FS v RS and JS

FS v RS and JS

The statutory schemes under section 27 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 do not permit an adult child to claim maintenance from parents who are married and cohabiting; the inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to compel parents to provide maintenance in such circumstances; and the statutory...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: FS; Respondent: RS; Respondent: JS
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Family Court Financial Relief / Judgment on Preliminary Legal Issues and Jurisdiction
Outcome
Applications dismissed for want of jurisdiction; costs awarded against applicant.
Legal Topics
Financial Provision for Adult Children, Statutory Interpretation, Inherent Jurisdiction, Discrimination Under ECHR, Maintenance Claims, Costs Orders
Family Law Human Rights Financial Provision for Adult Children Statutory Interpretation Inherent Jurisdiction Discrimination Under ECHR Maintenance Claims Costs Orders

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FS

Applicant

RS

Respondent

JS

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Court Financial Relief / Judgment on Preliminary Legal Issues and Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an adult child can claim financial relief against parents under section 27 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 or Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 when parents are married and cohabiting
  2. 2 Whether the inherent jurisdiction of the court can be used to compel parents to provide maintenance to an adult child
  3. 3 Whether the statutory provisions are incompatible with ECHR Articles 2, 6, 8, 14 and Protocol 1 Article 1

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory schemes under section 27 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 do not permit an adult child to claim maintenance from parents who are married and cohabiting; the inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to compel parents to provide maintenance in such circumstances; and the statutory provisions cannot be read down under the Human Rights Act 1998 to permit such claims, nor are they incompatible with the ECHR.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed for want of jurisdiction; costs awarded against applicant.

Orders

  • Applicant's applications for interim maintenance and legal costs funding dismissed.
  • Claims under Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Children Act 1989, and inherent jurisdiction dismissed.