High-Net-Worth Parent's Financial Responsibilities Analyzed in Landmark Children Act Case

Citation: [2024] EWFC 4
Judgment on


In the case of Y v Z ([2024] EWFC 4), Mr. Justice Peel presided over Schedule 1 proceedings of the Children Act 1989, concerning financial provision for two children aged 4 and 2, post-separation of their parents. This case traverses critical areas in family law, specifically pertaining to the financial responsibilities of a high-net-worth, non-resident parent. This analysis delves into the judgment, elucidating the key legal principles and their application to the case at hand, ensuring that legal professionals practicing in the UK can grasp the decision’s rationale and implications on similar future proceedings.

Key Facts

The case revealed significant discord between the parties, reflected in their personal criticisms and substantial litigation costs. The background involves the parents’ contrasting lifestyles and the standard of living afforded during their relationship, which included global travel and high-end living facilitated by the father’s considerable wealth. The mother sought relocation to the USA post-separation, which was granted. Substantial interim financial support was ordered, alongside considerable legal fees provision.

The legal principles employed by Mr. Justice Peel emanate from several key authorities and the stipulations of Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989:

  1. Benefit of the Child: Each financial provision must be for the benefit of the child. The court is to consider the parties’ financial resources, earning potential, needs, and standard of living – both during and after the relationship.
  2. Sequence of Considerations: The court traditionally begins with property settlements before addressing lump sums and child maintenance due to the close interplay between the child’s home environment and the level of maintenance required.
  3. Standard of Living: The lifestyle during the relationship, while important, should not dominate the court’s considerations as per Collardeau-Fuchs v Fuchs and should be contextual.
  4. Carer’s Allowance/HECSA: An allowance may be awarded for items necessary for the carer to adequately fulfill their duties. The line between the carer’s needs and the child’s needs must be carefully adjudicated.
  5. Discretion and Fairness: Ultimately, the resultant financial orders should be fair, just, and reasonable, upheld by Mr. Justice Peel’s thorough analysis.
  6. Millionaire’s Defence: The acknowledgment that while this approach allows for limited disclosure, some disclosure remains necessary, and even those of considerable wealth may be required to provide financial transparency under oath, as was ordered of the father.
  7. Security and Life Insurance: The judgment explores the necessity of security and life insurance to ensure ongoing compliance with financial provisions, particularly when the payer is of substantial wealth and there is potential for future non-compliance.


The judgment rendered by Mr. Justice Peel was meticulously itemized, addressing each financial aspect:

  1. Housing Fund: The father was ordered to provide a $5m housing fund for the benefit of the children in the USA, structured through irrevocable lease terms.
  2. Capital Needs: A lump sum of £600,000 was awarded for various capital needs.
  3. Car Provision: The father must furnish car provisions for the mother and nanny every 5 years.
  4. Income Needs: Annual child maintenance was set at $500,000 ($250,000 per child), with additional monies for Arabic tuition paid directly by the father.
  5. Life Insurance: The father must secure life insurance to cover maintenance and education costs.
  6. Security: An adjournment of the general security provision was granted with liberty to restore, and an initial deposit of £250,000 for legal fees enforcement was ordered.


In [2024] EWFC 4, the court was confronted with a complex financial remedy scenario that required an intricate application of legal principles to ensure the welfare and maintenance of children of affluent parents living an international lifestyle. The judgment reinforces the essential premise that financial provisions under Schedule 1 must always prioritize the child’s best interests. The meticulous application of the legal principles yielded tailored and individualized outcomes, serving as a benchmark for future ‘big money’ Schedule 1 Children Act applications. It accentuates the discretionary power of the court to impose fair and reasonable financial provision while outlining the courts’ expectations for candid disclosure, even among the most financially privileged.

Related Summaries