C v S [2024] EWFC 109 (24 May 2024)

C v S [2024] EWFC 109 (24 May 2024)

The order of Roberts J, read as a whole, envisaged the possibility of remortgaging and permitted the applicant to invest the entirety of the £900,000 in property for the child's benefit. There is no detrimental impact on the child, and the protective measures remain in place. The respondent's objections did not justify refusal. Costs are awarded to the applicant due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct and failure to engage substantively.

Citation
[2024] EWFC 109
Parties
Applicant: C; Respondent: S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Proceedings (liberty to Apply Application for Implementation of Financial Order) / Post Final Order, Application for Implementation and Ancillary Relief
Outcome
Application granted; costs awarded to applicant.
Legal Topics
Implementation of Financial Orders, Remortgage of Property, Child's Beneficial Interest, Costs in Family Proceedings
Family Law Implementation of Financial Orders Remortgage of Property Child's Beneficial Interest Costs in Family Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C

Applicant

S

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Proceedings (liberty to Apply Application for Implementation of Financial Order) / Post Final Order, Application for Implementation and Ancillary Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant (H) requires court permission to remortgage the property held for the benefit of the child
  2. 2 Whether the applicant can apply £250,000 held in a bank account into the property for the child's benefit
  3. 3 Appropriate costs order for the application

Ratio Decidendi

The order of Roberts J, read as a whole, envisaged the possibility of remortgaging and permitted the applicant to invest the entirety of the £900,000 in property for the child's benefit. There is no detrimental impact on the child, and the protective measures remain in place. The respondent's objections did not justify refusal. Costs are awarded to the applicant due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct and failure to engage substantively.

Court Disposition

Application granted; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • Permission granted to remortgage the property for the benefit of the child.
  • Permission granted to apply £250,000 from the bank account into the property.