Case No. FD20F00034-and-FD19P00380

. It is for financial provision for the two children of the marriage, Jalila and Zayed. The second, dated 19 June 2020, is made by HRH pursuant to Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 for financial provision following an overseas divorce. As I will explain in due course, it is a limited application rather than one seeking the full range of financial provision. The third application was brought pursuant to the Married Women’s Property Act 1882 for declarations as to the ownership of various horses, jewellery and the like. In fact, HRH accepts, realistically in my view, that there are insurmountable hurdles in relation to her making a claim for individual horses and that, even if I made a declaration in relation to items such as jewellery, she would never see the items, given that it is HH’s position that he does not have them. Instead, she seeks financial recompense for the losses she says she has sustained in consequence of losing these items. The relevant history, including the litigation history 3. HH was born on 15 July 1949 and is therefore aged 72. He is the Vice President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates; its Minister of Defence; and the Ruler of the Emirate of Dubai. HRH was born on 3 May 1974, so she is aged 47. She is the daughter of the late King Hussein of Jordan and his third wife, Queen Alia. She is the half-sister of King Abdullah II. She resides with the two children at HRH’s home near Kensington Palace, London, W8 and at Castlewood House, Egham. They married on 10 April 2004. It was the second official marriage of HH. The two children are Sheikha Al Jalila Bint Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum (“Jalila”), who was born on 2 December 2007. She is therefore aged 13 but will be 14 within the next month. Sheikh Zayed Bin Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum (“Zayed”) was born on 7 January 2012. He is therefore aged 9 but will be 10 early in the New Year. HRH’s home near Kensington Palace was purchased in May 2016 for £87,500,000. It was placed in a trust structure for the benefit of HRH and the children. It was refurbished in 2017/2018 in the sum of £14,680,000. 4. On 7 February 2019, HH divorced HRH by talaq under Sharia law, without HRH’s knowledge at the time. This was a final divorce but, on 8 May 2019, it was registered with the Dubai Court, meaning that it is entitled to recognition in this jurisdiction. The breakdown of the relationship was acrimonious. It has been set out in detail in previous judgments of the President. I do not need, therefore, to set it out again, other than to refer to the previous judgments. Some of the findings are, obviously, of significant importance to this judgment and I will refer to those findings in due course. Suffice it to say that, on 15 April 2019, HRH travelled to England with Jalila and Zayed. There is no doubt whatsoever that I can treat this now as a permanent move and proceed on the basis that HRH and the children will be habitually resident in this jurisdiction for the foreseeable future. HH informed HRH on 26 April 2019 that her funding would cease on 29 April 2019 and it did so. On 14 May 2019, HH made an application for the children’s return to Dubai but he subsequently withdrew the application and accepted that the children would be remaining here indefinitely with HRH. Indeed, on 17 July 2019, the President made the children Wards of Court, which remains the position to this day. 5. On 18 October 2019, HRH requested that the children’s very substantial allowances of AED 5 million per month for Jalila and AED 2 million per month for Zayed be paid to a UK bank rather than to their accounts at N Bank. These were very substantial payments indeed amounting, at the current rate of exchange, to approximately £12 million pa to Jalila’s account and £4.8 million pa to Zayed’s account. The result of the request was that the standing orders to the N accounts were ended on 28 October 2019. 6. A fact finding hearing took place before the President in November 2019. HH had made it clear that he would not attend and that he would not give evidence to this court, either in writing or orally, arguing that his position prevented him from so doing. The court, however, has decided that his position does not give him immunity in relation to private law matters. Nevertheless, he has not attended at any point, although he has instructed top quality lawyers to represent him. The judgment of the President is dated 11 December 2019. It has been widely reported. A number of very serious findings were made, including that HH had ordered and orchestrated the abduction of two of his elder children, Sheikha Shamsa (born 1981) and Sheikha Latifa (born 1984); had forced them to return to Dubai; and had detained them there since. In the case of Sheikha Shamsa, the abduction took place from this country in August 2000. Turning to this case, the President records HRH’s evidence that HH threatened to remove Zayed from her care, such that she would not see him again and that he said that both children “ do not need their mother any more ”. The President found that HH had not been open and honest with the court and that HRH had been placed in a position of great fear. HH had deliberately used his connections with the Press to generate hostile stories aimed at destabilising her and harming her. He had published poems considered by HRH to be threatening, including one entitled “ You lived; you died ”. The President concluded that HH would use his very substantial powers to achieve his aims. 7. Reporting restriction orders were made by the President on both 28 January 2020 and 3 February 2020, although these orders have subsequently been varied to permit the reporting of various judgments. Nevertheless, I took the view that, as is currently normal practice in the Family Court, the hearing of HRH’s financial claims should be heard in private, albeit with accredited members of the Press attending. I gave permission for it to be reported that her claims were being heard but I refused to permit the reporting of any detail as the case progressed on the basis that I would decide after I had given judgment whether to allow the reporting of my judgment and, if so, the extent of any necessary redactions. At all times, I had the welfare of the two minor children at the forefront of my thinking. 8. The issue of the legal costs being incurred by HRH has loomed large over these proceedings and has resulted in a number of different applications by her. In the early days, these were heard by the President before he reassigned the financial proceedings to me. I have dealt with them since. On 11 February 2020, HRH applied for security for costs. Subsequently, she has made a number of applications for legal services funding. I will set out her financial disclosure later in this judgment but, suffice it to say, both the President and I came to the same conclusion, namely that, although HRH does have significant assets, they are not readily available to fund this litigation and, in the case of the two biggest assets, the English properties, it would be unreasonable to expect her to do so. In comparison, it was clear that funding the litigation was of no consequence for HH. Moreover, at all times, both the President and I have proceeded on the basis that, whatever HRH has spent in legal costs, HH has spent more. HRH also applied for interim financial provision pursuant to Schedule 1 on 21 February 2020. She had not received any financial assistance from HH for the children since the separation and had been forced to utilise her own resources. At the time, she sought what, in the context of this exceptional case, I consider to be modest funding, namely £84,000 per month to pay the outgoings on HRH’s home near Kensington Palace and, initially, £40,000 per month for the Castlewood Estate in Egham that she had inherited from her father, the late King Hussein of Jordan. She also sought £533,000 per month to cover security costs for her and the children. 9. The President heard the application on 5 March 2020. HH accepted that his wealth was sufficient to meet any reasonable order. On that basis, the President decided that he should not require him to provide financial disclosure and he dispensed with the requirement for the parties to file Forms E1 setting out their respective financial positions. He did, however, make a number of directions as to the evidence that would be required in relation to HRH’s budget and he provided for a private FDR to be heard in July 2020 before a retired judge, Sir David Bodey. If the case did not settle, I was to deal with the PTR on 22 July 2020 with the President hearing the claim over five days commencing on 12 October 2020. He made an interim order of £439,000 per month, which was made up of £355,000 per month for security costs and £84,000 per month for the running costs of HRH’s home near Kensington Palace, backdated to 1 December 2019. At the hearing, HRH did not press for additional maintenance in relation to Castlewood. The first payment, including the arrears, was to be paid in the sum of £1,756,000 by 19 March 2020. He made an order for security for costs in the sum of £4 million. In his judgment, he does refer to HRH withdrawing many millions of pounds worth of money from the accounts in the names of the children in Dubai on her departure for this country. The funds have been used over the past year. He refers to HH claiming that a significant part of this money had been used inappropriately on, for example, show jumping horses for the Olympic Games. I will obviously have to return to this in due course. The President did make the point that the only contribution made by HH since separation had been a sum of £1 million for the children’s education. Two independent companies, U and, subsequently, O had been providing security in this country for HRH. The cost had been £354,066 in January 2020. HRH wished to take the provision of security “ in house ”. Moreover, she made the point that the costs would increase dramatically if the family was able to live a more normal life post Covid-19 . The President allowed the sum paid to O in January 2020 going forward but did say that, if HRH could produce better evidence of the actual cost of security, he would consider the matter again. He rejected HH’s contention that she should fund herself from money already provided by him prior to the separation. He made the order for security for costs on the basis that there was no evidence of HH having assets in his sole name in this country against which HRH could enforce a costs order. 10. In fact, when HRH produced her budget in April 2020, it was clear that the sums she had sought on an interim basis were far lower than those she was seeking long term. Indeed, that first budget was in the sum of £42,093,100 per annum, of which the general maintenance provision was £14,072,000 per annum; £8,115,000 was for security; and £19,905,200 was the reinstatement of the children’s allowances at the then rate of exchange. In May 2020, HH produced a counter budget for HRH and the children. The figure he proposed for general maintenance was £2,589,000 per annum, which he subsequently revised to £3,158,000. He also proposed a security budget of £3,600,000 per annum (£300,000 per month). HRH applied on 14 May 2020 to vary the interim provision based on further evidence of the costs of security. She exhibited a letter from an anonymous director of her security operation dated 11 May 2020, redacted to preserve anonymity. A new company had been incorporated on 1 February 2020 to run the security operation. It was said that the use of O was not an appropriate long term model. There was a need for dedicated, trustworthy long-term staff and an increased number in the team. It had to be sufficient to enable HRH and the children to leave the house separately at the same time. The level of threat required enhanced pay. It is right to say that the budget included 25% of the costs of salaries for “ severance costs ”, which Mr Dyer QC, who is the main leading counsel for HH, has long criticised. Finally, the letter said that HRH needs a property nearby to house the security team. The budget included salaries etc at £3.4 million; consultancy fees for the management team at £962,650; severance costs of £824,542; rent at £450,000; professional fees of £306,000; legal fees of £175,000; and VAT at £672,000, making a total £8,115,000 per annum. 11. On 3 June 2020, the President refused an application that HH had made to instruct an expert in security to report on the reasonable security needs of HRH and the children and the cost of doing so. In his judgment, the President made the point that, although the security budget had increased from £4.6 million pa as recently as March 2020 to £8.1 million pa, the exceptional feature here is that the main risk is from HH who is the very person challenging the quantum. The President said that it was in HH’s interests to reduce the budget if he wished to abduct the children. He was of the view that any such expert instruction was bound to compromise the confidentiality of HRH’s security arrangements. If such information was not made available, the report would be anodyne and unlikely to assist the court. 12. On 19 June 2020, HRH made two applications. The first was for leave to apply for financial provision after an overseas divorce pursuant to Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. In the application, HRH made it clear that she was only seeking capital provision to cover the long-term costs of her security and that of the children. The second was for legal services orders or, in the alternative, for further security for costs. She exhibited to her application the requisite refusal from two financial institutions to provide her with a legal fees loan; a refusal from one of her trusts, the R Trust to provide her with a loan due to the conflict with the interests of the children who are also beneficiaries of that Trust; and a letter from her solicitors, Payne Hicks Beach (“PHB”) setting out her outstanding costs, which were (£1,482,177) as at 11 June 2020 and an estimate of her future costs. The letter also said that the firm was not prepared to enter into a Sears Tooth deed, namely that they were not prepared only to be paid out of the proceeds of the litigation. 13. HRH has given financial disclosure at various points in the case. I propose to summarise her disclosure in one place at the conclusion of this section of my judgment, before I deal with the law, the evidence that I heard, my findings and my conclusions. She did, however, file a statement dated 4 June 2020 in support of her application for leave pursuant to Part III. She said that she was not attempting by her application to replicate the lifestyle the family had enjoyed in Dubai. She said she was fast eroding her capital trying to provide some semblance of what the children had been used to. She had no intention to claim in her own right, other than for the costs of security for the rest of her life, although she made the point that, after a marriage of 18 years that produced two children, she had a legitimate financial claim in her own right. She said that she could not apply in Dubai for reasons that are obvious and do not need further explanation. She added that she made the application just to avoid her budget being pared down on the basis that it was in part for her and therefore impermissible pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Children Act. She did say that, as the children get older, their security costs will increase due to the requirement for them to have their own separate arrangements. She added that she had had to sell clothes, jewellery, horses and handbags to manage. She accepted that a number of show jumping horses, described as “Team Harmony” horses were owned by her and that, in so far as the children’s money had been used to fund these purchases, she owed the money to the children. To give some idea of the standard of living during the marriage, she said that the family’s holiday costs at a hotel in Italy one summer were £631,000 with another €274,000 at a hotel in Greece. The flight costs were £210,000 to Greece; and £180,000 to Italy, due to the need to have a private plane for security reasons. A further £55,000 per week would be required for expenses, such as the hire of a private yacht. The children have a tutor who had charged £250 per hour for teaching and £200 per hour for preparation. Last year, HRH had purchased a fleet of five cars to enable the children and her to move around safely at a cost of £130,000 each plus VAT. These cars, however, did not have enhanced security. 14. HH served a Questionnaire on 12 June 2020 that ran to 40 questions set out over 12 pages of text. HRH responded to the salient points by way of a statement. On 22 June 2020, HH asserted immunity in relation to the Part III application. Two days later, on 24 June 2020, he made his first Open Offer. In her evidence, HRH had referred to budgets prepared by her Office in Dubai during the marriage that showed enormous levels of expenditure. HH asserted that there had only been two such budgets. He said that, although the 2019 budget was signed as agreed by HH and was in the sum of £72.9 million, only £7.4 m related to the children. He added that these historic budgets were not meaningful as HRH then had the status of the wife of the Ruler of Dubai, which she does not now have. He added that generosity, such as in relation to the children’s very substantial allowances, was discretionary, not a matter of legal obligation. He said he would meet the reasonable running costs of HRH’s home near Kensington Palace, which he put at £1.19 million pa and provide an education fund of £2.5 million. HRH should contribute because of the way she had stripped the children’s N bank accounts, which he then put at £55.8 million. He said that the question of how much had been spent on the children, how much had been misspent, and how much remained were issues in the case. He objected to paying a large sum of money upfront as capitalised child maintenance. Moreover, the costs of running HRH’s London office and her Jordanian office in Amman should be excluded. There were no horses owned by HRH. Some ran in her colours and were registered in her name but they were at all times owned and entirely financed by Godolphin. Zayed, then aged 8, did not own any cars. Zayed was, however, very fond of one particular car and HH would send that vehicle to London for Zayed. HH made the point that the President had, on 5 March 2020, refused to order him to disclose his legal fees. He asked what contribution Jordan was making to the cost of HRH’s security and questioned how the security budget could have gone up by so much when the final O figure was only £301,000 per month. He said that it is quite impossible to predict the position after the children attain their majority. The Beach Palace in Dubai was not owned by the children. It was registered in the name of HH The Ruler’s Court. He said that HRH had taken very significant belongings from Dubai to the UK in the run up to her move. There had been 66 shipments weighing 8,000kg and costing £70,000. 15. I heard various applications in the case on 29 June 2020. I found that HH’s costs exceeded HRH’s costs and that, without legal fees funding, she would not reasonably be able to obtain appropriate legal services. I increased the interim provision for security to £445,000 per month from February 2020 to June 2020 and then to £470,000 per month, based on a new schedule which in part contained actual expenditure. Overall, this meant that the interim periodical payments rose to £529,000 per month and then to £554,000 per month, when the sum of £84,000 per month for HRH’s home near Kensington Palace was included. I also directed that HH pay education and medical costs. Turning to legal services funding, I made an order that HH pay £2 million to cover the position to the end of July 2020 on the basis the matter would be reconsidered at the PTR on 27 July 2020. I adjourned HRH’s application for security for costs and for financial disclosure from HH until the hearing on 27 July 2020. I made no order for HH to disclose his costs. 16. On 13 July 2020, HRH applied for a fund of £95 million to be paid by HH into court immediately to secure his periodical payments obligations. Four days later, on 17 July 2020, her new Head of Security, known throughout the case as Director 1, filed his first statement. He is ex-Army and he had never met HRH until June 2020. He had conducted a review of her security and its cost without seeing the earlier costings, although he then cross-checked his conclusions against the earlier figures. He considered that, although the threat level to HRH changes daily, it remains of a significant magnitude at all times. He exhibited his security assessment. He assessed the current threat level as “severe”. In other words, an attack is highly likely at some point, given the proven history of abduction. If there is a vulnerability in HRH’s security, the threat level rises to “critical”, which means an attack is highly likely in the near future. In addition to the main threat from HH, there ; plus the ever present risk of kidnap and ransom. He said that the team needed reinforced vehicles. These cost £450,000 each. In addition, there was a need for CCTV at the property at all times, a safe room and the like. There would have to be a revised assessment when the children became adults. In terms of costing, he put the budget then at an annual cost of £7,409,154 plus VAT, making a total of £8,496,000 but this excluded international travel which would increase the figure to £9,724,232. 17. HRH filed a statement dated 20 July 2020. She denied any misuse of funds. She said she had been the caretaker of the funds. HH’s presentation is artificial. He encouraged her to undertake a project for Team Harmony to enter show jumpers into the Olympics. In so far as she had spent some of the money on her own projects, it was no more than 1/3 rd which was her notional share. Although HH paid £14.2 million pa into Jalila’s account and £5.678 million into Zayed’s, it was all one fund. HRH had herself been paid £10.4 million pa in Dubai, which had completely ended when she came to this country. A retrospective audit involved unfair pressure, given that the family had been cut off completely in April 2019. She took HH through every page of the 2019 budget in Dubai before he signed it. HH had unilaterally removed the children’s ownership of the Beach Palace, Logo Island and the like. He had removed the children as beneficiaries of trusts. He had trusted HRH to deal with Godolphin by putting her in charge of a review of expenditure whilst they were still married . He offers no evidence to back his claims. HH had committed to finance a charity sponsored by HRH in Jordan to tackle extreme poverty there. It is known as TUA and £10 million had been spent on it during the marriage. She had to continue to support it after the separation. In the same way, HH had agreed to support relatives of HRH in Jordan , such as her brother, Prince Ali, who was financed to the tune of £400,000 pa. After the separation, she had to honour this commitment so she had given Prince Ali £4 million to cover the next ten years. This would enable him to pay the running costs of his home, Baraka Palace. Money had been invested by agreement on behalf of the children in a hotel in Dubai known as La Ville . Some £21 million had been paid over but it was not a success. A repayment schedule had been agreed. The first payment had been made but she was not sure if the other two payments had arrived. She said she received £15 million for the winnings of her horses in March 2018. She had placed $5 million of this in the R Trust. All Team Harmony horses belong to her. She had owned show-jumping horses pre-marriage. The Team had been run through Godolphin initially but it had been removed between 2016 and 2019 . By then, the horses had a low value so, with the agreement of HH, she had reinvested in horses during March/April 2018 with the intention that they would compete at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The total costs of these horses was €8.1 million although a further horse known as PSG Final was purchased in November 2018 for €7.2 m and one called Irenice Horta was bought for €5 million in November 2018. HH was fully aware. These horses were moved into an entity known as King Hussein’s Team in May 2019. Money from the children’s accounts in the sum of £13.6 million had been used to fund these purchases. PSG Final was sold in November 2019 for €7.1 million. The project is now at an end, so HRH will sell the remaining horses and repay the loans to the children in the sum of £13.6 million. During the marriage, HRH had agreed to fund a campaign by her brother, Prince Ali, to become President of FIFA. HH was aware of this and in agreement, although he may not have known it was called P T . Once the campaign was over, P T continued investigating corruption in sport , particularly football . HRH had continued to fund this at £110,000 per month. She then dealt with a number of payments that had been made to four security staff during the marriage. These individuals had blackmailed HRH over an affair she had with one of these four people. She accepted that some of the total money spent had come from accounts in the name of the children and she considers this to be her responsibility. To make ends meet, she had sold jewellery by this point for $1.6 million, although she has since had to sell far more. 18. HH made an application dated 21 July 2020 for a security expert to deal with the reasonable security needs and the costs of those needs for HRH, on the basis that, unlike the first application he made, this expert would only have access to the disclosed material. In consequence, there would be no risk to HRH’s security operation. There would be no contact with HRH or her premises and a confidentiality agreement would be signed. I approved this application on 27 July 2020. Indeed, Mr Cusworth QC, the lead advocate for HRH, did not oppose the application. As it has turned out, no report has ever been served by HH so the only evidence I have is that of Director 1 on behalf of HRH. At the PTR on 27 July 2020, I made a significant number of other orders. I dismissed HRH’s application for a payment into court of £95 million, taking the view that there was no jurisdiction to order such a payment. I did, however, order that, unless HH had put in place a bank guarantee in the sum of £95 million by 31 August 2020, he should provide a schedule of all his assets valued at £15 million or over anywhere in the world in which he had any kind of chargeable interest, with the location and approximate value of each asset. As it transpired, HH put in place the bank guarantee so he did not have to provide the disclosure. Finally, I dealt with the further legal services funding application of HRH. By then, she had outstanding costs of (£2.4 million) but £1.4 million had been outstanding at the time I had last dealt with the application. I therefore declined to make orders in relation to that element of the debt but I took the view that the other £1 million needed to be covered. I was also of the view that her costs going forward should be met in full. In consequence, I made an order that a sum of £5,834,000 be paid in six instalments, namely £1 million per month for five months with a final payment in December 2020 of £834,125. I should make it clear that every such interim order made either by myself or the President, whether for interim periodical payments or for legal services funding, has been met in full by HH in accordance with the orders made. 19. On 14 August 2020, HRH made her first Open Offer. The structure of the award she seeks has remained constant throughout, although the figures have changed as, on her case, more information has become available. She sought general maintenance for the children of between £13.6 million to £13.9 million for 11 years, reducing by 50% for the next four years. She sought that this sum should be capitalised at £155 million. Turning to security costs, she sought £8.1 million per annum for 15 years, capitalised at £103 million; thereafter, she sought £9.7 million for the rest of her actuarial life (capitalised at £152 million); followed by £8.8 million for the rest of the children’s actuarial lives (capitalised at £229 million). She asked for the restoration of the children’s allowances at £9.9 million each for 11 and 15 years respectively, capitalised at £223 million. She claimed an education fund of £3.04 million and existing capital costs of £15.7 million. At that point, total provision would have been £883 million of which £171 million would be paid direct to HRH; £485 million would be paid into a security trust; and £223 million into a children’s trust. Finally, she sought a future legal costs fund of £50 million. She asked for the return of all property to which she had access in April 2019, including horses, jewellery, clothes, rugs and paintings, as well as Zayed’s car collection and Jalila’s jewellery. 20. The original timetable for the case had to be changed when it was brought to the attention of HRH that her mobile phone, the telephones of her PA and two of her security staff, and the telephones of at least two of her lawyers, namely Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia and Nicholas Manners, had been hacked. She sought a fact finding hearing as to the allegations and, in consequence, the President adjourned the listed Schedule 1 hearing from 12 October 2020 to the Easter Term 2021. In consequence, HRH applied for further legal services funding to cover the additional legal costs as well as further financial provision for security consequent upon the new allegations. In support of that, Director 1 filed a second statement dated 5 October 2020 in which he said that HRH needed urgent and necessary new capital expenditure, involving security upgrades to both HRH’s home near Kensington Palace and Castlewood in the sum of £615,300 as well as specific expenditure of £116,300; an upgrade to the lodge at Castlewood in the sum of £72,000; additional expenditure on electrical work at £19,000; and accommodation costs of £50,000, making a total of £872,000, of which £275,000 had already been spent. He also recommended a new post of Cyber Security Officer, as well as a private communications network for the telephone system operated by the security staff and technical surveillance counter measure sweeps. In the first year, the cost of this would be £514,200 but with an ongoing annual cost of £220,000. He also set out that HRH’s security operatives required to be paid at rates based on those of the pay of Special Forces, which include recruitment and retention pay at a daily rate. 21. On 14 October 2020, the President considered there was reasonable evidence that the phones of HRH and her team had, indeed, been hacked and, in consequence, it was reasonable for her to spend additional money on security on an interim basis. He increased my order by £42,833 per month to £596,833 per month as well as directing an additional sum of £152,663 to meet urgent capital expenditure on security. Sensibly, the parties agreed an increase in HRH’s legal services funding and the President made a consent order on 12 November 2020 in which the monthly payment was increased to £1.4 million per month until 3 April 2021, although HRH made the point that this involved compromise on both sides and would entail a shortfall on her legal fees of some £500,000. 22. Another issue then emerged. On 9 December 2020, the President found that there had been a deliberate course of conduct by HH to attempt to purchase a substantial property, known as Parkwood, situated adjacent to HRH’s Castlewood property in Egham. He found that information was withheld from HRH and that it would have had the effect of intimidating HRH to a “ very marked degree ”. HH’s case was that an offer had been accepted by the vendors on 19 September 2019 but the purchase had been paused due to the pandemic and that an eventual decision was taken to cancel the purchase when it became apparent that HRH was alleging it was harassment. The President and Chamberlain J had found, on 29 October 2020, that the doctrine of Foreign Act of State did not preclude the court from full investigation of the hacking issue. HH obtained permission to appeal the ruling on 10 December 2020, which led to the President making a further legal services funding order on 13 January 2021 in the sum of £943,236 to enable HRH to deal with the appeal hearing. 23. HH made a further Open Offer on 9 February 2021. The importance of this was that he accepted that, due to the special circumstances of this case, it was appropriate for the court to continue to make provision for the children’s security after they had attained their majority and ceased full-time education. The offer, therefore, was for general periodical payments for the children of £3.158 million per annum; and security payments of £3.6 million per annum payable indefinitely. The HSBC bank guarantee that was already in place in the sum of £95 million would continue and, unlike his previous proposal, would not decrease yearly as payments were made. He agreed the education fund of £3.04 million, which I believe I am right in saying is the only financial provision actually agreed between the parties in this case. On 19 March 2021, the President and Chamberlain J rejected HH’s claims for immunity in relation to the application made by HRH pursuant to Part III and an additional application she had made for financial provision pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. In the judgment, the court said that HH had not established, to the required standard of proof, immunity from civil jurisdiction for heads of government in respect of non-official (private) acts, although he had not expressly waived immunity. Again, HH sought to appeal this decision. On 23 March 2021, Peter Jackson LJ took the decision that the final hearing of the Schedule 1 application had to be adjourned as the judgment in relation to the hacking allegations had not, as yet, been handed down. As it turned out, this had the added advantage that it would be possible to hear HRH’s Part III application at the same time, if HH’s claims for immunity had finally been dealt with in all courts. 24. The delay meant that, on 14 April 2021, HRH made a further application for interim provision, to provide three armoured vehicles at a cost of £1,350,000; £1,257,000 for summer holidays (including additional costs of security for those holidays in the sum of £550,000) and for further legal services funding. On 23 April 2021, HH accepted the justification for the new application, offering £500,000 for a summer holiday for HRH and the children, together with further legal fees funding of £2.5 million, payable at the rate of £500,000 per month. I heard the application on 27 April 2021. I made provision for legal fees funding at the rate of £1 million per month up to and including 3 October 2021. I awarded interim financial provision in the sum of £1.9 million, comprising £1 million for summer holidays (including the costs of security during the holidays) and £900,000 for two armoured vehicles, as against a request for funding for three on an interim basis. I dismissed HRH’s application for increased security provision and for financial disclosure from HH. I extended the final hearing of her financial claims from five to ten days. I listed a further hearing to determine whether she should be granted permission to make a claim for herself pursuant to Part III of the 1984 Act but to be subject to HH’s appeal as to immunity. 25. The President delivered his hacking judgment on 5 May 2021. The allegation was that HH had utilised software known as Pegasus, from the Israeli based group, NSO, to hack into the various mobile telephones. It was asserted that the software, which is intended for use by sovereign states against terrorists, can, amongst other things, track the location of the telephone; read text messages and emails; listen to calls; and access contact lists. The President heard expert evidence and set out the way in which the alleged hacking had been brought to the attention of HRH’s lawyer, Baroness Shackleton. He said that NSO only provides the software to Governments and it had terminated the contract of the customer involved, although it was not able to identify that customer. The President found to the required civil standard of proof that all six telephones had been successfully infiltrated or subjected to attempted infiltration by the Pegasus software. Moreover, in relation to HRH’s mobile telephone, the hackers had managed to extract a very substantial amount of data, namely 256 MB. In addition, there had probably been successful hacking of Baroness Shackleton and Mr Manners. HH was the probable originator of the hacking and no other person comes close as a likely instigator. He had previously used his State apparatus to achieve his aims and had harassed and intimidated HRH. The President added that these findings were of the utmost seriousness and the opposite of building trust. Inevitably, on 25 May 2021, he made an injunction preventing the use of any information obtained by HH from the hacking but, as HH continues to deny any involvement in such hacking, the simple fact of the matter is that this injunction has little to which it can really apply. I do, however, make it clear that all his English legal advisers tell me, and I entirely accept, that they have made very careful checks to see if there is any information they have that could have come from such a hack and they have concluded that they do not believe they have any such information. I of course accept the point made in reply by HRH that they cannot be absolutely certain about this but I accept they have acted with complete propriety and due diligence in this regard, particularly in this trial where all Mr Dyer’s detailed questioning of HRH was based on the documents disclosed in the proceedings. 26. the phones of HRH, her legal advisers, and various associates were hacked through the use of Pegasus software and that this surveillance was carried out by the servants or agents of HH and with his express or implied authority .” 27. I dealt with HRH’s application for permission to apply for financial provision following an overseas divorce on 27 July 2021. Shortly before the hearing, on 21 July 2021, HH’s solicitors wrote that he would not oppose leave being granted subject to two conditions, namely that the claim would be limited solely to her claimed security needs for the remainder of her lifetime and that HH would not be required to give any financial disclosure on the basis that he can meet any reasonable order. He also sought an order dismissing her application pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. HRH’s solicitors replied on 23 July 2021, saying that conditions to the grant of leave were neither appropriate nor justified. Her position, that she will not seek substantive provision for herself other than for her security, remains unchanged but that is a voluntary position. In relation to her connections with this country, she relied on a statement filed by HH’s previous solicitor, Lady Ward dated 21 June 2019 in which she set out HRH’s close connections with the UK, including her education here in Bristol, then at Bryanston in Dorset, and finally at Oxford University; the horses that are based here; and the fact that HRH had spent between 91 and 114 days here each year since 2015. Further reference was made to various statements of HRH in which she referred to HRH’s home near Kensington Palace being purchased in 2016 at her request; that they considered the UK their home; that HH’s racing operations are based here; that HH has multiple businesses here; and that the children’s mother tongue is English. HRH also said that it had never been her intention to make an application for financial provision in her own right but that she sought the costs of her security as their mother and primary carer, to include the costs of her security after the children are independent. Her main statement in support of the application was dated 4 June 2020. It made the point that the children need to know that their mother is safe. She added that she was foregoing her own legitimate claims following an eighteen-year marriage that produced two children. She made the point that it is logical to hear the Schedule 1 application and the Part III application together. She said her own resources are tied up, mostly in providing housing for the children; or are required to meet her needs; or have already been sold. 28. On 27 July 2021, I was quite satisfied that I should give HRH permission to make her application pursuant to Part III on the basis that there was more than sufficient connection with this country. Whilst I accepted that I had power to impose conditions on the grant of leave, pursuant to s13(3) of the 1984 Act, I rejected HH’s contention that I should do so. I was clear that HRH should be held to her concession but I did not want any unnecessary dispute as to whether a particular head of her claim involved personal benefit and was thus not permitted by a condition I had imposed. In particular, I was concerned that it might be said that her claim in relation to her horses and jewellery might involve such personal benefit. Second, I was clear that I should not impose any condition as to disclosure. If disclosure became necessary, I had to have the ability to order it. Having come to this determination, I did, nevertheless, refuse to direct any disclosure by HH but, on this occasion, on the basis that HH is able to pay any order sought by HRH, fully capitalised as cash within three months of my so ordering. By doing so, I removed the word “reasonable” although I consider this is a distinction without a difference as, by definition, any order that I make must be reasonable in so far as it is not successfully appealed. I dismissed HRH’s application pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. I was clear that there was no need for such an application as I had full jurisdiction to make any financial order I needed to make within Part III. I considered that the application pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction was fraught with jurisdictional difficulty. Indeed, I very much doubted that there was jurisdiction to make such an order. After all, if there was, there would have been no need to pass either Part II of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 or Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. Finally, I was clear that I should hear both the Schedule 1 claim and the Part III claim together at this hearing. 29. I heard the Pre-Trial Review on 9 September 2021. I made a declaration that HRH was a vulnerable witness but I rejected Mr Cusworth’s submission that she should not be cross-examined by Mr Dyer QC on behalf of HH. I did, however, set out ground rules for the cross-examination, including that the questioning was to be directed to the quantum and structure of the award and was only to be based on information and documents within the court bundles, to avoid any suggestion it might be based on material illegally hacked from her telephone or those of her lawyers. I made provision for the evidence of Director 1 to be taken in such a way as to ensure that his anonymity was not jeopardised. It was also to be limited to matters in the court bundle and was not to undermine HRH’s security arrangements. Finally, I made a further legal services funding order by consent in the sum of £1, 1 33,333 per month for October, November and December 2021. Happily, as I told the advocates at the time, this was almost exactly the quantum of provision that I myself had provisionally had in mind when I had read the papers. This provision takes the litigation beyond this financial hearing to cover further hearings before the President when he is dealing with the welfare of the children. I made some modest further directions, to include short Scott Schedules of the personal items being sought by HRH. Evidence filed in support of the respective cases 30. In the run up to this hearing, a considerable number of documents have been filed setting out HRH’s financial position and the respective contentions of the parties. Given that I did not require any disclosure from HH, his contribution to the issue of disclosure has been, understandably, limited. He did file some Replies to HRH’s Questionnaire. He said that, other than shares in a hotel in Dubai known as La Ville Hotel, the children do not own any real property in Dubai. The “affection plans” that they should have, for example, the Beach Palace, are not proof of title. Their interest in La Ville Hotel amounted to AED 190m in November 2018. In addition, they do have deposits in bank accounts amounting to AED 35 million in the case of Jalila and AED 14 million in the case of Zayed as well AED 51.8 million for Jalila in W deposits. 31. HRH has filed a detailed schedule of her assets, which is to be found at pages 1181 and 1182 of the Core Bundle. HRH’s home near Kensington Palace is held in a trust structure with HRH, Jalila and Zayed as discretionary beneficiaries. As at December 2017, the property was valued at £95 million. It will be subject to an IHT charge to tax of £5.278 million in 2026 and a further sum of £5.7 million in 2036. In consequence, the net value ascribed to the property is £83,156,664. Turning to the C Trust, again HRH and the two children are discretionary beneficiaries. It has a net value of £18,886,522, of which the house itself is valued at £4.5 million. There are various assets held in portfolios of approximately £10,375,000. The property will incur IHT charges in 2026 and 2036 of £388,500 and £420,000. There are two further trusts, the G Trust and the R Trust containing £2,922,030 and £5,325,244 respectively but in both cases, by far and away the largest asset is money owed to the Trusts by HRH herself, in the sums of £2.6 million and £5.15 million respectively. Again, HRH and the children are the discretionary beneficiaries. Turning to her own financial position, she has land in Jordan worth £2,781,729; a sum of £180,386 in C (which previously owned a property near Newmarket) and £192,538 in J Ltd, both of which are companies in which she is the 100% shareholder. She is also the sole shareholder of King Hussein’s Team Ltd which owns the various horses. The remaining horses, valued at cost, are worth £7,616,089 and there is cash of £4,282,413 from the sale of some of the horses. However, HRH owes (£13,582,720) to the children as the money to purchase many of the horses came from their bank accounts. Overall, HRH herself is owed approximately £1.25 million. Taking all this into account, King Hussein’s Team Ltd is in deficit to the tune of (£2,935,639). HRH owes money to a number of entities. Overall, she owes (£6,293,417). She is owed money by G Trustee in the sum of £545,000; she owes (£205,200) to her London Office; she is owed £2.2 million by R Ltd; £83,645 by T Ltd; £335,887 by the Security Company; and she has a net figure of £2,475,680 in various bank accounts. Her estimated outstanding legal fees were (£1,482,177) after the order I made at the Pre-Trial Review is paid in full, but they have since increased. This all meant that, in terms of her personal resources, HRH’s net position had deteriorated from a positive figure as at 29 May 2020 of £6,363,000 to a negative position on 31 August 2021 of (£2,217,134). 32. HRH had also set out, at page 1184 of the Core Bundle, a schedule of the various asset sales that she has made to help her meet her shortfall in expenditure during the period of the litigation. In total, from August 2019 to July 2021, she had sold assets to the value of £15,568,997, consisting primarily of horse sales of £9,692,089; jewellery sales of £2,059,849; and other sales of £3,817,059. In the latter category, the biggest component was the sale of a property known as 31 Chestnut Court in the sum of £2,559,266 but, by way of indication, she sold clothes with a value of £200,100. At the conclusion of her oral evidence, either I or Mr Dyer requested further schedules of expenditure. The first was a schedule showing her total expenditure on all aspects of life from December 2019 to September 2021 (namely 30 months) in the total sum of £35,643,751. This is an annual level of expenditure of £14,257,500. Projected to the end of the hearing, this increased to £39,220,137. There are many components to this schedule but the magnetic ones seem to me to be £1,874,568 on HRH’s home near Kensington Palace; £1,589,189 on Castlewood; £10,701,068 on security; £7,354,435 on her London Private Office; £2,908,139 on her Jordan Private Office; £1,706,216 on Capital Expenditure; and £2,877,782 on legal fees, not connected with this litigation. She also produced a schedule of her spending from the sum of £1 million that I awarded to her for summer holidays in 2021. Unfortunately, due to the pandemic, she had not been able to go on a foreign holiday but she had spent £397,421 on holidays in this country and £77,770 on additional security for those holidays. I accept that the latter figure would be far greater if foreign travel was involved. This does mean that, out of the provision I made in the sum of £1 million, a sum of £524,809 remains. 33. In addition to the above, HRH filed a significant number of statements in support of her case. She said in her statement dated 12 October 2020, that she was continuing to fund the PT operation via O to promote integrity in sport in the sum of £100,000 per month. She was using her resources, held in R, to do so. At the time, she had received an offer of £8 million to acquire all the remaining King Hussein’s Team Ltd horses after a recent sale of Chianti’s Champion for €1.5 million. She had recently accepted an offer of £480,000 for the property near Newmarket and had started to sell her jewellery. She also dealt with the allegations of blackmail made against her by four security operatives. She said she had paid a total of £6.7 million to these four men. There is little doubt that this money emanated from accounts held by the children into which their “allowances” were being paid but it happened prior to the separation of the parties. I will obviously have to return to this when I consider my findings of fact. 34. Director 1 filed two further statements, dated 23 April 2021 and 24 August 2021. In the third statement, he said he had initially assessed the security threat to HRH and the children as severe but this could rise to critical, in other words, a serious threat to HRH’s life or of the children being abducted. He made the point that HH has tried to exploit vulnerabilities in her security arrangements even whilst under the gaze of the English High Court of Justice. He considered that there is a serious risk of her being killed or harmed and the children being abducted unless the requisite security measures are in place immediately. In his fourth statement, he made the point that the hostile threat to HRH is made by one of the wealthiest and most powerful states in the world. He added that the cost of security increases if either or both children are at boarding school, when they are at university and when they are subsequently living separately. He had reduced the figure in the security budget for severance costs from the original figure which was 25% of salaries down to 15%. This is an aspect of the budget which is particularly contentious . There had been substantial delays to the delivery of the two armoured vehicles that I had provided for in my April judgment. As a result, the family had been having to travel by helicopter on occasions. By the time of his statement, one had been delivered and another was due soon. He reaffirmed HRH’s case about the total that is needed and that they should be replaced every two years. A new provision was being claimed for additional security in the sum of £2.16 million per annum from an outside contractor, known as Company X. The statement also deals with other immediate capital provision required, such as to extend the provision at Castlewood; for further improvements to the security lodge at the property . There are also plans for a parking facility for the cars at a cost of slightly over £1 million. Director 1 ends by saying that an annual budget for security of £3.6 million would leave the family seriously vulnerable to risk of abduction, harm and loss. 35. HRH’s three final statements are dated 7 September 2021 and 15 September 2021. In the first, she referred to Lord Pannick QC saying at a hearing in April 2021 that it should not be assumed the order for security would continue for the rest of the children’s lives as all such orders are subject to variation. This was a real concern for her. She said that her application for capitalisation was therefore crucial. She said she felt hunted and harassed. She could not be involved in further litigation. She made the point that HH should not, as payer, be the ultimate employer of her security operatives, which she felt would be the position if security was paid for by continuing periodical payments. She said that she had been forced to borrow £5 million from the R Trust to meet their everyday expenses. It had been progressively harder to manage on the sum of £84,000 per month which was the interim periodical payments order. It had merely been designed to cover the costs of HRH’s home near Kensington Palace rather than all the other areas of expenditure for the children. She had been forced to liquidate assets to the value of £15.6 million, including horses at £9.7 million; jewellery at £2.1 million; as well as cars, property, gold and the like at £3.8 million. The items that should be returned to her included Persian rugs; the children’s bedroom contents; Jalila’s jewellery; Zayed’s car collection; her horses from Godolphin; cars that had previously belonged to her parents; haute couture clothing, which had cost approximately €74 million; and her jewellery that cost £20 million. She said that one particular horse, New Approach, had been given to her by HH on the birth of Jalila. It had gone on to win the Epsom Derby. The horse’s stud fees ran to many millions and had all been retained by Godolphin. She complained that HH had been telling the world he had paid her billions when nothing could be further from the truth. She asserted that the risk from Dubai will continue even if HH passes away. She said that her financial position was so bad that she was fast approaching the point where she would have to sell paintings but she did not wish to do so as the children would then see what she was doing as there would be gaps on the walls of the property. 36. The second recent statement, her 15 th in all, deals with the findings of the President in relation to hacking. She reminded the court that the President said that his findings were “ of the utmost seriousness in the context of the children’s welfare ”. She said she felt under siege. The psychological impact on her has been overwhelming. Surveillance of this nature could not be more intrusive and distressing. She felt hunted. She referred to the Guardian’s description of the hacking as a “ pernicious form of abuse ”. Her final statement supported publication of the various judgments to date, which was ordered shortly before this final hearing commenced. Finally, on 24 September 2021, she filed her position statement in relation to the Scott Schedule of the items which she says should be returned to her. She said that over 400 horses had run as belonging to Princess Haya of Jordan. Indeed, she asserts that she and the children are still the registered owner of the horses. Some horses had been transferred into the name of Godolphin without her consent, such as Terebellum. Only the most basic items of clothing had been returned to her. She does not seek a declaration as to the specific ownership of each horse but rather a declaration that there was a common understanding that these horses were hers together with an order for financial compensation. She seeks in total an award of £75 million under that heading. She puts the cost of her clothing at €74 million but the compensation she seeks is £32 million. She refers to some specific items, such as some motor vehicles that she had inherited from her father, King Hussein. 37. HH has filed a significant number of Position Statements, as he himself has not filed any statements of evidence. On 17 September 2021, a Position Statement gave his response to the hacking judgment. It said he was not able to comment on matters of state intelligence or security. He has no “hacked” material in his possession and there was no surveillance undertaken with his express or implied authority. I remind myself that I am bound by the President’s findings of fact to the contrary . He has now removed from the internet the “Lives and Dies” poem that upset HRH so much. He said he has no intention of causing harm to HRH. He opposed the publication of the judgments due to an inability to anonymise the identities of the children. On 27 September 2021, a Position Statement was filed in relation to his case as to the use by HRH of funds belonging to the children. He accepted that he regularly deposited AED 5 million per month in accounts for Jalila and AED 2 million per month for Zayed, making an annual payment at the time of £18 million. These accounts were administered by HRH. In his view, they were not to be used by HRH for spending on herself. He reminded the court that she had £83 million per annum for her household spending plus an allowance of £9 million per annum for herself as well as various ad hoc payments, although this does ignore the fact that all this provision came to an end on the separation. He said that it was a recent invention of HRH that this was all one fund or family money available to be spent. He referred critically to the payments to the blackmailers and the cost of the elite show jumpers, saying that they could have been added to Team Harmony for the children. He also referred to her payments to Prince Ali and to O for PT. He asserted that, due to this misuse of funds, there should be a conventional, albeit secured, periodical payments order. 38. On 11 October 2021, he filed a Position Statement dealing with HRH’s recent evidence. He made it clear that his Open Offer was now to pay £1.9 million per annum per child payable quarterly for their general maintenance as well as £6.2 million per annum for their security. He proposed that this should be secured by the provision of a bank guarantee in the sum of £500 million. He agreed to pay a lump sum of £5.278 million payable by 31 October 2026 to cover the IHT that year on HRH’s home near Kensington Palace, together with the agreed payment of £3.04 million for the children’s education fund. He said that, in total, he has paid the sum of £36.9 million so far by way of general maintenance, security provision and legal funding. He accepts that there are special circumstances in the case. In relation to the earlier suggestion that he should have to fund payments to the TUA poverty charity in Jordan, he said that it is not the function of the English Family Court to intervene in a dispute between a foreign government and a foreign charity. He referred to the fact that HRH had taken 66 containers of belongings from Dubai and he asked, rhetorically, why did she not take her most valuable items if they really had been left behind. He did not accept that any clothing was still to be returned to HRH, although I do not understand this point, given that I was shown, during the trial, a 28 minute video of staff at the Beach Palace filming a great deal of HRH’s designer clothing at that venue. He said he knows nothing about HRH’s jewellery as he has had no access to her safe. Again, I was shown, during the trial, a 23 minute video of the safe being opened and various items of jewellery inside being filmed. I will return to this in due course. He said it would be wrong to remove all trace of the children from HH’s properties, but he will send the contents of the children’s bedrooms to the UK with great sadness. He will also send the Persian rugs. He asserted that HRH’s valuations were completely arbitrary. He contended that the horses that had been purchased had, at all times, belonged beneficially to Godolphin, which had bought them and paid for their upkeep, whilst receiving any winnings, stud fees or sale proceeds as part recompense. He said that the nomination to family members, including HRH, to permit the horses to run in the colours of the family member was merely a licence. He said that HRH had never received any stud fees for any of the horses. Finally, in relation to the legal fees fighting fund, he said that the court can, in the future, make legal services funding orders without the need for a capital fund. 39. In relation to the Scott Schedule, he made the point that the court had not, at least at the time, made any finding of fact as to the legal ownership of these items. He said that, initially, HRH claimed ownership of 53 horses. It then increased to 63 horses before becoming 42 for her and 19 for the children. It had now gone up again to 89, of which 62 were racehorses and 21 showjumpers. The original 16 racehorses were, on her figures, worth £9.89 million, whereas she now claims horses to the value of £19.1 million. Many of the horses she valued had sold for far less than the valuations. He gave as an example a horse called Ben Vrackie which she had valued at £400,000, yet it had sold for £20,000. In total, horses she valued at £5.6 million had sold for £2.5 million. Three of the horses, which she valued at £660,000, have died. The stud fees of New Approach, which she had put in the millions of pounds per annum, had fallen in value. 15 of the horses she claims were sold before April 2019. He also complained that she argues that she should benefit from the assets but not from the liabilities . He added that registration of a horse in the name of an individual can be only for a single race and can be easily varied. He said that HRH had never received any prize money, although there is clearly an issue about this as she says she was paid £15 million at one point. He says that a claim for a lump sum of £95 million to cover these items is well outside the ambit of her permitted Part III claim. Finally, he acknowledged that a number of heirlooms, such as some ballet shoes given to HRH by Dame Margot Fonteyn and Rudolf Nureyev, would be sent to her. The respective Open Proposals 40. HRH’s final Open Proposal is dated 11 October 2021. It is based entirely as a clean break with all maintenance claims capitalised into a lump sum. General child maintenance is sought of £13,966,035 per annum, reducing to half when the children are in tertiary education, together with holiday costs, capitalised at £153,208,590. The security costs are sought at £12,103,018 per annum, with different figures depending on if the children are at boarding school, in tertiary education and living independently. The figure increases to a claim for £17,169,369 per annum from 2036 to 2062; and then at £12,692,047 per annum from 2063 – 2098 all index linked. In addition, there is a claim for the costs of holiday security ranging from £3.5 million per annum to £6.8 million per annum. In total, all these security figures are capitalised at £787,749,331. The general child maintenance should be paid to HRH outright. It is accepted, if I think it appropriate, that the capitalised security budget should go into a trust, albeit that HH should be excluded from benefit completely. The child allowances of £19,905,200 per annum should be reinstated and capitalised at £216,599,034. This money should also be held in trusts, but with both HH and HRH excluded from benefit. A lump sum is sought for immediate capital needs of £23,288,779 together with the agreed figure of £3,040,000 for education; and £50 million for a legal fees fund. On the basis of these figures, arrears are sought in the sum of £65 million. Turning to the Scott Schedule, a sum of £97,863,126 is sought to compensate for the fact that the items will never be returned. A payment of £13,430,145 is claimed in relation to the TUA charity in Jordan and a payment of 2.5% to cover the Islamic Zakat charitable giving. Finally, the proposal invites a joint public statement to be issued to draw a line under these proceedings. Adding all these sums together gives a figure of £1,418,819,587 which is the total amount sought. 41. HH’s Open Proposal was dated 11 October 2021. It is on the basis of a global maintenance payment of £10 million per annum, uncapitalised and paid quarterly. This is made up of £6.2 million per annum for security indefinitely and £3.8 million per annum for the children’s general maintenance until the end of tertiary education. It should be paid on conventional terms, with CPI indexation. It should be secured by an irrevocable bank guarantee with HSBC in the sum of £500 million which will survive the death of HH. In addition, there should be the agreed education fund paid in the sum of £3.04 million and a lump sum of £5,278,000 to cover IHT on HRH’s home near Kensington Palace payable by 31 October 2016. There should be no order as to costs. The parties’ Case Summaries 42. Both parties filed comprehensive and detailed Case Summaries. In the summary prepared on behalf of HRH, I was reminded that the budgets approved for the use of HRH and the children in 2018 and 2019 were, respectively AED 322.6 million and AED 349.9 million. It was said that the current payments made for security pursuant to the interim orders involved very restricted movement by the family due to the Covid-19 restrictions. HH’s proposals include no provision for foreign travel. He has not filed any counter evidence. HRH accepts that she will not be able to compel the return of any assets, such as the Derby winner, New Approach, so she seeks payments in lieu. Restoring the children’s allowances would make their futures a little less threatened and uncertain. There has been no misuse of funds by HRH. She was a caretaker and manager of the family finances, including her own expenditure, to the best of her ability. Indeed, during the trial, it emerged that the cost of HRH’s home near Kensington Palace had been paid from the children’s funds. She added that, in so far as there had been personal spending from those funds on her own account, it was less than her notional 1/3 rd of the total. There had been no strict demarcation, hence the reason that Jalila had received so much more. Turning to capitalisation, she argued that it was impossible for HH to claim that he was more trustworthy than her. Capitalisation would avoid endless further applications as well as huge stress and worry for HRH. 43. HH’s Case Summary complains that this is, in truth, a disguised claim for HRH under the guise of a claim for the children. It is said that the proposals are complicated; excessive; legally unprincipled and unprecedented. I am asked how I could possibly predict what the position will be in 2098. The capital payment sought for the children of £256 million is wrong in principle and contrary to authority. Reference is made to the recent Supreme Court case of Ilott 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