Re S (a Child: Unmarried parents: Financial provision)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE THORPE,LORD JUSTICE LAWS,LADY JUSTICE HALLETT,Lord Justice Thorpe |
| Judgment Date | 26 July 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWCA Civ 1310 |
| Docket Number | B4/2004/2280 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 26 July 2006 |
[2006] EWCA Civ 1310
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRY OF THE FAMILY DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE BENNETT)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2
Lord Justice Thorpe
Lord Justice Laws
Lady Justice Hallett
B4/2004/2280
MR S THROWER (instructed by Messrs Meer Care & Desai, LONDON, W1H 7AL) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
MR J POSNANSKY (instructed by Messrs Levison Meltzer Pigott, LONDON, EC4M 7JU) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
We are assembled this morning to decide what should be the upper limit of the housing fund to provide a suitable home for the child in question between her present age and her attaining majority.
We have been helped considerably by a beautifully prepared bundle of properties, submitted by Mr Posnansky on behalf of the father. Each of them is identified in a location map and it is very easy to see the range of what money buys you in the areas covered by his search. Mr Thrower has put in a bundle of many properties, less focused than Mr Posnansky's contribution, but he has taken us through a number of properties in the bundle, as well as throwing all his weight behind a submission that we should endorse the mother's desire to stay where she is presently living.
Inevitably this is a broad brush, discretionary conclusion, and I express the judgment of the court. We have, inevitably, individually different views as to what is the appropriate figure, but we have collectively arrived at a shared conclusion. Our first conclusion is that the existing property is no longer affordable. The owner has indicated a willingness to negotiate a sale at about £1.375 million net, and that would take the gross fund to something slightly exceeding £1.4 million. So coming down to earth, as I would express it, we have seen a range of properties. Inevitably the further you move from, as it were, the epicentre of the luxury market, the cheaper properties become. So in the end there will be a choice for the mother and the trustees between a good size flat relatively close to the school, or a more extensive property, and even a house, further out towards the periphery of the search...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re N (A Child) (Payments for Benefit of Child)
...[1996] 2 FLR 230. R (Child), Re (21 October 1999, unreported), CA. S (Unmarried Parents: Financial Provisions), Re[2006] EWCA Civ 479, [2006] 2 FLR 950. T (a child: contact), Re[2002] EWCA Civ 1736, [2003] 1 FCR 303, [2003] 1 FLR T v S (Financial Provision for Children)[1994] 1 FCR 743, [19......
-
A (A Child)
...Re P set a fixed benchmark applicable to these super rich cases. This was indeed confirmed by Thorpe LJ and Laws LJ in Re S (Unmarried Parents: Financial Provisions) [2006] 2 FLR 950, at paragraphs 13 and 21. Each case turns on its own facts because these cases are always different in one w......
-
Re N (Financial Provision: Dependency)
...Civ 837, [2003] 2 FLR 865, at paras [45], [54]. He also referred to Re S (Unmarried Parents: Financial Provisions) [2006] EWCA Civ 479, [2006] 2 FLR 950, at para [4], but I do not find that of any particular assistance in this context. For good measure the father says that this particular ......
-
Kd v Pd (Dm and Wm as Interested Parties)
...[2011] 3 F.C.R. 208; [2011] Fam. Law 791, considered. (5) C v. Finland (2006), 46 E.H.R.R. 485; [2006] 2 FLR 597; [2006] 2 F.C.R. 195; [2006] Fam. Law 633; [2006] ECHR 543, considered. (6) F (Shared Residence Order), Re, [2003] EWCA Civ 592; [2003] 2 FLR 397; [2003] 2 F.C.R. 164; [2003] Fam......