HHJ Hess. High-profile Schedule 1 Final Hearing between Lauryn Goodman and Kyle Walker in which the judge made transparency orders in accordance with the guidance set out in the Transparency Reporting Pilot for Financial Remedy Proceedings.

The parties are Ms Lauryn Goodman, the mother, Kyle Walker, the father. Mr Walker is a high-profile professional footballer who, during the currency of the proceedings, played for Manchester City and England. The parties have two children together, Kairo (4) and Kinara (1). The parties have never cohabitated.

There were long-running Schedule 1 proceedings between the parties regarding provision for the parties’ eldest child, Kairo, which were finally concluded in November 2022. Ms Goodman brought her application under Schedule 1 for additional provision for Kinara shortly Kinara’s birth in June 2023.

The issues which fell to be determined by the judge at Final Hearing were as follows:

1. Removal of the cap of £1,350,000 on the housing budget should the mother move outside an (agreed) 100-mile radius of her current property in Sussex (Mr Walker purchased a property for £2,400,000 in excess of the £1,850,000 ‘Sussex cap’ during the course of the proceedings). The £1,350,000 cap was a ‘deal’ reached by the parties in the 2022 proceedings. The judge noted the reason for the inclusion of this ‘perhaps unusual’ provision was Ms Goodman’s threat to move close to Mr Walker’s family home in Cheshire. The judge considered that the reason for the inclusion of the provision persisted and that there was no prejudice to Ms Goodman in retaining the provision. The judge determined that it would be inappropriate and unfair to remove the cap.
2. Removal of a cohabitation clause which terminated the housing provision on Ms Goodman’s cohabitation. Ms Goodman had argued against this clause in 2022, lost, and had not appealed on this point. The judge noted that the clause was not an unusual clause (it being reproduced from the Standard Family Order). The clause includes a caveat requiring the court’s permission before a sale of the property. On that basis, the judge commented that it was ‘difficult to see any significant injustice arising from the inclusion of [the] clause’. The judge determined that it would be inappropriate and unfair to remove the cohabitation clause.
3. Whether Ms Goodman had the absolute right to spend up to £3,000 of a housing / repair budget of £10,000 provided by Mr Walker and held by a managing agent. The judge concluded on the basis of the evidence that it would not be appropriate to provide Ms Goodman with access to these funds. The judge found that Mr Walker and his representatives dealt with property management ‘on a perfectly reasonable basis’, noting that Mr Walker was ‘reliable and conscientious’ in dealing with these issues.
4. Additional lump sums sought by Ms Goodman (and opposed by Mr Walker) to fund the installation of air conditioning (£33,000), astroturf (£31,200), and internal remodelling (£4,000). The judge was not persuaded that the installation of air conditioning was necessary in an English home. In a much-quoted paragraph [48] (which it is not possible to do justice in summary), the judge determined that the lump sum sought by Ms Goodman to fund the installation of an astroturf football playing area was not necessary or reasonable. Nor was the judge persuaded that Ms Goodman required a lump sum to fund internal remodelling (which, on the evidence, seemed to have already been undertaken in any event).
5. A further furnishing fund of £20,000 sought by Ms Goodman (beyond the £75,000 received in the 2022 proceedings) and opposed by Mr Walker. The judge determined that a lump sum of £5,000 ‘specifically targeted at Kinara’s needs, and in particular her bedroom’ would be reasonable.
6. An increase to the car replacement budget from £45,000 every four years to £70,000 sought by Ms Goodman. Mr Walker proposed instead that the budget of £45,000 be (both retrospectively to April 2022, and forward-looking) CPI linked. The judge was not persuaded that there was a compelling reason to go behind the figure determined in 2022 (and not appealed or increased). The judge determined that the CPI uplift was appropriate.
7. A lump sum of £7,500 plus VAT sought by Ms Goodman to meet estimated legal fees for perfecting and implementing the order made by the judge. Opposed by Mr Walker who proposed a sum of £2,500 plus VAT. The judge provided for a sum of £5,000 plus VAT with any surplus to be returned to Mr Walker.
8. Whether Mr Walker should provide a (jointly held) capital fund for nursery and school fees for both children as sought by Ms Goodman and opposed by Mr Walker. The judge accepted Mr Walker’s evidence that he would ‘always be reliable and available to pay’ the nursery and school fees. The judge determined that there was no need for capitalisation and that it would make arrangements more complicated. The judge directed that Mr Walker may have direct contact with the bursar of any school or nursery attended by the children to avoid any administrative issues.
9. The quantum of global child maintenance (to be increased from £9,188 pcm per the 2022 orders accounting for CPI). Ms Goodman sought £14,750 pcm (CPI-linked). Mr Walker proposed £12,500 pcm (CPI-linked). The judge determined that Mr Walker’s figure was ‘fair and reasonable’ noting that ‘some would say it is generous’. The judge refers to a line-by-line comparative budget put forward by Mr Walker’s counsel with a lower bottom-line figure than the offer offered by Mr Walker.
10. Whether there were arrears of interim child maintenance payments pursuant to an order made by the judge on 10 January 2024 and the 2022 orders. In respect of arrears arising from the interim January 2024 order, the judge noted it was an error that Mr Walker had made deductions from these payments ‘even if there was some mathematical justification’. The judge provided for payment of the arrears and made an order for costs in the sum of £2,020 in respect of Ms Goodman’s enforcement application (summarily assessed). The judge noted that the determination of whether arrears remained owing under the 2022 order was complicated by Ms Goodman’s solicitors’ miscalculation of the amount due and Mr Walker having made additional voluntary payments. The judge determined that any arrears should be remitted and no order as to costs in respect of Ms Goodman’s enforcement application.
11. The quantum and capitalisation of childcare funding (to be increased from £1,040 pcm as determined by Sir Jonathan Cohen in a hearing reported as G v W [2022] EWHC 1101). Ms Goodman sought £3,900 pcm until September 2027 (when Kinara is likely to commence primary school) and £2,600 until September 2033 (when Kinara is likely to commence secondary school). Mr Walker proposed £2,080 pcm until September 2027, and £1,040 until September 2033. Ms Goodman sought capitalisation of the childcare provision. The judge noted that it was his task to ‘recast the spirit’ of Sir Jonathan Cohen’s order ‘into a situation where there are two children of Kairo and Kinara’s ages’. In so doing, the judge determined that Mr Walker’s offer was fair and reasonable save that it should be CPI-linked with effect from May 2022 (the date of Sir Jonathan Cohen’s judgment) but without backdating so as to require the payment of arrears.
12. Whether Mr Walker should provide additional funds to provide Ms Goodman with funds to provide three months’ notice to her current nanny as sought by Ms Goodman and opposed by Mr Walker. The judge was not persuaded that Mr Walker should provide additional funds to give the current nanny a notice period. The judge noted that Ms Goodman ought to have resolved this issue earlier.
13. An additional lump sum of £30,000 for Ms Goodman to purchase a car for her nanny to be replaced every three years and CPI-linked). The judge considered that it was appropriate for the nanny to have access to a ‘run-around’ car and provided for a one-off payment of £12,000 conditional on Ms Goodman providing Mr Walker with evidence that she has employed a nanny with a full driving license.
14. ‘Snagging’ issues (59 items) raised by Ms Goodman in relation to works at her home. The judge made no order in respect of the snagging list. It was conceded on behalf of Ms Goodman that it would not be appropriate for the judge to deal with the list on a line-by-line basis. The judge further commented that he did not have sufficient evidence to deal with the list on that basis even if minded to do so. The judge concluded that he had ‘no reason to believe that the father will not deal with any meritorious aspects of the snagging list’, and encouraged the parties to compromise any dispute outside of court.

The judge considered that Mr Walker’s presentation was ‘sensible, honest and reliable’. On the other hand, he considered that Ms Goodman’s evidence was ‘not reliable’ and noted that she ‘often said what she thought would help her case rather than what was true … and often exaggerated her need to spend money’.

The judge found that Mr Walker had broadly complied with the 2022 orders and had, in addition, made significant capital provision over and above the 2022 orders to cover significant legal fees, the purchase of and works to Ms Goodman’s home, £30,000 towards the ‘capital needs’ of Kinara, £27,000 for a maternity nanny, £16,678 to secure a nanny plus £5,590 pcm for nanny costs (without prejudice to his position that a full-time nanny was not required) and £7,000 pcm for child maintenance for Kinara (without prejudice to his position that this was an excessive amount).

The judge followed the procedures set out in the Transparency Reporting Pilot for Financial Remedy Proceedings making an interim transparency order on 16 July 2024 to regulate reporting in advance of the Final Hearing. Accredited journalists were permitted to attend hearings and to receive copies of the parties’ position statements and the ES1.

At the Final Hearing, the judge was addressed by counsel on behalf of Associated Newspapers, supported by Mr Walker, in respect of the question of whether he should make a final transparency order which would permit publication of information regarding the proceedings, including the judgment without redaction or anonymisation. Ms Goodman sought anonymisation of judgment. The judge considered that it was appropriate for the judgment to be made public and made a final transparency order taking into consideration the following:

1. There has been extensive press coverage of the parties’ relationship.
2. Mr Walker had attempted to keep Kinara’s paternity secret. The judge found that Ms Goodman was ‘overwhelmingly responsible’ for the press coverage of the parties’ relationship and Kinara’s parentage. Indeed, it was found by the judge that Ms Goodman had been able to ‘leverage’ a substantial increase to the housing cap (from £1.85m as determined in 2022 to £2.4m) by hinting that she would otherwise reveal Kinara’s paternity.
3. It was contended on behalf of Associated Newspapers that it would be ‘artificial to suggest that the parents could not be identified if there was reporting of these proceedings on an anonymised basis’. The judge agreed noting that it was clear that Ms Goodman had ‘not just cooperated, but actively instigated’ the press coverage of the proceedings and placing personal details regarding the children and Mr Walker into the public domain.