In cases where the paying party’s gross annual income exceeds £650,000, this formula currently does not apply, and the court has discretion to determine what would be the appropriate level of maintenance payable in the circumstances.
This was the case in Goodman v Walker, where Walker’s gross income was said to be between £7mn and £10mn per year.
Other awards
In addition to maintenance, the court also has the power to make additional orders in favour of the resident parent for the benefit of a child where appropriate to do so. This includes:
- A lump sum to be awarded to the resident parent to meet expenses that were already incurred in connection with the birth of the child or in maintaining that child.
- Provision for future expenditure including a car to transport the child, funds for future nursery or school fees and furniture for the house.
- A property to be transferred or purchased to provide housing for the resident parent and the child. In most cases, the house will revert back to the non-resident parent upon the child becoming 18 years old or completing tertiary education, or upon the resident parent either marrying someone else or cohabiting with someone else as husband and wife for a continuous period (typically six months).
- Payment of the resident party’s legal fees and even paying off the resident party’s existing debts where it would be considered for the benefit of the child.
Claims are generally limited to those made on the children’s behalf, although an award can extend beyond the direct expenses of the children where the mother cannot contribute or cover expenses of her own household from her own means.
The judge in Goodman v Walker referred to the earlier 2022 case of Collardeau-Fuchs v Fuchs where it was determined that it is permissible to support the child by supporting the mother, however, the expenses must be connected to her role as the children’s carer.
Examples given in that case included the provision of a car being an appropriate expense but a subscription to a nightclub for the mother not being an appropriate expense.
In deciding the appropriate order to make, the court considers the financial positions of both parents (including their respective incomes and current and future earning capacities), the needs and obligations of both parents, the needs of the child, any physical or mental disability of the child and the child’s education needs.
In addition, the court will consider the non-resident parent’s standard of living, recognising that the child’s standard of living will need to bear some form of resemblance. This proved to be the case in Goodman v Walker.
Goodman v Walker
In big money cases such as Goodman v Walker, where the non-resident parent has a high standard of living, this would usually be reflected in the assessment of the child’s own needs, hence why the provision of a house worth £2.4mn and child maintenance of £150,000 a year were seen to be reasonable for Goodman.
While the object was not necessarily to replicate Walker’s own standard of living for Kairo and Kinara, the children’s circumstances would need to bear some sort of relationship to their father’s standard of living and not be entirely out of kilter with that being enjoyed by Walker and his family.
The judge’s view in this case was that affordability is not an issue and that Walker is able to meet reasonable financial claims made by Goodman. In contrast, Goodman’s net assets at the time of the proceedings were worth less than £11,000 and her own income-earning capacity was considered to be insignificant.
