Case No. LS20P01640

44.At an earlier stage of the proceedings, the father took the position that he would pay for Zoe whatever order the court considers appropriate, and that there was therefore no need for the mother or the court to require him to provide extensive financial disclosure– a ‘Millionaires Defence’6 (see §11-16 of Re Z (No.2)). He disputes some (but not all) of the mother’s descriptions of his extreme wealth and asserts that his ability to settle large sums for Zoe are likely to be affected by cash flow problems given the extent of his leverage, and the turbulent state of the investment markets; he deposes to a net annual income as at 11 December 2022 of over £2.7m. The father’s assets appear to be held within a ‘Living Trust’, which also clarifies how the father proposes to pass on his wealth on his death. He has named a number of beneficiaries, including his butler. When the trust was created, Zoe had not been born; I have not seen any evidence which indicates whether, and if so how, the father proposes to provide for Zoe from the assets held in the Living Trust now or in the future.45.The father has repeatedly referred to the undisputed fact that the relationship between the mother and him was a brief one, ending before Zoe had been born. He infers (certainly in the early statements) that the mother pursued him (rather than the other way around, as the mother suggests). The father’s clear view is that the mother has set her sights far too high in her claims; he says that the mother’s “excessive financial demands were a feature of our 6-month relationship and that approach has not abated since she returned to England”. He refers to the mother’s litigation conduct (see §55 below) which, he says, has destroyed the last remnant of trust between them.46.The father proposes that the mother should make use of her earning capacity immediately, and he disputes the mother’s need to employ a nanny (“I do not understand why [the mother] needs a nanny. She is young, healthy and does not work. I would hope that [the mother] can take care of Zoe without the need for a nanny”). He makes the point that the spending habits of the mother “are not entirely child-focused”, and that she now “seeks to achieve for herself a lifestyle which she has never previously enjoyed, and which has little bearing on a proper assessment of Zoe’s needs”. 47.The key features of the father’s open offer (adopting the same sub-headings as in §43 above) are as follows:i)Housing: The father proposes that the mother and Zoe continue to live in rented accommodation for the long-term; he offers the sum of £4,750pcm in this regard (the figure which I had allowed for the mother in late-2020, although the mother chose a more expensive property and her current rent is actually £6,500). When Zoe’s educational needs have been better identified, he would be willing to consider purchasing a suitable property to a maximum of £1.75m7 in the area of West Hampstead or Queen’s Park; he has provided property particulars in the region of £1.3m to £1.6m. His proposal is a little ambiguous as to whether he envisages that the costs of purchase (SDLT and other purchase costs) would need to be deducted from this figure8, but this uncertainty is of relatively little consequence as I am satisfied that his offer is considerably wide of the mark. No furnishing fund is offered to the mother, as (he says) this was covered in the interim award;ii)Moving fund: The father will provide £5,000 for a moving fund;iii)Nanny: The father proposes (October 2022) £35,000pa (£2,916 per calendar month) gross in respect of a nanny; he proposes that “[t]here shall be a review of this provision once Zoe begins nursery, at which point this provision shall terminate unless otherwise agreed or ordered”. As it happens, Zoe commenced nursery attendance in January 2023. It is not clear to me whether the father would accept the need for a nanny at all going forward; the father envisages that the nanny can undertake some light housekeeping duties in addition to caring for Zoe;iv)HECSA: The father proposes periodical payments to the mother for Zoe in the sum of £60,000pa until Zoe commences secondary school whereupon the sum then payable will be reduced by one third;v)Nursery/schooling: The father submits that state schools and nurseries are typically better resourced, and better able to deal with children with developmental needs; “it is in Zoe’s best interests to attend a state school from nursery so the support she needs can be ascertained at the very early stages of education, and she can access this support as soon as possible”; the father disputes the need for a 1:1 personal teaching assistant in school; vi)Debts: The father makes no offer;vii)Medical / health insurance: The father offers to procure suitable medical insurance for Zoe to cover any time she spends in the US for the purpose of staying with him. The father makes no offer in relation to private health care in England, proposing that all health care (medical and dental) should be provided on the NHS;viii)Therapies: The father offers to fund therapies for Zoe at £3,600pa monthly for three years; he stipulates that there shall be no increase on this figure at any point in the future. It is suggested that this sum will allow Zoe to have two sessions per month of either occupational therapy, speech and language therapy or additional physiotherapy. He adds: “[t]here shall be no further provision for private treatment, given Zoe’s care is being undertaken primarily by the NHS (and this should continue)”;ix)Flights to/from USA: The father has offered to pay for all flights (business class) and reasonable accommodation costs and expenses for the mother, Zoe and a nanny (if required and/or for as long as she has a nanny) in order to facilitate time spent with him. In an open letter (14 October 20229), he specifically proposed this:“[The father] will fund business class tickets and one night’s layover in [City] on the outbound journey and one night on the return journey. [The father] would also be prepared to fund a relative or friend of [the mother] to come with her. … [The father] will pay for suitable accommodation for [the mother] in [State A] in close proximity to Zoe [while Zoe is staying with the father together with her nanny]. While Zoe is with [the father], [the mother] can remain in [State A] or fly to [City] (or elsewhere) if she wishes. If your client wanted to fly elsewhere during this period, our client would provide her with $500 per day for accommodation.”x)Security: The father will make available a sum insured of £1.5m as security for the figures he proposes for the HECSA and for provision for Zoe’s nanny. This sum is to reduce pro rata as payments for the mother’s HECSA and nanny are made.