O v P

O v P

The English court refused to stay the proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds because a substantial part of the mother's claim (for the period 2000–2010) could not be litigated in Australia, the application for a stay was made at a very late stage, and the English court was able to do justice on the available evidence. The court found the father's conduct, including convictions for incitement to murder, had severely impacted the mother and child, justifying the relief sought. The court awarded lump sum and periodical payments for the child's maintenance, education, and related expenses, to be paid from the father's assets held in England.

Parties
Applicant: O; Respondent: P
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Application Under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application granted in part; stay refused; financial provision ordered for the child.
Legal Topics
Financial Provision for Child, Forum Non Conveniens, Jurisdiction Under Brussels Convention, Child Maintenance, Lump Sum and Periodical Payments, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Family Law Child Law Private International Law Financial Provision for Child Forum Non Conveniens Jurisdiction Under Brussels Convention Child Maintenance Lump Sum and 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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

O

Applicant

P

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court should stay proceedings on grounds of forum non conveniens in favour of Australia
  2. 2 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to make orders for financial provision for a child under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989
  3. 3 Quantum and nature of financial provision for the child, including lump sum, periodical payments, and educational expenses

Ratio Decidendi

The English court refused to stay the proceedings on forum non conveniens grounds because a substantial part of the mother's claim (for the period 2000–2010) could not be litigated in Australia, the application for a stay was made at a very late stage, and the English court was able to do justice on the available evidence. The court found the father's conduct, including convictions for incitement to murder, had severely impacted the mother and child, justifying the relief sought. The court awarded lump sum and periodical payments for the child's maintenance, education, and related expenses, to be paid from the father's assets held in England.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; stay refused; financial provision ordered for the child.

Orders

  • Father to pay lump sum of £126,757 to the mother from the Z House fund within 14 days.
  • Father to pay periodical payments of A$22,500 per annum from the child's 18th birthday until completion of university education, adjusted annually in line with the Australian retail price index, with payments made quarterly in advance.