A v V  EWHC 3501 (Fam)8 July 2022
Published: 23/04/2022 09:00
Mr Justice Francis. A ‘relatively straightforward’ application pursuant to Schedule 1. F’s costs were c.£3.8m and M’s were £1.7m, despite F attending the final hearing as a litigant in person. F ran the millionaire’s defence and was also found to have behaved unreasonably during the litigation.
F sought to rely on an agreement which pre-dated child’s birth by 7 years and limited M to €845 per month, rising with inflation. No weight was placed on that agreement.
F failed to mention at the PTR that he had made an offer on a property for occupation by M and the child and at the final hearing stated he should not have to purchase a property. The judge ordered a property to be purchased, ideally the one already identified, with a lump sum of up to £4m plus stamp duty etc, to be lived in during the child’s minority, which was extended to one year after he ceases full-time tertiary education or aged 21 in the event he does not enter tertiary education. The judge considered ordering the property to be purchased in M’s sole name with F as beneficial owner or having 100% charge, but ultimately opted for a trust.
Judgment includes that neither party has any power to insist on the insertion of particular provision into the trust and it does not need to be approved by the parties.
Various lump sum orders made directly to the trust for building work and the provision of a car, the judge declining to make orders providing for delayed payment to prevent further dispute between the parties. F was ordered to pay a lump sum directly to M in order to equip the property.
Periodical payments of £125,000 with annual variation linked to CPI ordered. Only £10,000 more p.a. than F’s original offer of £115,000 p.a. F had then offered £12,000 p.a. and latterly £60,000 p.a.
Judge makes order under s 91(14) of Children Act for 5 years against both parties.