P (Child), Re

P (Child), Re

The trial judge erred in quantifying the housing fund, furnishing fund, and periodical payments by failing to reflect the scale of the father's wealth and the child's entitlement to be brought up in circumstances bearing some relationship to the father's resources and standard of living. The judge also failed to properly assess the allowance for the mother as primary carer as an independent item. The appropriate approach is a broad-brush assessment that recognises the mother's role as primary carer and the need for the child to have a standard of living commensurate with the father's. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated, with increased provision for housing (£1M), furnishings...

Parties
Appellant Mother: GP; Respondent Father: VT
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Children Act 1989 Schedule 1 Financial Provision Application / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; increased provision ordered for housing, furnishings, periodical payments, and arrears; otherwise, the order of 14 January 2003 stands as drawn.
Legal Topics
Financial Provision for Children, Schedule 1 Children Act 1989, Periodical Payments, Lump Sum Orders, Housing Provision for Child, Carer's Allowance, Backdating of Maintenance Orders
Family Law Child Law Financial Provision for Children Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 Periodical Payments Lump Sum Orders Housing Provision for Child Carer's Allowance +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GP

Appellant Mother

VT

Respondent Father

Procedural Posture

Children Act 1989 Schedule 1 Financial Provision Application / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper approach to quantum of financial provision for child under Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 where non-marital parents and father is exceptionally wealthy
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in quantifying housing fund, furnishing fund, periodical payments, and backdating
  3. 3 Whether allowance for primary carer (mother) was properly assessed

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in quantifying the housing fund, furnishing fund, and periodical payments by failing to reflect the scale of the father's wealth and the child's entitlement to be brought up in circumstances bearing some relationship to the father's resources and standard of living. The judge also failed to properly assess the allowance for the mother as primary carer as an independent item. The appropriate approach is a broad-brush assessment that recognises the mother's role as primary carer and the need for the child to have a standard of living commensurate with the father's. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated, with increased provision for housing (£1M), furnishings...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; increased provision ordered for housing, furnishings, periodical payments, and arrears; otherwise, the order of 14 January 2003 stands as drawn.

Orders

  • Housing fund increased to £1,000,000 for purchase of Central London property for the child and mother, with reversion to father.
  • Furnishing fund increased to £100,000 for internal decoration, furnishing, and equipping the home, subject to proof of expenditure.