MP v FB (application under schedule 1 Children Act 1989)
[2024] EWFC 63 (B)
C (A Child) (Financial Provision: Non-disclosure), Re
15 May 2024
[2024] EWFC 115
Family Court
A mother sought money from a wealthy father for their child. The father lied about his money and hid it. The judge figured out he had lots of money and made him pay a large sum for the child's housing, education, and living expenses.
Key Facts
- •Application under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 for financial provision for a 9 ¾ year old girl, C.
- •Completely polarised positions: Mother seeks £3,775,987; Father seeks no capital payment, only £500/month maintenance.
- •Father is a wealthy Lebanese national; Mother claims lack of access to inherited assets due to ongoing family disputes.
- •Bitter, four-year-long litigation with significant non-disclosure by the Father.
- •Court finds Father dishonest and manipulative, having procured the setting aside of previous orders through fraud.
- •Court draws adverse inferences from Father's non-disclosure regarding his substantial assets.
Legal Principles
Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 empowers the court to make orders for a child's benefit, considering factors such as income, resources, needs, and the child's welfare.
Children Act 1989, Schedule 1, paragraph 4
In Schedule 1 cases, the court considers property first, then lump sums, then maintenance, with the child's home environment as a baseline.
Y v Z [2024] EWFC 4 (summarizing case law)
The Child Support Agency formula provides a useful starting point for child maintenance, with adjustments where income exceeds £156,000 or is largely unearned, though not determinative in Schedule 1 cases or where there is non-disclosure.
Seymour v James [2023] EWHC 844 (Fam); Y v Z [2024] EWFC 4
Adverse inferences can be drawn from material non-disclosure, requiring reasonable quantification of hidden funds based on available evidence and lifestyle.
Al-Khatib v Masry [2002] 1 FLR 1053; NG v SG [2012] 1 FLR 1211; Moher v Moher [2020] 1 FLR 225
Capitalization of future child maintenance is rare and usually inappropriate, except in cases of incessant litigation, repeated defaults, and a short remaining maintenance period.
AZ v FM [2021] 2 FLR 1371
Outcomes
Father ordered to pay £1,000,000 for housing (on trust, reverting to him upon C's completion of tertiary education); £933,000 commuted lump sum for maintenance and education; £389,000 lump sum for mother's debts, moving costs, etc.; and post-18 maintenance payments.
Based on adverse inferences drawn from the Father's extensive dishonesty and non-disclosure of assets, indicating a high seven-figure or low eight-figure net worth. The court balances the child's needs with the father's substantial but undisclosed resources, avoiding an overly luxurious lifestyle while ensuring C's future security.