Jason Galbraith-Marten v Catherine De Renee
[2023] EWFC 253
Catherine De Renėe v Jason Galbraith-Marten
22 August 2023
[2023] EWFC 141
Family Court
Dad agreed to a child support formula, but a judge changed the rules. The judge agreed the old formula was now unfair and temporarily set a new lower amount for Dad to pay, and will make a final decision after a short hearing.
Key Facts
- •Father applied to vary a consent order regarding child maintenance.
- •The consent order used a formula based on the Child Support Act 1991, up to £650,000 income.
- •Mostyn J, in a subsequent case (James v Seymour), criticised this formula and proposed a new methodology.
- •Father argued the change invalidated the assumption underlying the consent order.
- •Mother argued the cases were factually distinct and the father was trying to re-litigate.
- •Father's most recent income was £640,187, leading to a high maintenance calculation under the original formula.
Legal Principles
Family Court's power to vary or set aside orders under section 31F(6) MFPA 1984 and rule 9.9A FPR 2010.
Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Family Procedure Rules 2010
Barder v Barder principles for setting aside orders based on subsequent unforeseen events.
Barder v Barder & Caluori [1988] AC 20
Guidelines for calculating child maintenance above the CMS level; the appropriateness of using a formula in Schedule 1 cases.
Various cases including CB v KB [2019] EWFC 78, James v Seymour [2023] EWHC 844 (Fam), CMX v EJX [2022] EWFC 136, Collardeau-Fuchs v Fuchs [2022] EWFC 135, Re Z (No.4) [2023] EWFC 25
Overriding objective of dealing with cases justly (rule 1 FPR 2010).
Family Procedure Rules 2010
Outcomes
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the December 2022 consent order were set aside.
The change in legal guidance in James v Seymour invalidated the fundamental assumption on which the father consented to the original order. The court considered this a subsequent event making the original agreement unfair.
Interim maintenance set at £2,075 per month based on the AFM from James v Seymour.
Pending a further hearing to fully determine maintenance, the court applied the AFM as an interim measure.
Further hearing ordered to determine the final maintenance award.
The court lacked sufficient information to conduct a full discretionary balancing exercise under Schedule 1 CA 1989.