100-mile radius.
• Requests removal of the cohabitation trigger clause restricting occupation rights upon remarriage or cohabitation.
• Seeks expanded access to the management fund for property repairs and approval of a detailed 'snagging list' of repairs.
• Requests lump sums for air conditioning (£33,000), astroturf football area (£31,200), internal re-modelling (£4,000), and a further furniture fund (£20,000).
• Seeks increase in motor car replacement budget from £45,000 to £70,000.
• Requests £7,500 plus VAT for solicitors' implementation costs.
• Seeks capitalisation of nursery and school fees for both children.
• Proposes a global child periodical payment of £14,750 per month plus CPI inflation.
• Seeks childcare funding for 30 hours per week at £30 per hour until primary school and 20 hours at same rate until secondary school, capitalised as a lump sum.
• Requests payment for three months' notice to nanny and a lump sum of £30,000 for a nanny's car replacement every three years.
• Argues for a final transparency order with anonymisation and redaction to protect the parties and children from identification in published materials.

Respondent Father's Arguments

• Wishes to retain the 'protected housing budget' clause and cohabitation trigger clause as fair and appropriate.
• Opposes unfettered access to the management fund by the mother, citing reliability concerns.
• Does not agree to lump sums for air conditioning, astroturf, or internal re-modelling, considering these unnecessary or unreasonable.
• Offers a reduced furniture fund of £2,500.
• Agrees to CPI inflation proofing for motor car replacement but opposes increasing the budget beyond approximately £51,000.
• Offers £2,500 plus VAT for solicitors' implementation costs.
• Opposes capitalisation of nursery and school fees, preferring to pay fees as they arise and proposes direct payment arrangements with schools.
• Proposes a global child periodical payment figure of £12,500 per month plus CPI inflation, which the court found fair and reasonable.
• Offers childcare funding for 24 hours per week at £20 per hour until primary school and 12 hours at same rate until secondary school, paid as incurred.
• Rejects payment for nanny's notice period and opposes the requested lump sum for a nanny's car, though agrees to replacement of electric gates at the mother's home.
• Supports press reporting without anonymisation, arguing that the parties and children are already widely identified in the public domain.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court commenced its analysis by assessing the financial resources and needs of the parties and children, applying statutory criteria under Children Act 1989, Schedule 1, paragraph 4, and relevant case law. The father’s substantial capital and income position was acknowledged, as was the mother’s limited financial means.

The court gave weight to the previous 2022 orders and related appeals but confirmed it was not bound by them, viewing them as part of the factual and legal context for the current application.

On disputed issues, the court applied a broad brush approach, favoring fairness and reasonableness over detailed line-by-line scrutiny. It found the father to be a reliable and generous witness, while the mother’s evidence was less credible and often exaggerated.

The court upheld the 'protected housing budget' and cohabitation trigger clauses as appropriate, noting these were part of negotiated compromises and served legitimate purposes. It rejected the mother’s demand for increased unfettered access to the property management fund, citing concerns about potential abuse and finding the father’s management reliable.

Regarding capital expenditure requests such as air conditioning, astroturf, and internal re-modelling, the court found these unnecessary or unreasonable given the circumstances and the ages of the children.

On the furniture fund, a modest lump sum of £5,000 was awarded as a balanced measure, considering previous payments.

The motor car replacement budget was maintained with CPI inflation adjustments, rejecting the mother’s demand for a significant increase as unnecessary.

The court split the difference on solicitors’ implementation costs, awarding £5,000 plus VAT.

It declined to capitalise nursery and school fees, accepting the father’s evidence of reliability and the practical benefits of direct payment arrangements with educational institutions.

On global child maintenance, the court found the father’s offer of £12,500 per month plus CPI inflation fair and reasonable, rejecting the mother’s higher figure.

For childcare costs, the court adopted a position close to the father’s offer, with CPI inflation proofing, and rejected the mother’s request for lump sum capitalisation and additional payments for nanny notice period.

The court awarded £12,000 for a nanny’s car, conditional on proof of employment and driving licence, rejecting the mother’s higher sum and recurring replacement claims.

On arrears, the court found a net arrears figure of £16,176 owed by the father on interim child maintenance, to be paid forthwith, but remitted any arrears on the earlier Kairo order due to complexities and voluntary payments.

The court ordered payment of £2,020 costs on the enforcement application for arrears but declined costs on a later enforcement application deemed unnecessary.

Regarding transparency, the court undertook a careful balancing exercise between statutory confidentiality provisions and the rights to freedom of expression and open justice. It found that given the extensive prior public reporting and the parties’ own disclosures, anonymisation and redaction were neither practical nor justified. The court accordingly granted a final transparency order permitting unredacted publication of the judgment and reporting of the proceedings, subject to limited restrictions such as non-disclosure of precise addresses and bank details.

Holding and Implications

The court made the following key rulings:

• The 'protected housing budget' and cohabitation trigger clauses remain in place as fair and appropriate.
• The mother’s demands for expanded access to property management funds, air conditioning, astroturf, internal re-modelling, and increased motor car budget were refused or limited.
• A further furniture fund of £5,000 was awarded.
• Solicitors' implementation costs were fixed at £5,000 plus VAT.
• No capitalisation of nursery and school fees; father to pay fees directly to institutions.
• Global child maintenance fixed at £12,500 per month plus CPI inflation.
• Childcare costs awarded broadly as per father’s offer, with CPI inflation adjustment.
• £12,000 awarded for a nanny’s car with conditions.
• Net arrears of £16,176 payable forthwith by the father; no arrears order on earlier maintenance.
• Costs of £2,020 awarded on enforcement application for arrears; no costs on other enforcement application.
• Final transparency order permitting publication of the judgment and reporting without anonymisation or redaction, subject to limited privacy protections.

Implications: The decision confirms the court’s approach to balancing financial provision for children with reasonableness and fairness to the parties, emphasizing the importance of broad common-sense rather than detailed scrutiny of budgets. The ruling on transparency reflects a recognition of the public interest and prior publicity in high-profile family cases, setting a precedent for limited confidentiality in similar circumstances. No novel legal principles were established; rather, existing law and guidance were applied to the facts of this case. The orders directly affect the financial and practical arrangements for the parties and their children going forward.