W v X

Factual and Procedural Background

An application for relief under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 was made on behalf of an eight-year-old child (referred to as C) by his mother (the Applicant). The respondent is C's father. Both parents are French nationals who met in 2015 and had a relationship culminating in the birth of C in 2016. They cohabited in multiple countries including Country Z and later moved to London in 2017, where the family’s financial situation improved significantly due to the father's successful business ventures.

The parents’ relationship ended in late 2023, after which the mother and child remained in the family home, while the father lived separately with a new partner. The child was diagnosed with ADHD in 2023 and has received therapeutic support and medication. Both parents are actively involved in C’s life, with the mother as primary carer.

The mother issued Schedule 1 proceedings in November 2023. The father applied to dispense with full financial disclosure under the so-called "millionaire’s defence," which was accepted. Interim financial provision was ordered by a Deputy District Judge (DDJ) in July 2024, with the father ordered to pay a monthly sum for maintenance and household expenses, but the mother was required to fund her own legal costs. The mother appealed this aspect.

Mediation and a Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) hearing in 2024 were unsuccessful. The case was allocated to a High Court judge with a final hearing listed for June 2025. The mother sought further evidence and additional legal services funding. The judge refused permission to appeal the interim order, and the final hearing was re-allocated and heard over two days in June 2025.

Parallel section 8 proceedings concerning arrangements for C, including applications for shared care, non-molestation orders, holiday arrangements, and leave to remove the child from the jurisdiction, were ongoing but did not affect the outcome of the Schedule 1 claim. The total costs of the proceedings were substantial, with both parties incurring high legal fees.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What financial provision should be made under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 for the benefit of the child, taking into account the parents’ resources and the child’s needs?
2. Whether the interim financial provision and legal services funding ordered were appropriate and whether the mother’s appeal against that order should succeed.
3. How to assess and value the mother’s resources, including disputed assets and liabilities such as life insurance policies, chattels, and loans.
4. Whether security for payment should be ordered given concerns about the father’s conduct and financial probity.
5. The appropriate maintenance level to meet the child’s needs while reflecting the standard of living during the relationship and the father’s current wealth.
6. Whether the mother should be relieved of her debts and legal costs by lump sum provision.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The mother sought substantial maintenance provision to maintain the child’s lifestyle consistent with that enjoyed during the relationship, including a significant holiday fund.
• She argued that the life insurance policies were for the child’s benefit but that criminal sanctions in France might prevent her from drawing on them, necessitating other provision.
• The mother sought a lump sum to cover her debts and outstanding and anticipated legal costs, arguing that the interim provision was inadequate and forced her to borrow money.
• She requested security for payment of maintenance due to concerns about the father’s dishonesty and criminal convictions abroad.
• The mother sought transfer of certain assets including a high-value car and a painting claimed as a gift.

Respondent's Arguments

• The father relied on the millionaire’s defence to limit disclosure and argued that the mother should fund her own legal costs.
• He contested the value and accessibility of the mother’s assets, including disputing the tax implications and validity of the life insurance policies.
• The father offered to pay rent on the family home, school fees, and certain maintenance sums but proposed significantly lower maintenance than sought by the mother.
• He contended that the mother’s budgets were excessive and not child-focused but motivated by her personal financial aspirations.
• The father disputed the need for security, asserting his commitment to the child and denying likelihood of default.
• He criticized the mother’s litigation conduct, including late disclosure, forgery, and multiple changes of legal representation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by reviewing the parties’ relationship, resources, and the child’s needs, emphasizing the welfare of the child as paramount. It noted the child’s diagnosis of ADHD and the importance of stability and consistency in his upbringing. The court found both parents committed to the child despite personal animosity.

Regarding financial disclosure, the court accepted the millionaire’s defence but scrutinized the mother’s resources carefully, including life insurance policies, bank accounts, and valuable chattels. It found some non-disclosure and forgery on both sides but did not let these conduct issues overshadow the substantive financial assessment.

The court found that the mother’s budgets were excessive and motivated more by her desire to maintain her lifestyle than by the child’s needs. It emphasized that maintenance orders must be for the benefit of the child and guard against disguised claims for the mother’s benefit.

On housing, the court prioritized the child’s stability by ordering the father to pay rent on the family home without a cap, indexed to inflation, rejecting the father’s proposal to move to cheaper accommodation after a set date.

The court set maintenance at £225,000 per annum plus CPI to provide a comfortable lifestyle for the child with the mother, consistent but not extravagant compared to the father’s wealth and the standard of living during the relationship. It excluded the mother’s proposed holiday fund as excessive.

For lump sum provision, the court ordered the father to pay £559,000 to cover the mother’s debts to third parties, HMRC, and legal costs, finding it appropriate to relieve her of financial anxiety given the father’s substantial wealth.

The court declined to order security for the maintenance payments, finding the father committed to the child and unlikely to default, but adjourned the mother’s application for secured provision generally.

The court ordered the transfer of the high-value car to the mother but limited future car replacement funding, expecting maintenance to cover it. It declined to make any order regarding a disputed painting, noting lack of jurisdiction.

Costs were addressed with a starting presumption that the father should pay the mother’s reasonable costs given the disparity in resources and the nature of the claim. The court found the mother’s contribution from sale of assets appropriate and balanced legitimate criticisms of both parties’ conduct.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was as follows:

• The father shall pay rent on the family home without a cap, indexed by RPI, to secure the child’s housing stability.
• Maintenance for the child’s benefit is set at £225,000 per annum plus CPI, to continue until the later of completion of secondary education or first degree.
• The father shall pay a lump sum of £559,000 to cover the mother’s debts and outstanding legal costs.
• The father shall transfer the high-value car to the mother, with future car replacements to be funded from the proceeds and maintenance.
• No order for security of maintenance payments was made, but the mother’s application for secured provision is adjourned.
• The court declined to make any order regarding the disputed painting.
• The father shall meet additional payments for school fees and reasonable extras; the mother will pay for school uniforms; no additional provision for birthday expenses.
• The father is ordered to pay the mother’s outstanding costs reasonably incurred, with the mother’s contribution from asset sales accepted as appropriate.

The decision directly affects the financial arrangements between the parties for the benefit of their child but does not set new legal precedent. The court emphasized the importance of focusing on the child’s welfare, guarding against disguised claims, and ensuring fair provision reflective of the child’s lifestyle and parental resources.