A (A Child)

A (A Child)

The appeal was dismissed because the judge correctly applied Schedule 1 principles, made adverse findings regarding the father's wealth, ensured adequate provision for the child, and properly limited the carer's allowance to legitimate purposes. The attempt to analogise with matrimonial sharing and compensation was...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Subject: A (A Child); Appellant: Mother; Respondent: Father
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 Financial Provision Application / Appeal From High Court Family Division, Judgment and Refusal to Vary Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Child Financial Provision, Schedule 1 Children Act 1989, Millionaire's Defence, Carer's Allowance, Disclosure of Assets, Variation of Orders
Family Law Child Financial Provision Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 Millionaire's Defence Carer's Allowance Disclosure of Assets Variation of 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A (A Child)

Subject

Mother

Appellant

Father

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 Financial Provision Application / Appeal From High Court Family Division, Judgment and Refusal to Vary Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Applicability of 'millionaire's defence' in Schedule 1 proceedings
  2. 2 Principled criteria for calculating Schedule 1 awards
  3. 3 Scope of carer's allowance for future needs

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the judge correctly applied Schedule 1 principles, made adverse findings regarding the father's wealth, ensured adequate provision for the child, and properly limited the carer's allowance to legitimate purposes. The attempt to analogise with matrimonial sharing and compensation was misconceived.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Mother to pay £25,000 towards father's costs, deducted at £1,000 per month from periodical payments
  • No variation of periodical payments order