Case No. FD20F00034-and-FD19P00380

[2020] EWHC 627 (Fam) which did provide for two children to purchase a property of their own following the sale of the family home once they had attained their independence. I understand that the father in that case has appealed to the Court of Appeal; the appeal has been heard; and judgment is awaited. Fortunately, I do not need to wait for that judgment before I come to my decision for two reasons. First, HRH’s lawyers respond to those of HH by arguing that not only is this case an exceptional case but it is the opposite of that where the courts decided they should not award capital to children who would not have had it if their parents’ relationship had remained intact. Mr Cusworth argues that, to the contrary, the children were getting the allowances before their parents separated and it is the divorce itself that has caused those allowances to end. The second reason why I do not have to wait for the decision of the Court of Appeal is that the facts of this case are such that I can determine the application on the basis of the facts as I find them to be, without having to come to a decision as to the legal principle. 48. The third point is the normal convention that a court does not capitalise periodical payments for children. There are good reasons for this. The three most often advanced are, first, the court cannot prevent a further application, notwithstanding the capitalisation; second, what happens if the child changes residence; and third, child maintenance is meant to be variable subject to the circumstances of the case and, in particular, ability to pay and the child’s needs. Ability to pay is clearly not a relevant factor here and a change of residence seems extremely unlikely. There is, however, no question that there is jurisdiction to capitalise child periodical payments by awarding a lump sum although it must be an exceptional case or with the agreement of the parents. In this regard, Mr Dyer draws my attention to the decision of Mostyn J in