[2025] EWHC 1254 (Fam)

Fecha: 23-May-2025

Background

Background

The parties met in a county in the Middle East around 2003. The extent of their relationship is a matter of dispute with the Applicant stating they dated for some time and the Respondent denying they dated but accepting they were sexual partners. The child was born in the United States in 2008. In 2009 the Applicant issued an application pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 (hereafter the “1989 Act”).

I understand the child is a citizen of the United States of America. The Applicant informed the court they are also a British citizen (although I have seen no confirmation of this). The Child lives and is educated as a boarder at locations in the south of England. It seems clear the Child is habitually resident in England and Wales.

It is necessary to set out a chronology of the litigation between these parties. I have highlighted in bold and underline the orders which directly concern the applications before the court.

2009	Order made including: • The Respondent pay interim periodical payments as follows; ◦ £15,000 to Applicant for general maintenance
April 2010	Application by the Applicant for an upward variation of interim maintenance.
2010	Applicant and the child rent the house which is later purchased as the trust property (at the Applicant’s election).
December 2010	Order including: • Periodical payments increased to £27,400 per month (£17,000 maintenance plus £10,400 for rent).
2012	Applications by Applicant for amongst other things, legal fees, medical expenses, a holiday, a copy of Respondent’s passport and surveillance reports. Order made included giving permission to the Applicant to apply for a US passport for the child and to travel with them as she wishes.
14 December 2012	PTR in front of Mr Justice Bodey. Order made included an interim lump sum of £21,000 for the Applicant and the child to have a holiday in the USA at Christmas, specifically being noted by the judge as ‘exceptional’ and in the context of the upcoming hearing.
1 March 2013	After a 10-day Schedule 1 Final Hearing, Mr Justice Bodey makes orders as follows: • Respondent to settle on the child the sum necessary to complete the purchase of the trust property at a cost of £3,450,000 and rights to the communal gardens at £17,500 and costs of purchase • Respondent to pay a lump sum to the Applicant to pay all of her unpaid legal costs, debts to third parties, £60,000 for a car and £25,000 for essential maintenance to the trust property • Periodical payments to Applicant for the benefit of the child: ◦ £204,000 per annum monthly in advance until the child is 18 or later if they complete full-time education (inc. gap year) until end of first degree or further order ◦ School fees and reasonable extras (up to £3,000) ◦ Sums as required to meet university/other tertiary education ◦ On 01.03.2017, 01.03.2021 and 01.03.2025 £37,500 (CPI linked) to enable Applicant to purchase a new car • Periodical payments and the cap on the Respondent’s liability for school extras shall increase automatically each year. • Respondent agreed that he would provide sufficient security for future periodical payments (including educational expenses)
1 March 2013	Order of Mr Justice Bodey in Declaration Of Parentage proceedings including: • Declaration that Respondent is the child’s father • Applicant has sole Parental Responsibility and sole care for the child and Respondent does not have Parental Responsibility • Applicant cannot bind the Respondent to sign any documents/extra financial provision or otherwise when exercising the terms of this order.
19 April 2013	Order of Mr Justice Bodey which included that: • The settlement of the trust property: ◦ Applicant has liberty to request the trustees to sell the property and invest in a replacement property ◦ Trust to continue until the child is 18/ end of first degree (inc. gap year) whichever is later ◦ On expiry of the trust, the funds to revert to Respondent (and in the event of the child’s death) ◦ Each party entitled to nominate one trustee, this need not be a professional trustee ◦ Trustees to fully insure the property and provide Applicant with the policy annually • Respondent’s obligation to pay the child’s tertiary fees shall apply to any such university, wherever situated, to which Respondent does not object
17 May 2013	Order of Mr Justice Bodey including that; • The settlement of the trust property: ◦ Trust property to be held by the Trustees by their holding all the issued shares in a company, which in turn own the title to the trust property. Respondent to take all necessary steps to bring this about ◦ The Trust shall be in the form of the draft handed up at this hearing (and as amended re 24.05.2013 judgment) save as otherwise agreed by the Trustees ◦ Nothing in 1(f) of 29.04.2013 shall prevent the Trustees paying out trust income on trust expenses ◦ Respondent to bear costs of constituting the Trust • Respondent to pay to £17,000 for Applicant’s rights to the communal gardens • Maintenance/repair/redecoration as follows: ◦ Applicant responsible for internal maintenance/decoration and regular outgoings ◦ Respondent responsible for maintenance/repair of structure and fabric, inc. drains, gutters, pipes and external decoration. If Respondent doesn’t discharge as they fall due, settle into Trust additional sums ◦ Any other repairs/maintenance of property/gardens shall fall to Applicant ◦ Respondent to be responsible for ensuring programme of external redecoration maintenance and repair is put in place on a 5-year cycle, starting 31.09.2013/within 28 days of the constitution of the intended trust • Respondent by 24.06.2013 to bring £3.3m into the jurisdiction to act as security for periodical payments and educational expenses to be held in such manner as the parties agree
25 June 2013	Housing Trust set up and Security Fund of £3.3m confirmed.
26 June 2013	Purchase of property completed
11 July 2013	Security Agreement signed between the Respondent and his intermediary for the holding of the security fund
30 August 2013	Urgent application made by the Applicant and ex parte order of Hayden J for Respondent to pay £4,500 towards dental hospital fees for the child, with the Respondent’s intermediary to pay the sum out of the secured fund. Applicant’s applications for an increase of the periodical payments and various other matters listed for a further hearing.
11 December 2013	Order of Mr Justice Bodey including; • Undertakings of the Respondent’s intermediary regarding security fund (Applicant’s application for a new security arrangement dismissed) • Dismissal of Applicant’s variation application • Refusal of permission to appeal
31 December 2013	Application made by Applicant to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Appeal rejected on 10 December 2014 (Re A (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1577)
8 January 2015	Applicant’s application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court – permission was refused on 16 April 2015.
November 2015	Application made by Applicant to the High Court for an increase in the periodical payments. Application dismissed by Mr Justice Bodey on 22 December 2015.
4 June 2018	Application made by the Applicant for (amongst various other matters): • An increase in the maintenance payments • Provision of security • School extras increase • Passport for the child in the Respondent’s country of nationality.
22 January 2019	Hearing of the above application by Mrs Justice Roberts who dismissed all but three of the substantive matters before the court. Directions given in relation to: • Trust arrangements for the Property • Schedule 1 financial provisions • Passport for the child in the Respondent’s country of nationality.
February 2019	Applicant’s non-molestation order application and hearing. Application dismissed.
March 2019	Applicant sought to return the matters that remained open from Hearing of 22 January 2019 to court. Hearing listed for June 2019.
7 May 2019	Order of Mr Justice Keehan vacating hearing of June 2019 by consent.
June – October 2019	Applicant applied to restore the matter to the court, with hearings adjourned in October 2019 and January 2020 by consent.
4 March 2020	Hearing focused on the appointment of Applicant’s second trustee and security concerns raised by Applicant. Mrs Justice Roberts listed both items for further directions on 10 June 2020.
10 June 2020	Order of Mrs Justice Roberts for CAFCASS to consider if the child should be independently represented and whether they should have party status in the proceedings.
11 September 2020	Court email confirming that they had heard from CAFCASS who confirmed to the judge that they do not see a role for one of its officers to become involved in the ongoing financial proceedings. They recommended that the child does not need to be independently represented by a r.16.4. guardian. The matter is due to be listed for a hearing but the Applicant requests a delay to allow her to recuperate after an operation. Neither she nor her solicitors at that time sought to restore the application to the court.

The Applicant’s C100 application of 5 September 2024 is handwritten and confusing. The Respondent issued a C2 application supported by a witness statement of Ms Jemma Pollock (a solicitor and partner at Russell-Cooke LLP) both dated 3 October 2024, seeking the summary dismissal of the applications.

The parties came before Harris J on 8 October 2024. The order records that the Applicant was not pursuing some of the issues related to the “Trust Property.” The recital clearly records that the Applicant agreed that the only issues to be determined at the hearing before me, were the applications for an increase in periodical payments and the registration/passport specific issue order applications. The court waived the requirement to issue a Form A1 Schedule 1, 1989 Act application. A further recital to the order records the Respondent “indicating that he seeks” a reduction in the periodical payments. It is again recorded that the requirement to issue the application on the appropriate forms is waived. It is recorded: “AND UPON the court determining that the above applications are the only ones to be considered.” The Respondent took the ‘millionaire defence’ thereby relieving him of disclosure obligations. The Applicant was directed to file a Form E1 with 12 months of financial disclosure. The Applicant was directed to file witness statements related to the applications to be determined and the Respondent was given permission to do so, if so advised. The registration application was listed to be either dismissed or the subject of further directions. The matter was listed for a two day final hearing.

Given the unusual way the parties presented their applications, the matter was not placed before the lead judge for Financial Remedies, Peel J.; was not allocated in the usual way; and was not the subject of a Dispute Resolution Appointment Hearing.

10.

At the hearing, contrary to the directions made and the FPR, I was presented with a bundle of documents prepared by the Respondent running to 883 pages and a bundle filed by the Applicant running to 431 pages. Various other documents were presented before, during and after the hearing. I admitted a “witness statement” from a third party and an email dated 23 February 2024 from the child’s school’s Deputy Head of Pastoral. Various other applications were made and I make clear none of them were listed to be determined at the hearing before me and they have not been considered. At the conclusion of the hearing, I directed the Respondent to file a short summary to explain to the Applicant, his application to release the Respondent’s intermediary from his undertakings to Bodey J. I further directed the Applicant to respond clarifying her position on this discrete matter within three days. She did so and opposed the application in the absence of a financial audit of the Respondent’s intermediary’s role.