[2025] EWHC 1254 (Fam)

The Respondent chose not to file his own written evidence and relied instead on Ms Pollock’s three witness statements, dated 3 October 2024, and two dated 28 January 2025. Ms Pollock has never met the Respondent and has not spoken to him recently, but has taken instructions from him through an intermediary. Her first witness statement is effectively a legal submission in support of the summary disposal of the Applicant’s case. It is denied there are any security concerns for the Applicant or the Child and it is noted the Applicant has previously made ‘fanciful’ claims in this regard. She notes Mr Justice Bodey dismissed the Applicant’s allegations there were attempts to poison the Child with lollipops, sodas and cherries.

Her second witness statement recounts this:

“At the time of the final hearing on 1 March 2013, the applicant’s budget for periodical payments was at £668,799 p/a excluding school fees and extras – over £55,000 per month. A copy of that budget is enclosed at page 1 of exhibit JP2.

Mr Justice Bodey determined that the periodical payments for [The Child] should continue in the amount of £204,000 p/a. In paragraph 90 of his judgment, he commented that the applicant’s budget was ‘really a former wife’s budget rather than a Schedule 1 budget’. He concluded that the existing level of maintenance would ‘enable [the applicant] to give [The Child] a very good quality of life whilst recognising that she was not (legally) married to the father.’

The level of periodical payments was therefore considered in detail by three different High Court judges between 2009 and 2013, each of which made consistent orders. The applicant has however not been content with the outcome and has made no fewer than five further applications to increase the financial support she receives, being:

Application to the High Court – application made on 30 August 2013, just 6 months after the final hearing. This was rejected by Mr Justice Bodey on 11 December 2013;

Appeal to the Court of Appeal - application made on 31 December 2013, appeal rejected on 10 December 2014;

Application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court – application made on 8 January 2015, permission refused on 16 April 2015;

Application to the High Court – application made in November 2015, dismissed by Mr Justice Bodey on 22 December 2015; and

Application to the High Court – application made on 4 June 2018, adjourned by the applicant and not restored.”

She submits a driver is not required and Mr Justice Bodey rejected a similar argument at paragraph 90 of his 1 March 2013 judgment. She notes the Child is a boarder and does not need daily transport. She states there is no evidence they come home on the weekend. On security she says the allegations her client has stalked the Applicant are false. She laments the fact allegations are made against the Respondent’s intermediary, solicitors and counsel. She notes the fire in 2017 began in the kitchen and that there is no evidence of third party involvement. She describes the £ 750, 000 for the Child’s proposed gap year as unreasonable. She states:

“If [the Child] is to travel for the full period of his gap year, the applicant will have no direct expenses for [them] and will be providing no care for [them] at all. Indeed, [they] will be 18 at that time and it is usually considered part of the gap year experience that [The Child] learns to stand on [their] own two feet, travelling and working where [they] choose. As such, the periodical payments should reduce significantly at that stage as the applicant can work to support her own expenses entirely. My client’s proposed budget is set out below but in short, we would propose that the maintenance is reduced to provide for food and housekeeping/house maintenance for the applicant, with a general maintenance amount for [the Child]. However, it would ultimately be a matter between the applicant and [the Child] as to what part of that total payment is made available to [the Child] directly to fund [their] gap year.”

Her witness statement then makes submissions about the Respondent’s case to reduce payments. The proposal put forward is that the payments are reduced as follows:

Her third witness statement deals with the Family Book and the passport. She notes the Applicant relies on a report from the aforementioned journalist without the permission of the court. She says citizenship is a matter for the authorities of the country in question. Ms Pollock raises issues regarding the impact on the Child’s US citizenship if granted citizenship of that other country.

The Applicant cross-examined Ms Pollock.