S v C

S v C

The court determined that a formal trust structure was not appropriate due to disproportionate expense, tax risks, and potential for ongoing conflict. Instead, the court ordered ring-fencing of £900,000 from each party for housing, a secured maintenance fund of £150,000 from C, and charges over properties for A's benefit, with life assurance policies as additional security. Ownership of funds remains with parents, subject to these protections, balancing security for A with autonomy for C and proportionality under Article 8 ECHR.

Parties
Applicant: S; Respondent: C
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Financial Remedy Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in part; court orders ring-fencing of funds, secured maintenance, and property charges for child's benefit, but rejects formal trust structure.
Legal Topics
Financial Remedy, Child Maintenance, Trusts, Secured Maintenance, Disclosure, Beneficial Ownership, Disability Trust, Inheritance Tax, Property Rights
Family Law Financial Remedy Child Maintenance Trusts Secured Maintenance Disclosure Beneficial Ownership Disability Trust +2 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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S

Applicant

C

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Financial Remedy Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Extent of court's jurisdiction under section 23 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 regarding frozen funds
  2. 2 Appropriate mechanism for securing funds for child's benefit
  3. 3 Disclosure and beneficial ownership of trust assets

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined that a formal trust structure was not appropriate due to disproportionate expense, tax risks, and potential for ongoing conflict. Instead, the court ordered ring-fencing of £900,000 from each party for housing, a secured maintenance fund of £150,000 from C, and charges over properties for A's benefit, with life assurance policies as additional security. Ownership of funds remains with parents, subject to these protections, balancing security for A with autonomy for C and proportionality under Article 8 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; court orders ring-fencing of funds, secured maintenance, and property charges for child's benefit, but rejects formal trust structure.

Orders

  • Child maintenance for A at £2,000 per month, index-linked annually
  • Secured maintenance fund of £150,000 from C's share