Re Z (No 4) (Schedule 1 award)

Re Z (No 4) (Schedule 1 award)

Given Zoe's significant lifelong disabilities, the father's immense wealth, and the need to avoid a standard of living out of kilter with the father's, the court awards a settled property of £3.65m, periodical payments (HECSA) of £148,250pa, nanny costs of £92,402.91pa until Zoe is 9, school fees and 1:1 support, lump sums for debts and moving, and provision for health insurance and therapies. The mother's conduct warranted close scrutiny and a 15% discount to her budget, but did not justify reducing provision below Zoe's needs. Security for payments is ordered by way of a charge/lien on the father's US property.

Parties
Applicant: X; Respondent: Y
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part; final financial provision order made for the benefit of the child.
Legal Topics
Child Maintenance, Financial Provision for Children of Unmarried Parents, Disability and Special Needs, Housing Provision, Legal Costs, Enforcement of Financial Orders
Family Law Child Maintenance Financial Provision for Children of Unmarried Parents Disability and Special Needs Housing Provision Legal Costs Enforcement of Financial Orders

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 6 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Applicant

Y

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Schedule 1 Children Act 1989 Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate level of financial provision for a disabled child under Schedule 1 Children Act 1989
  2. 2 Assessment of housing, maintenance, and ancillary financial needs for the child and primary carer
  3. 3 Impact of parental conduct on financial awards

Ratio Decidendi

Given Zoe's significant lifelong disabilities, the father's immense wealth, and the need to avoid a standard of living out of kilter with the father's, the court awards a settled property of £3.65m, periodical payments (HECSA) of £148,250pa, nanny costs of £92,402.91pa until Zoe is 9, school fees and 1:1 support, lump sums for debts and moving, and provision for health insurance and therapies. The mother's conduct warranted close scrutiny and a 15% discount to her budget, but did not justify reducing provision below Zoe's needs. Security for payments is ordered by way of a charge/lien on the father's US property.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; final financial provision order made for the benefit of the child.

Orders

  • Father to provide £3.65m for a property to be settled on Zoe until age 18 or end of tertiary education.
  • Father to pay lump sums: £50,000 for redecoration, £25,000 for future adaptations, £7,500 moving fund, £87,450.26 for debts (excluding Hunters account).