TK v LK

TK v LK

The court found that exceptional circumstances existed due to M's criminal conduct against Child A, her imprisonment, and Child A's ongoing dependency and trauma. M is entitled to a substantial inheritance from her late father's estate and failed to make full and frank disclosure. The court ordered lump sums for Child A's housing, car, and therapeutic needs, with capital provision not reverting to M. Costs were apportioned to reflect M's means and conduct.

Parties
Applicant: TK; Respondent: LK
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 Financial Provision Application / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Application allowed in part; lump sum orders granted for housing, car, and therapy; costs order made on a proportionate basis.
Legal Topics
Schedule 1 Children Act 1989, Financial Provision for Children, Clean Break After Divorce, Non Disclosure, Exceptional Circumstances, Conduct in Financial Remedy Proceedings, Costs in Schedule 1 Applications
Family Law Child Law Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 Financial Provision for Children Clean Break After Divorce Non Disclosure Exceptional Circumstances Conduct in Financial Remedy Proceedings +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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TK

Applicant

LK

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 Financial Provision Application / Final Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order lump sum(s) for the benefit of Child A under Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 after a clean break divorce and in light of exceptional circumstances
  2. 2 Whether the respondent (M) is entitled to an inheritance from her late father's estate and the extent of her disclosure obligations
  3. 3 Whether the circumstances justify long-term capital provision without reversion to the respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that exceptional circumstances existed due to M's criminal conduct against Child A, her imprisonment, and Child A's ongoing dependency and trauma. M is entitled to a substantial inheritance from her late father's estate and failed to make full and frank disclosure. The court ordered lump sums for Child A's housing, car, and therapeutic needs, with capital provision not reverting to M. Costs were apportioned to reflect M's means and conduct.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; lump sum orders granted for housing, car, and therapy; costs order made on a proportionate basis.

Orders

  • M to pay F a lump sum of £309,750 for Child A's housing, car, and therapeutic needs, on an outright basis with no reversion to M.
  • M to pay £31,965 towards F's costs, representing her available surplus from her inheritance.