Case No. FD20F00034-and-FD19P00380

v The Blue Cross and others [2018] AC 545, which upholds the principle set out in Lilford (Lord) v Glynn [1979] 1 WLR 78 that the court should not order payments to children when their parents’ marriage has broken down. It is argued that the claim by HRH for £97.8 million as compensation for the chattels is, essentially, just another claim by HRH. The court should remember that HRH’s resources are around £100 million, although it does strike me as important to remember that the vast majority of this sum is held in the two properties. The trust structure proposed will cost up to £100 million to run. There will be no prospect of redress to HH if there was an overpayment. A comparison is made between HRH’s Open Proposals which, it is said, started as seeking £643 million on 4 June 2020; increased to £933 million on 14 August 2020; and is now £1.4 billion in October 2021. Complaint is made that HRH removed £37 million from the children’s saving accounts and £18.6 million from their N bank accounts, making a total of £55 million, although it is not suggested that I should restore that money. It is simply said that it goes to the issues of backdating and capitalisation. Complaint is made that HRH has used £28.6 million of that money for her own purposes, namely c£7 million to the blackmailers; £6 million to Prince Ali ; and £15 million on showjumpers. Moreover, if HRH’s account is true and this was simply a fund for financing expenditure, there were no savings for the children each year, so there is no need for £256 million for that heading. It is said that it is absurd to say that it requires £2.9 million per annum to run HRH’s home near Kensington Palace as £900,000 per annum of this is “ wear and tear ” and £1 million per annum is for refurbishment. Although HRH seeks £1.246 million per annum to run Castlewood, the trust should pay out of its own resources of £19 million, given that the property accounts for only £4.5 million of the total. Again, the figure includes £766,800 per annum for refurbishment/wear and tear. She claims £1.9 million per annum on her private offices which is for her benefit not that of the children. Further complaint is made that part of this relates to her being a Jordanian Princess, which is not the responsibility of HH. The £500 million bank guarantee will cover any difficulties in the future. If HH was to default, HRH simply goes to the bank and obtains payment. The trusts proposed by HRH are thoroughly inappropriate. They are discretionary and offshore. The class of beneficiaries is open so anybody could be added or excluded, including the children. There would be no guarantee the children would receive anything. Rather than the ultimate beneficiary being charitable entities, the ultimate remainder interest should go to HH as he provided the money. Indeed, the children could break the trusts. Finally, HRH has received loans of £7.7 million from two of her trusts, including £5 million from a trust that had refused to loan her money for legal services funding. 44. Each side produced a number of documents. HH produced a draft bank guarantee from HSBC UK. If any sums remained unpaid 21 days after they were due, HSBC would pay the unpaid sums without set-off, counterclaim or other deduction within 14 days, provided HH had not made an application to the court by then to challenge whether there was a default or to apply to vary. The amount of security would decrease only by any payments made by the bank pursuant to the guarantee. It would be irrevocable and continue until 2099 unless discharged earlier by court order. It would be governed by English law. HRH produced a draft Security Trust. It is right to say that it provides that there is no obligation to take into account the wishes of HH, who is an excluded person. There are full powers of appointment; for transfer into another trust; and for advancement. The trust fund is to be held for the beneficiaries in the absolute discretion of the trustees. Beneficiaries may be added and excluded. The Law I must apply – Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 45. The first claim is that of HRH pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989. It has, in many respects, been overtaken by the claim HRH makes pursuant to Part III of the 1984 Act, so I need only deal with it briefly. Section 1(2) gives the court power to make financial orders by way of periodical payments, secured periodical payments, lump sums, settlement of property orders, or transfer of property orders but, in each case, the payment or transfer is to be either to the child himself/herself or to the applicant for the benefit of the child. Section 1(5) permits the court to make further orders for periodical payments, secured periodical payments or lump sums, at any time if the child has not reached the age of 18. Whilst orders normally end on either the child’s 17 th or 18 th birthdays, this does not apply, pursuant to s3(2), if the child continues in education or there are special circumstances which justify the making of an order thereafter. Whilst an order shall, in general, cease to have effect on the death of the person liable to make the payments, this is not the case with a secured periodical payments order. The matters the court is to have regard to in deciding whether to exercise its powers and, if so, how to do so, are set out in s4. The court shall have regard to all the circumstances, including:- (a) The income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which (each parent) has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future; (b) The financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which (each parent) has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future; (c) The financial needs of the child; (d) Any physical or mental disability of the child; and (e) The manner in which the child was being, or was expected to be educated and trained. 46. There are three points of law arising. The first is that the court has, repeatedly, permitted a personal allowance for a caring parent in assessing the quantum of periodical payments orders. This started with cases such as Haroutunian v Jennings (1980) 1 FLR 62 but has more recently been endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Re P (Child: Financial Provision) [2003] EWCA Civ 837. The second point concerns the making of capital awards for children, whether in Schedule 1 cases or cases pursuant to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. There have been numerous cases, starting with Lilford (Lord) v Glynn and continuing with the recent case of Ilott v The Blue Cross and others as referred to above, which have disapproved of such awards. In Lord Lilford v Glynn , the Court of Appeal had held at p85 that:- “ a father – even the richest father – ought not to be regarded as having ‘financial obligations [or] responsibilities’ to provide funds for the purpose of such settlements as are envisaged in this case on children w ho are under no disability and whose maintenance and education is secure”. 47. Baroness Hale of Richmond in Ilott confirms that this is justified because the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and, for this purpose, Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989, place limits on the powers to make provision for children, as I have set out above. Indeed, the most obvious point made in this regard is why should the children of divorced or separated parents have financial awards bestowed on them by a court, when the court will not be making such orders for the children of parents who remain together. It is right that there is one first instance decision of Williams J, namely