Case No. FD20F00034-and-FD19P00380

to this judgment. The security budget 86. I have already made the point that I have no counter-evidence to the budget produced by HRH. I have decided that I should approach the budget that she has provided on a generous basis throughout the minority of the children. It is far better to be safe rather than sorry, although I accept entirely that this budget is far higher than it was at the start of the case. In one sense, HH has brought this upon himself following the findings as to the attempt to purchase Parkwood and the hacking judgment. I have had some concern as to the figure for additional security services from Company X as it is such a large figure with no information to support exactly what this company is going to be doing. Nevertheless, the hacking findings mean that HRH is entitled to all the cyber protection she can get at this stage. I have therefore allowed that item in full. Indeed, I have allowed every item in full with three exceptions. The first is the figure for severance costs. I simply cannot believe that it is necessary to spend the best part of £500,000 per annum on this item. I have not been given a breakdown of what has actually been spent to date, other than that there have been payments but the figure has been reduced significantly. I consider the correct way to deal with this is by way of tighter contracts and, if necessary, injunctions but I have allowed a figure of £150,000 per annum which seems more than sufficient to cover this aspect. Second, I have reduced the figure for temporary contractor costs from £197,750 to £125,000. This sum did not feature at all in the previous schedule, which says that it was included in Consultancy fees, although Consultancy fees have not reduced from the sum of £865,300. I recognise that Covid-19 will have increased the need for temporary contractors and the spending should not, therefore, continue at the same rate. I consider my figure to be entirely fair in consequence. Finally, I have been very troubled by the figure for replacement of vehicles at £1,175,000 per annum. I do accept the need for armoured vehicles, although I note that sensible budgeting enabled three vehicles to be purchased this summer for the price of two by buying two vehicles that were two years old. I accept Mr Dyer’s submission that these vehicles are unlikely to do as much mileage as those that might be protecting say a Head of State. It follows that I cannot see the need for them all to be replaced every two years. I am also not persuaded that there needs to be such vehicles. I accept that there should be vehicles for use in the UK but I would have thought that sensible forward planning would enable these vehicles to be used for the foreign trips as well. I recognise that we have had lockdowns but, until now, there have not been anything like such vehicles and I have not been told that this has caused a significant problem. All in all, I consider a fair budget is half of that claimed, namely £587,500. I attach a simple spreadsheet setting out these figures at Schedule B. It can be seen that the total budget is £10,988,228 which I shall round up to £11 million. I am quite clear that this is an appropriate budget for HRH and the two children going forward. 87. I am not prepared to increase this budget either for the possibility that the children are at boarding school or for when they attend University. The budget is, in my view, a generous one at £11 million and the family will just have to work within the figures. In this regard, I consider it is safe to say that increased expenditure in one area is likely to lead to a reduction elsewhere. I now turn to the position going forward once the children have completed full-time education. It is absolutely clear to me that I cannot capitalise security budgets for them after this time for a significant number of very important reasons. The most obvious is that I have absolutely no idea of the level of threat, if any, that they will face. I have already made the point that they may become reconciled with their father, although I consider this possibility does not affect the provision for their security during their minority given the very serious findings made. I have also made the point that their father may have passed away. It is impossible to say what threat they may face from their siblings or anyone else ruling Dubai after he has gone. Moreover, Mr Dyer’s points about capitalising the costs of purchasing armoured vehicles and transporting them around the world when the children are in their eighties are very well made. By eliminating this part of the claim, I am not doing any injustice at all. The issue can be dealt with in the Schedule 1 proceedings by applying to extend the secured periodical payments order I intend to make. This eliminates the possibility of huge injustice in my fixing what would be a very large capital sum now, whilst ensuring that the children can still be protected if needed. 88. HRH, however, falls into an entirely different category although I accept that her own personal security needs will be very different once the children are independent. Whilst it could be said that two-thirds of the budget will disappear at that point, I consider that to be too simplistic. I do, however, accept that she will not need, let alone, armoured vehicles for her own protection. Moreover, I consider I have been generous in allowing in full the ongoing costs of Company X. It may be that this expenditure would not be necessary at all at that point but, even if some such spending is appropriate, it certainly will not need to be at the level currently provided for. I remind myself that, at the beginning of this case, admittedly before the attempted acquisition of Parkwood and the hacking had emerged, the original order made by the President was in the sum of £355,000 per month. Although that figure was then increased to £445,000 and then £488,000 per month, it is still far lower than I have allowed. It is quite clear to me that these figures were insufficient, although I was told that Director 1 had worked within these budgets, other than in relation to the costs of Company X. Indeed, if I needed any support for my view that the figures were too low, it is to be found in the fact that HH is now offering £6,200,000 per annum, which equates to over £500,000 per month. I realise that my conclusion is very much a broad brush but I am clear that it is the only way to approach this issue. I am of the view that HRH should have a total budget of exactly one-half once the children are independent, giving HRH a security budget thereafter of £5,500,000 per annum for the rest of her life. It might have been said that it should have been 1/3 rd but I consider this ignores two important elements. The first is that there are certain costs that will continue even when the children are independent. Second, HRH will need to provide some security for her own holidays, which is not currently included within this budget. Overall, I am clear that she will be able to keep herself safe with such a budget. It will, however, be entirely up to her how she husbands her resources. If she wishes to spend slightly more in the early years, she will have less for her old age but that will be something that she can control without any concern that HH is looking over her shoulder in this regard. I must then consider, for capitalisation purposes, the duration of the award. I am clear that Jalila should have four years for tertiary education, which will end in 2030 when she is aged 23. I apply the same to Zayed, so his order will end at the end of 2034, just before his 23 rd birthday. The order will therefore be capitalised on the basis that the figure of £11 million per annum continues until the end of 2030, whereupon it will reduce to £8,250,000 per annum, before reducing to £5,500,000 per annum at the end of 2034. 89. I have already made the point that I am going to perform a standard Duxbury calculation without any adjustment to the ordinary income tax and capital gains tax assumptions. I obviously ascribe no income to HRH as anything that she earns will be used for her own personal expenditure. Equally, I do not include any capital receipts because, again, any money will have to cover HRH’s own requirements. The resulting Duxbury calculation is for a lump sum of £209,542,372, which I round up to £210 million. In addition, there is the lump sum that I have calculated pursuant to all the other headings, amounting to a total of £41,302,913, which I round up to £41,500,000, making a total capital award of £251,500,000 payable within three months as per HH’s concession. General maintenance 90. I now turn to general maintenance for the children. The respective figures here are almost as far apart as elsewhere in the case. HRH seeks provision of £17,505,460, per annum, once the security costs in Schedule J are deducted. It reduces to £15,642,443 if the additional holiday security costs in Schedule C are also deducted. HH offers £3,800,000 per annum, although I note that this is a significant increase on the current maintenance figure of £84,000 per month, or £1,008,000 per annum. The headings are broken down into a significant number of individual categories, namely HRH’s home near Kensington Palace and housekeeping; Castlewood and housekeeping; holidays and weekends away (including security for those trips); transport; children’s animals; children’s leisure; children’s personal staffing excluding security; children’s health; private office, London; and private office, Amman. 91. In reaching my conclusions, I have very much had in mind the figures that were spent during the marriage in Dubai, as exemplified by the 2019 budget, signed by HH. I have not heard from HH. I am unable to compare his expenditure with that sought by HRH. I accept, in accordance with authority, that the children should be able to have a lifestyle that is not entirely out of kilter with that enjoyed by them in Dubai and that enjoyed by HH and his family. I accept, of course, that it will be quite impossible to replicate, pound for pound, the standard of living they enjoyed before their parents separated but I am going to be generous and accept many of the figures put forward by HRH. In the areas where I have made reductions, I have done so for good reason based on specific points made by Mr Dyer. The first schedule that I must consider relates to HRH’s home near Kensington Palace. It starts with the somewhat arbitrary increase of £60,000 per annum in relation to the trust/legal fees of the two trusts that hold the property. I accept Mr Dyer’s submission in this regard and reduce the figure claimed by £60,000 per annum to £152,000 per annum. On the other hand, I allow in full the claim for employee costs. I cannot ignore the existing numbers of staff and the phenomenal number of staff previously available to HRH in Dubai. The same applies in relation to facility maintenance costs and household expenses. The most difficult aspect is the figure of £1.9 million sought for wear and tear of £900,000 pa and comprehensive refurbishment of £10 million every ten years. Both leading counsel point to the sum spent on refurbishment of the property following purchase. Mr Dyer says that, having spent that sum then, far less is needed in the future. By contrast, Mr Cusworth asserts that, if this sum was spent on a property that was only to be occupied for a few weeks per annum, surely a similar sum should be available now for one of only two main properties for the children. I must remind myself that this is a very large and prestigious house that needs to be maintained to the highest possible standard. I consider a wear and tear budget of £500,000 per annum is appropriate but that the capital refurbishment budget is reasonable in the sum of £10 million every ten years. This makes a total budget for HRH’s home near Kensington Palace of £2,476,000 per annum. It forms Schedule C. 92. I now turn to Castlewood. I have already found that HH should be discharging the costs of this property so long as the children remain dependent. Having said that, I cannot see why the trust/legal fees should be any different to those for HRH’s home near Kensington Palace, so I allow £152,000 pa. I allow in full all the various claims for the general outgoings and running costs of the property. When it comes to wear and tear, a figure of £250,000 per annum is claimed, whilst comprehensive refurbishment is sought at £3 million every ten years. I have already made the point that the latter figure is not far off the value of the property. I consider that the general wear and tear figure should be £125,000 pa and the refurbishment figure £200,000 pa. This makes a grand total of £1,009,800 pa. It is to be found in Schedule D. 93. The next item is holidays, which is complicated by the fact that it includes large elements for the additional costs of security for those holidays. The first item is the costs of flights, claimed at £1,820,000, which involves private planes for seven separate holidays over nine weeks. I have always found this difficult as my experience is that children do not want to be away for very extensive periods as they get older, particularly if they are preparing for very important examinations. Having said that, HH’s counter budget of £200,000 pa is self-evidently insufficient. I have decided to allow £1 million. I allow the hotels and accommodation costs as claimed. I assess food, expenses and activities at £300,000. I consider the trips to Jordan to be important, particularly given that HRH and the children cannot travel to Dubai. I realise that they have not been there recently but I am sure that is in large part due to the pandemic. It does mean that they have some catching up to do. Turning to the question of holidays in the UK, I allow the total claimed in full. The amount spent this summer on trips in the UK confirms that such breaks are expensive for this family. Dealing with the additional security costs, I allow each item as claimed, other than In-Country Logistics, which I assess at £1 million pa rather than £1,915,600. This means that the total budget for holidays is £5,115,544. This is to be found at Schedule E. Again, I do not intend to adjust this budget for the children being at boarding school or at University. 94. The next item is transport costs. I consider I have already dealt with this in other parts of the budget and make no separate allowance for car storage costs in London. I then turn to Leisure costs. HRH seeks £1,859,992 pa whereas HH responds with a figure of £698,500 pa. The first item is [item 1]. The claim is for £500,000 pa as against £250,000 pa. I have decided that the correct figure is £300,000 pa. I find it difficult to see how more than this could actually be spent. I have permitted the claim for [item 2] as I cannot see that HRH can be expected to go to the shops. Equally, it would be wrong for it all to be done online. I have allowed £30,000 pa. I have then allocated items to the various other heads as I consider appropriate. I cannot see that [item 3] could possibly amount to £133,000 pa. I have decided £50,000 pa should cover it. I accept that the children have been used to presentations and that the cost does seem extremely high, perhaps when the agents of [those] involved realise who is trying to book them. I have included £250,000 pa against the very high figure of £613,000 claimed. I have reduced many of the other items to a certain extent but I have not allowed [item 4], given their ages and the other provision made. The resulting total is £1,010,500 and is to be found at Schedule F. 95. The next schedule is animals. The total claimed is £673,306 pa, because it includes the purchase and running costs of horses. The counter proposal is £102,100 pa. I do, of course, accept that the children should have ponies to ride. The issue is the cost of these animals both to acquire them and to have them in livery. I am not convinced that the costs claimed are reasonable. I do not consider that these horses need to be expensive, although they must be safe to ride. I have allowed £25,000 pa for their acquisition; £75,000 pa for their livery and upkeep; and £25,000 pa for replacement horseboxes. I do not entirely understand the staff costs if I have allowed £75,000 pa for livery. I allow £50,000 pa for salaries and £25,000 pa for accommodation. I have reduced the other sums claimed to what I consider to be appropriate figures. I allow the costs for their pets as claimed. This makes a total budget of £277,050 pa and is in Schedule G. 96. The next schedule is Children’s staffing. The claim is for £644,876 pa. HH counters with an offer of £141,400. I cannot ignore the provision that has been available for these children over the years. I am of the view that the costs of the first nanny should be allowed in full. I cannot see the need for a second nanny given the ages of the children. I allow the nurse in full as she has always been available for the children. I have taken the view that I should allow the tutor’s expenses going forward at £100,000 pa together with accommodation at £33,800 pa. HRH is entitled to obtain any payment in excess of £100,000 pa from the education fund. In any event, the resulting total under this heading is £450,077 pa, which is included in Schedule H. The dispute in relation to the health care budget is very minor. HRH seeks £32,000 pa. HH offers £22,000. I allow the claim in full. 97. Finally, I turn to the two offices. HRH argues that the cost of her London office is £1,109,220 per annum, with a further £180,000 pa for professional fees, whereas her office in Amman costs £697,100 pa. I have no doubt that these figures are correct. The question, however, is the proportion of these amounts to be attributed to the children. HRH contends that 80% of these figures are due to the children. HH disagrees fundamentally and offers £40,000 pa in relation to London and nothing in relation to Amman. I am of the view that very little of the Amman Office relates to the children. I consider I should reverse the percentages and allow 20%, namely £139,400 pa. I accept that the costs of the London office relate to the children considerably more than the Amman office. I assess the proportions in London as being 50% for the children and 50% for HRH. I therefore allow the sum of £644,610 pa. The resulting total of all these items is £11,154,981 pa and is to be found in Schedule I. I round this up to £11,200,000 pa, which is £5,600,000 pa per child. It will be index-linked and tied to the Consumer Prices Index. The payments will be made as secured provision, the security being the HSBC bank guarantee. I decline to make any different assessment for Higher Education. It is too far ahead. Whilst in some cases, the provision might reduce at that point, I do not propose to do so in this case as I am concerned that many of the costs, such as those relating to the two properties, will continue regardless. The orders will be paid to HRH for the benefit of the children. When the children are in Higher Education, it will be up to HRH as to how she allocates the money for them. 98. I next turn to the question of backdating. I decline to order any backdating in relation to the security budget as I was told that Director 1 had worked within the figures provided, other than in relation to the costs of Company X. HRH will simply have to deal with the past costs of the company out of the other provision made for her. She is, however, undoubtedly entitled to backdating of the general maintenance in the sum of £11,200,000 pa other than in relation to the costs of travel and security as that travel budget has not been spent due to the pandemic, other than the provision I made in the summer. Even some of that was not spent. I have allocated £5,115,544 for travel and the security costs of that travel. If this is deducted from the maintenance awarded, the sum reduces to £6,084,456 pa or £507,038 per month. The date of the original application pursuant to Schedule 1 was 9 December 2019, some 24 months ago. However, the President made an order for £84,000 per month on 5 March 2020, some twenty months ago. I propose to backdate the order, less the travel expenses, to 9 December 2019 but with credit for payments made. The arrears would be in the order of £11,832,874 but with credit for payments made of £1,680,000. There will then be further credit for the money unspent in the summer amounting to £202,579 in relation to the holidays and £322,230 for the security for those holidays. Netting the various figures off against each another gives a total outstanding of £9,628,065. I am satisfied that this does not include any element of double counting. The costs of security for the children as adults and the level of security 99. There remain two final issues. The first is what happens when the children cease tertiary education. I have not provided for the costs of their security at that point but they almost certainly will continue to have security needs, if only as the children of such high profile parents. The claim was for provision for all three in the sum of £17,196,369 at that point. I have already allocated provision for HRH of £5,500,000 going forward. I consider that a similar sum should be allocated to each child. This is so close to the sum of £5,600,000 that they are receiving for their maintenance as to make no difference. I therefore direct that, on the children ceasing full-time education, the maintenance provision continue at the same rate but payable to them directly and for the entirely different purpose of security. If the figure is not needed, there can be an application to reduce or discharge the order at that point. If it is too little, there can be an application to increase. Either way, the position of the children is protected. Finally, I have to consider the question of the bank guarantee. In simple terms, HH offered £500 million of which I have ordered that he pay £210 million to HRH by way of lump sum. I am therefore clear that the HSBC Bank Guarantee should be in the sum offered less the capital provision ordered. This results in the figure reducing from £500 million to £290 million. I am satisfied that the terms of the guarantee as suggested by HSBC are appropriate. Conclusion 100. It follows that the award is as follows:- (a) A lump sum to HRH of £251,500,000 to be paid within 3 months; (b) An education fund in the agreed sum of £3,040,000 to be held by accountants to be agreed between the parties or appointed by the court; (c) Payable from the date of this order, secured periodical payments payable at the rate of £5,600,000 pa per child to HRH for the benefit of the children until they shall respectively cease full-time tertiary education or four years after they have commenced their first degree, whichever is later, whereupon it is to be paid direct to each child until further order with the figures being indexed according to the CPI index and secured by an HSBC Bank Guarantee in the sum of £290 million. (d) The order of the President is varied to provide for periodical payments from 9 December 2019 to the date of this order at the rate of £3,042,228 per child over and above the security budget, with credit for payments made. The arrears of £9,628,065 to be paid within one month. (e) No order as to costs. 101. Finally, I want to pay tribute to the advocacy that I have received, both written and oral, on behalf of both parties. It was of the finest possible quality. Nothing more could have been said or done on behalf of either party. Mr Justice Moor 9 November 2021 Schedule A –