Collardeau-Fuchs v Fuchs  EWFC 135
Published: 14/11/2022 09:00
Mostyn J. Ultra high net worth financial remedies where there there was a 2014 postnuptial agreement (a 2012 prenup modified after marriage). H was a billionaire real estate developer and parties ‘lived a billionaire lifestyle’.
PNA created separate property and waiver of spousal maintenance; did not affect child maintenance. Explicitly said in bold uppercase letters that by signing the agreement the parties understood that they were ‘relinquishing valuable property rights’. W did not argue that she was not bound by the PNA, but there was considerable dispute over the interpretation of a number of aspects of the PNA, and over level of support for their two young children. W’s entitlement under the PNA was £37. 5m comprising London home and balance of £23m available to meet income needs (on a ‘reverse Duxbury’ this gave her £1m pa, reducing on retirement).
Child maintenance under MCA 1973, but useful discussion of Sch1 cases on standard of living. H to pay £550,000 pa maintenance to meet shortfall between W’s income and her household expenditure, CPI linked, being, ‘an amount that will ensure that their lifestyle is not out of kilter with the father’s present and likely future lifestyle, and with the lifestyle the family enjoyed before the relationship breakdown’. H to also pay school fees and £100,000 pa for nannies, plus mortgage on house.
Maintenance secured by way of £14.3 million guarantee given by a reputable London bank (as in Maktoum, summarised here, in light of H’s history of breaching orders and because unlike an order under s 29(4) a secured order does not end on the death of the payer.
- Secured Provision
- Duxbury Capitalisation
- Children Act 1989 Schedule 1 Applications
- Child Maintenance