Her Royal Highness Haya Bint Al Hussein v His Highness Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum  EWFC 9419 November 2021
Published: 25/02/2022 09:00
High profile applications by W under Schedule 1, Part III MFPA and the Married Women’s Property Act 1882 concluded with a record-breaking award. Lump sum awarded to W of £251.5m including capitalised security costs (for W for life, the children to conclusion of tertiary) of £210m.
Moor J considered H’s conduct – in light of serious findings of abduction of two of his elder children and phone hacking of W and her legal team – 'extremely relevant' to the question of capitalisation of payments for security, with the 'magnetic factor' that H himself was the main threat to W. He declined to capitalise general maintenance for the children, as sought by W. There is a (rarely exercised) jurisdiction to do so, but it was not appropriate in this case. Exceptionally, periodical payments for the children will last until further order to cover their security costs in adulthood, secured by a £290m HSBC bank guarantee.
H’s challenge to standard Duxbury taxation assumptions, raised on Day 7 of the trial, was broadly rejected on the basis of limited evidence. The judgment also contains helpful commentary on the correct approach when one party (H) does not attend to give evidence (at ).
- Overseas Divorce and the 1984 Act
- Child Maintenance
- Duxbury Capitalisation
- Children Act 1989 Schedule 1 Applications