Case No. FD20F00034-and-FD19P00380

[2002] EWHC 108 (Fam); [2002] 1 FLR 1053 in which Munby J made provision for a legal fees fighting fund of £2.5 million to cover further litigation. There were, however, two important aspects to note in relation to this award. The first is that the husband in that case had already abducted the children to Saudi Arabia, meaning that the need for litigation to attempt to recover them was already established. There has been no successful abduction in this case and I am making capitalised provision for security to ensure such an abduction does not take place in this case in the future. Second, Munby J was clear that this fund was only to be used for the purpose of funding future litigation, whether in this country or elsewhere, directed to the recovery of the children. Whatever was left of the fund was to be returned to the husband as soon as the children came back to the jurisdiction of this court. I consider that such a provision would be an added layer of complexity in this particular case. I want to effect a genuine clean break. I very much hope that, following this judgment, there will not be further litigation but, if there is litigation, I am satisfied that it can be covered relatively easily by legal services funding orders as has happened to date, both in relation to financial disputes and matters concerning the children. Indeed, there could, potentially, be a lump sum order in a fresh Schedule 1 application. I make it clear that HH would not be able to rely in opposing such a claim on the lump sum that I am awarding HRH, nor the capitalised sum for her security. 85. Finally, I have to deal with a miscellaneous capital schedule. I have decided to accept all the figures for security included in this budget. There can be no compromise in this area. I have also decided to allow the kitchen extension, pizza oven and kitchen curtains HRH’s home near Kensington Palace in the sum of £1,912,254. I remind myself that money was no object during the marriage. The amount spent on refurbishing HRH’s home near Kensington Palace was many times that when the property was not nearly as central to the children’s lives as it is today. In the same vein, I have permitted in full the costs of the car park at Castlewood. I am providing for this extensive fleet of cars for security purposes and they do need to be stored somewhere. The only item where I have decided that I should reduce the expenditure is in relation to replacement vehicles claimed at £4,310,000 but with an allowance for the £900,000 already allowed by me for armoured vehicles . I have come to the conclusion that I should budget for a total of £2,400,000, of which I have already allowed £900,000. I therefore allow a figure of £1,500,000. The resulting lump sum is £41,302,913. This is the only sum I am awarding HRH herself as the balance of her award will be capitalised security costs. It will enable her to recoup some of her spending over the past few years, along with the backdated maintenance that I intend to award. Other than this, she will have very little outside the two property trusts. She has restricted her claim in this way and I have made it clear that I am holding her to that concession. She will just have to husband her own personal resources carefully. A spreadsheet confirming these figures is to be found at Schedule A to this judgment.