In the case C v S [2024] EWFC 109, Mr. Justice Peel of the Family Court addressed the implementation of a financial order related to a £5 million damages award for a child with lifelong care needs. The father, H, sought permission to remortgage a property and invest £250,000 from a bank account into that property, both actions requiring court approval under a previous order. The court granted both requests, emphasizing the importance of securing stable housing for the child. Additionally, the court ordered the mother, W, to pay £25,367 in legal costs, reflecting her unreasonable refusal to consent to the application.
Case Overview:
Case Name: C v S
Court: Family Court, Royal Courts of Justice
Judgment Date: 24 May 2024
Judge: Mr. Justice Peel
Keywords: Financial Order, Remortgage, Child Trust Fund, Legal Costs
Legal Issues:
Implementation of Financial Orders:
The main legal issue was whether the father could remortgage a property and use funds held in a bank account to reduce the mortgage, actions that were restricted under a 2020 court order without the consent of the mother or the court.
Costs Implications:
Another issue involved the legal costs associated with the application. The mother’s refusal to consent and introduction of unrelated issues led to her being ordered to pay a significant portion of the father’s legal costs.
Court’s Analysis:
Remortgaging the Property: The court found that the previous order allowed for the possibility of remortgaging, especially to ensure the stability of housing for the child, A. The father's request was deemed reasonable as it did not negatively impact the child’s financial security.
Investment of £250,000: The court agreed that it was reasonable for the father to invest the £250,000 in the property, reducing the mortgage and enhancing financial stability. This move aligned with the original intentions of the court order.
Costs Award: The court ordered the mother to pay £25,367 of the father’s legal costs. Her refusal to consent without valid reasons and her failure to engage meaningfully with the process contributed to this decision.
Judgment Summary:
The Family Court approved the father’s application to remortgage a property and invest £250,000 in it, ensuring the ongoing stability of housing for the child, A. The court ruled that these actions were consistent with the protective measures set out in a previous order. Additionally, the court ordered the mother to pay £25,367 in legal costs due to her unreasonable conduct during the proceedings.
Implications:
This judgment underscores the court's approach to implementing financial orders, particularly in cases involving children with special needs. It also highlights the consequences of unreasonably contesting straightforward applications in family proceedings.
References:
S v C [2020] EWHC 2127 (Fam)
Family Procedure Rules 2010
For full details, refer to the published judgment.
Comments