A (A Child)
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE LEWISON
- LADY JUSTICE MACUR DBE
- SIR STANLEY BURNTON
Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case concerns a dispute over the financial provisions for a child under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989, involving an absent, wealthy father and virtually destitute mother. The mother challenged the original and varied orders of financial support, urging more substantial contributions by suggesting non-disclosure by the father and invoking the 'millionaire’s defense.' The court recognized some degree of applicability of the 'millionaire’s defense,' emphasizing the statutory criteria and existing jurisprudence in calculating awards. The court maintained provision should support the child within the father’s lifestyle context without unfairly advantaging the carer. The mother’s manipulative procedural tactics were criticized, and her appeal was dismissed.
Judgment
Lord Justice Patten :
The Court has before it two appeals by Mr A (whom I will refer to as the father) against orders made by His Honour Judge Horowitz QC and Her Honour Judge Plumstead in proceedings under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 concerning a child (N).
In the case of the first appeal (but not the second), Mr A also requires permission to appeal but we proceeded to hear full argument on the points in issue.
N is the child of the parties’ former relationship who was born on 22 March 2001. He spends time with both parents who share the cost of his schooling and other expenses. But behind this façade of co-operation lies a history of bitterly fought litigation which has occupied the courts for many years and continues today.
The first order in time is that of Judge Horowitz QC which is dated 29 August 2013. This was made in the context of an application by the respondent for a lump sum and periodical payments under paragraph 1(5)(a) of Schedule 1. The application is contested and it is unnecessary for the purposes of this appeal to go into the reasons for the application or the father’s grounds of opposition.
Although listed for hearing before Judge Horowitz on 29 August, it became apparent to him that neither party had sufficiently complied with their obligations to give proper disclosure of their respective financial positions. Although both parties had filled in the requisite Form E1, these had not been exchanged until, I think, the morning of the hearing and the father, having disclosed £40,000 worth of capital in a bank account which he contends is more than sufficient to meet any tenable claim by the mother, was refusing to give further details of his income or outgoings. The mother’s evidence in support of her application, which includes a claim for funds with which to buy a car, was considered by the judge to be equally opaque lacking as it did sufficient details of her existing car and the problems with it and details of her other expenditure on holidays and the like for her son.
The judge therefore adjourned the substantive hearing of the application but made an order (in paragraph 1) that the mother should within 14 days file and serve further particulars of her claim including the details I have mentioned and in paragraph 2 of the order that:
“The Father do file and serve within 14 days of today a revised Form E supplying all the information required and set out in the template blank form”.
A penal notice was attache