The case of W v X [2025] EWHC 1969 (Fam) concerns an application under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989, a provision relied upon to make orders for financial support for a child, often where the parents are unmarried or no longer married. Associate Amy Wills reviews the case.
Background
The application was brought by the mother on behalf of her eight-year-old son. Both parents were French nationals who lived together between 2015 and 2023. The father was a highly successful entrepreneur with a significant income of £3.2m per annum and substantial wealth in excess of £50m. The mother had limited financial resources. Throughout the parties’ relationship, the family enjoyed a “fabulous” standard of living, including private jet charters, yachts, villas, fine dining and expensive clothing.
Key issues
Some of the key issues that fell to be decided by the judge, Mr Justin Warshaw KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, were:
- The appropriate level of financial provision for the child in light of the family’s prior lifestyle and the father’s wealth,
- The extent of the mother’s resources and, therefore, her ability to meet the child’s needs,
- Whether there should be any security for the provision to be made by the father, and
- Costs
Open offers
The parties first made open offers in October 2024. The mother sought periodical payments of £290,000 (inclusive of a £50,000 holiday fund) against which the father offered £194,000. Those offers were subsequently withdrawn and new offers put forward in May 2025. At this stage, the father significantly reduced the provision he was willing to make and reduced his periodical payments proposal to £138,000 per annum. Conversely, the mother’s offer moved further away, and she sought periodical payments of £741,000 per annum (inclusive of a £300,000 per annum holiday fund). At no point did the father offer provision for the mother’s debts.
Financial provision for the child
At the hearing, the father argued that although the family’s standard of living during the relationship had been exceptionally high (evidenced by, among other examples, the child dining with the parties’ driver at upmarket restaurants every day), the quantum of financial support given to his mother should be determined on the basis that it should “educate” the child into a more modest lifestyle. The father put forward that the standard of living, where parties are not married, does not hold the same weight in determining needs as it does where the parties are married.
The judge summarised the law and determined that each case must be decided on its own facts; any award is made for the benefit of the child. In this case, it was clear both that there had been a very high standard of living and that the father could afford to continue providing the means to maintain it. It was the judge’s view that “for better or for worse this eight-year-old boy has expensive tastes in clothes, restaurants and holidays”. The child also had particular needs in that he had had behavioural difficulties at school and been diagnosed with ADHD. He had only been allowed to remain a pupil at his school on the basis that he had a chaperone, funded by his father. In determining a reasonable budget moving forward, however, the judge decided not to refer to any of the mother’s three budgets produced throughout the proceedings, which he described as having been “plainly pitched at a claim under the Matrimonial Causes Act” and “not child-focused”. Instead, the judge ordered the father to pay the sum of £225,000 a year for the benefit of the child.
In addition, the father was ordered to cover the child’s school fees and extras, as well as meet other expenses (as already agreed) in line with the family’s previous lifestyle.
The extent of the mother’s resources
The mother presented evidence to confirm that she had substantial debts, including the legal costs associated with these proceedings. The judge was clear that the mother should be debt-free upon the conclusion of these proceedings and ordered that the father provide sufficient funds to enable her to clear those debts.
Security
Notwithstanding the mother’s arguments that the father was likely to default in light of the fact that he had forged documents and been convicted of crimes of dishonesty in France, the judge found that the father was, in fact, committed to the child and played an active role in his life. He did not consider that the father was likely to default and therefore made no order for security. He did, however, adjourn (rather than dismiss) the mother’s application for secured provision.
Costs
The father made a long list of complaints about the costs incurred by the mother in this case, many of which, the judge found, could equally be made against him. As proceedings under Schedule 1 do not fall within the usual rule applicable to financial remedy proceedings that there should be no order for costs, it was up to the judge to deal with costs as he considered just.
In the event, he determined that the father should pay the mother’s reasonably incurred costs. The mother had already sold assets to fund a proportion of her costs to the tune of £140,000. The judge considered this to be an appropriate contribution to her own costs and one which takes into account the criticism the father levelled at her costs.
Comment
Toby Atkinson, Partner says:
“This case is a reminder that a party’s misconduct and/or animosity between the parties should not detract from a full and proper consideration of a child’s needs in Schedule 1 claims. Consideration will always be given by the court to the standard of living enjoyed by the child when in the care of the financially stronger party, but it does not necessarily follow, particularly in Schedule 1 cases, that that standard should be replicated in any award made; ultimately each case will turn on its own facts.”
You can find further information regarding our expertise, experience and team on our Divorce and Family page.
If you require assistance from our team, please contact us or alternatively request a call back from one of our lawyers by submitting this form.
Subscribe – In order to receive our news straight to your inbox, subscribe here. Our newsletters are sent no more than once a month.
