Family Court Grants Mother's Application for Interim Relief

Service update: Unfortunately, Willett & Co no longer offer family law services. If you need assistance with divorce, financial remedy, or pre-nuptial agreements, please seek a specialist family solicitor. We continue to advise on private client, property, commercial, crime, employment and dispute resolution matters.

The Family Court has granted a mother’s application for interim financial relief under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989, ordering a wealthy father to pay £6,250 per month in child maintenance together with substantial contributions towards the mother’s legal costs.

The decision highlights the Court’s approach to interim applications where one parent has significant wealth and the other is meeting the day-to-day needs of a child without meaningful financial support.

Background to the Case

Under Schedule 1, unmarried parents may apply for financial provision for their child, including maintenance, housing and associated costs.

In this case, the father was a high-profile entrepreneur with considerable wealth. He relied on the so-called “millionaire’s defence”, accepting that he was able to meet any reasonable order the Court might make, thereby limiting the need for detailed scrutiny of his finances.

The parents’ relationship ended before the child was born. Aside from paying one term of nursery fees, the father had not met any expenses relating to the child. The mother therefore issued Schedule 1 proceedings and applied for interim relief.

Court’s Assessment of Resources

The Court accepted that the father was very wealthy and that it was unnecessary, for the purposes of the interim application, to undertake a detailed enquiry into his resources.

The mother:

• had savings and investments of around £180,000;
• was living with the child in her parents’ home; and
• was self-employed, with a net annual income assessed at £50,000.

She stated that she owed her parents £164,000, including £92,000 relating to the child. The Court declined to treat those sums as income at this stage, noting that it would determine their proper treatment at trial. It also observed that it was unsurprising that the mother’s parents would provide financial support where the father had paid nothing.

Maintenance and Legal Costs Orders

The mother sought an interim lump sum exceeding £94,000 for birth-related and subsequent child expenses. The Court held that this element was not urgent and should be dealt with at trial.

However, the Court placed significant emphasis on ensuring both parties were properly represented. Given the father’s means, it ordered him to pay substantial sums towards the mother’s legal costs, including:

• £90,000 towards her costs to date;
• £160,000 towards the costs of the Schedule 1 proceedings; and
• £40,000 towards child arrangements proceedings.

Interim Maintenance Award

The Court assessed the mother’s appropriate interim budget, including child-related expenditure, at £125,000 per year. After taking account of her net income, it found a shortfall of £75,000 per year.

The father was therefore ordered to pay £6,250 per month in interim maintenance. This figure included a contribution towards the running costs of the mother’s parents’ home, where she and the child were living.

Q&A: Schedule 1 Interim Relief Explained

What is Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989?

Schedule 1 allows the Family Court to order financial provision for a child of unmarried parents, including maintenance, housing and lump sums.

What is interim relief?

Interim relief is temporary financial provision ordered while proceedings are ongoing, designed to meet immediate needs until a final hearing.

What is the “millionaire’s defence”?

It is an approach where a wealthy respondent accepts they can meet any reasonable order, reducing the need for detailed disclosure at an interim stage.

Can the Court order payment of legal costs in Schedule 1 cases?

Yes. The Court may order one party to contribute to the other’s legal costs, particularly where there is a significant disparity in resources.

Does this decide the final outcome?

No. Interim orders are provisional. Final financial provision will be determined at trial.