Mr Justice Mostyn:
1.This is my judgment on the following applications:a.by Michael Fuchs (“the husband”) in Form A dated 30 March 2021 for financial remedies against Alvina Collardeau-Fuchs (“the wife”);b.by the husband dated 15 April 2021 that the wife do show cause why a prenuptial agreement (“PNA”) dated 2 March 2012 (as modified on 23 March 2014 after the marriage) should not be made an order of the court;c.by the wife in Form A dated 24 March 2022 for certain financial remedies against the husband (but not then including secured child periodical payments); andd.by the wife dated 12 October 2022 against the husband for secured child periodical payments.2.The matter previously came before me on 9 February 2022 when I awarded maintenance pending suit to the wife: Collardeau-Fuchs v Fuchs [2022] EWFC 6, and on 26 April 2022 when I heard an application by the wife to enforce that award: Collardeau-Fuchs v Fuchs [2022] EWFC 45.3.Although the husband maintains that the wife has come close during the course of the proceedings to repudiating the terms of the modified PNA, her clear stance before me is that she accepts its binding nature. However, the parties do not agree on the interpretation of the modified agreement and leave me to resolve their differences. Further, they do not agree what level of child support should be awarded.4. Therefore, I have to decide two matters:a.
- Approved Judgment
- Mr Justice Mostyn:
- The correct entitlements of the wife under the modified PNA and their value
- The quantum of child support to be awarded to the wife for the benefit of the children, and whether the award should be secured.
- Background
- The PNA
- “EACH PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT FULLY UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES THAT HE OR SHE IS RELINQUISHING VALUABLE PROPERTY RIGHTS BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT.”
- The disputes about the agreement
- Issues 1 & 2: The failure by the husband to set up the Joint Investment Fund
- Issue 3: The mortgage on Meadow Lane (1), Southampton, New York
- Southampton Residence
- Issues 4 & 5: Does the Modification Agreement cover Meadow Lane (2)?
- Future Residences
- Issues 6, 7, 8 & 9: Should the mortgage on the family home be taken at £18m or £16m?
- Issue 10: Is the wife entitled to a credit of half the net sale proceeds of 26 Downing Street?
- Issue 11: Should the wife be entitled to 100% or 50% of Rue Duphot Nos. 2 and 3?
- Paris, France Apartment
- Issue 12: Montfort
- Issue 13: Latent tax
- Issues 14 and 15: Should any of the wife’s legal costs paid by the husband be reimbursed to him?
- Legal Fees and Indemnification in Event of Suit to Enforce
- Issue 16: Disputed artwork
- Artwork
- Issue 17: Compensation for stolen jewellery
- Conclusion on the wife’s entitlements under the modified PNA
- £37,489,392
- £37,489,392
- The wife’s capital needs
- The reasonable annual income to be derived from the wife’s Duxbury fund
- £1,110,316
- The wife’s child maintenance claim
- the child is entitled to be brought up in circumstances which bear some sort of relationship with the father's current resources and the father's present standard of living.
- 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
- future
- This case: decision
- Conclusion
- Permission to appeal (“PTA”)
- SCHEDULE 1