CA v DR (Schedule 1 Children Act 1989: Pension Claim)

CA v DR (Schedule 1 Children Act 1989: Pension Claim)

The court determined that the appropriate provision for the child was a housing fund of £1.6 million plus purchase costs, a lump sum of £109,000 for furnishing and medical needs, provision of a car every four years up to £110,000, periodical payments of £150,000 per annum (excluding pension provision), and payment of school fees and reasonable extras. The court held it had no jurisdiction under Schedule 1 to order pension provision for the mother, following binding Court of Appeal authority.

Parties
Applicant: CA; Respondent: DR
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 Financial Provision Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part; pension claim refused.
Legal Topics
Child Financial Provision, Schedule 1 Children Act 1989, Carer's Allowance, Pension Provision for Unmarried Parent, Housing Provision for Child, Lump Sum Orders, Periodical Payments, Private Education Costs
Family Law Child Financial Provision Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 Carer's Allowance Pension Provision for Unmarried Parent Housing Provision for Child Lump Sum Orders Periodical Payments +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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CA

Applicant

DR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 Financial Provision Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate quantum and structure of financial provision for child of unmarried parents under Schedule 1 Children Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether court has jurisdiction to order pension provision for carer parent under Schedule 1
  3. 3 Appropriate quantum for housing, lump sum, and periodical payments

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that the appropriate provision for the child was a housing fund of £1.6 million plus purchase costs, a lump sum of £109,000 for furnishing and medical needs, provision of a car every four years up to £110,000, periodical payments of £150,000 per annum (excluding pension provision), and payment of school fees and reasonable extras. The court held it had no jurisdiction under Schedule 1 to order pension provision for the mother, following binding Court of Appeal authority.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; pension claim refused.

Orders

  • Housing fund of up to £1.6 million plus stamp duty and conveyancing costs to be provided by the father.
  • Lump sum of £109,000 for furnishing and medical expenses.