In Re C (A Child) [2024] EWFC 115, Mr. Richard Harrison KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Family Court, ruled on a Schedule 1 application under the Children Act 1989. The case involved a bitter financial dispute between the parents over provisions for their 9-year-old daughter, C. The mother sought nearly £3.8 million in financial support, including funds for housing, education, and maintenance. The father denied having substantial assets and resisted any capital payments, leading to extensive litigation. The court found that the father had not been honest about his financial situation and ordered him to pay £2.322 million, covering housing, education, maintenance, and the mother’s debts.
Case Overview:
Case Name: Re C (A Child) (Financial Provision: Non-Disclosure)
Court: Family Court, Royal Courts of Justice
Judgment Date: 15 May 2024
Judge: Mr. Richard Harrison KC
Keywords: Financial Provision, Non-Disclosure, Child Maintenance, Schedule 1 Application
Legal Issues:
Non-Disclosure of Assets:
A critical issue was the father's non-disclosure of assets, which the court found to be a deliberate attempt to reduce his financial obligations. The father had transferred assets to his wife and children and falsely presented his financial situation to the court.
Financial Provision for the Child:
The court had to determine an appropriate level of financial support for the child, including housing, education, and maintenance, given the father’s attempts to conceal his true financial position.
Court’s Analysis:
Housing Provision: The court found that the father had sufficient undisclosed assets to support the child and mother. It ordered the father to provide £1 million for housing, with the property to be held on trust until the child completes tertiary education.
Child Maintenance and Education Costs: The court calculated child maintenance at £84,000 per year and ordered a lump sum of £933,000 to cover this and educational costs until the child reaches 18.
Mother’s Debts: Recognizing the financial strain placed on the mother due to the father's lack of support, the court ordered the father to pay £389,000 towards her debts, moving costs, and other necessary expenses.
Judgment Summary:
The Family Court ordered the father to pay a total of £2.322 million to cover housing, education, child maintenance, and the mother’s debts. The judgment emphasized the court’s disapproval of the father’s dishonesty and his attempts to evade financial responsibility.
Implications:
This case illustrates the court’s approach to handling non-disclosure in financial provision cases under the Children Act 1989. The ruling underscores the importance of full financial disclosure and the court's willingness to infer wealth and impose significant financial obligations in cases of deliberate non-disclosure.
References:
Children Act 1989, Schedule 1
Al-Khatib v Masry [2002] 1 FLR 1053
Comments