Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL REMEDIES: N v C [2013] EWHC 399 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 21:02 PM
Slug : financial-remedies-n-v-c-2013-ewhc-399-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Mar 25, 2013, 10:40 AM
Article ID : 101937

(Family Division, His Honour Judge Hayward Smith QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, 14 January 2013)

The 12-year-old child had until recently been living with her mother but when relations became strained she moved to live primarily with her father, who was a successful and famous musician. The father applied for a residence and prohibited steps order to prevent the child being removed from the jurisdiction. However, the mother and father agreed that the child would now remain with her father for the majority of the time but would have substantial contact with her mother. No orders were made.

The mother now applied under Sch 1 to the Children Act 1989 for a maintenance order of £2,200 per month and a lump sum of £200,000 for the complete refurbishment of the property she lived in, which was owned by the father. She also wished for the property to be held on trust for the child until she reached 18 or completed tertiary education. In addition she sought funding by the father of all educational expenses. The father on the other hand was willing to permit the mother to remain in the property for a further 6 months only and a lump sum of £10,000. He claimed there was no jurisdiction to make the maintenance order and that the mother had a substantial earning capacity.

 The judge found that the mother had an earning capacity far greater than her current income and that she would be able to support herself financially. She had turned down several reasonable proposals made by the father prior to the hearing and would settle for nothing less than £200,000 and being permitted to remain in the property.

 Pursuant to the Child Support Act 1991, the court did not have jurisdiction to make a maintenance order in favour of a non-resident parent. Even if that construction was wrong, a maintenance order would not be made as it was clear that the mother's focus had been on seeking provision for herself and not the child.

 The father's obligations relating to housing and maintenance related only to the child and to the mother only insofar as they related to the child. He was already providing the child with a home, and was under no obligation to permit the mother to reside in his property to facilitate contact. The father had previously offered the mother £75,000 and permission to remain in the property until the child reached 18 but she had unwisely turned it down. The claim was dismissed.

 

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from