It was agreed between the parties during the recent proceedings that Goodman and the children would be able to occupy the Sussex property until Kinara finishes her education (up to a first degree), that Goodman would receive a replacement car every three years until the end of Kinara’s education, that Walker would pay Kinara’s nursery and school fees and extras and that he would pay child maintenance for Kinara until she finished education (up to a first degree).
Overall, it was generally accepted by the judge that Walker’s evidence was preferable to Goodman’s evidence and not all of Goodman’s claims were successful. Her demands for £33,000 for air conditioning in the Sussex property and £31,200 to install astroturf in the garden, for example, were denied on the basis that they were not considered necessary or reasonable.
Other points to note when faced with a Schedule 1 claim
Parties will be expected by the court to consider non-court dispute resolution (NCDR) options such as mediation, private hearings, collaborative law and arbitration to try and resolve cases fairly, quickly and proportionately.
Following recent changes to the law, the court now has the power to adjourn proceedings for NCDR to be attempted unless there are good reasons not to do.
Both parties will be required to provide full and frank financial disclosure of their respective incomes and assets. There is likely to be an in-depth analysis of the child’s standard of living while the parents were still together, the standards of living after separation and consideration will no doubt also be given to how the paying party’s other children, if any, are living and being educated.
In most cases, as the property will revert back to the paying party when the child finishes education, the paying party may be concerned with how to best protect their investment property in the interim.
Parties may therefore wish to agree certain terms where housing is to be provided for a child and the paying party can also expect to pay some renovation and property maintenance costs.
Litigating Schedule 1 Children Act proceedings at this level can come at a great cost. In Goodman v Walker, Goodman incurred a total of £259,298 in legal costs and Walker incurred a total of £171,440 in legal costs. High earners can however expect to pay or contribute towards the other party’s legal costs.
If paternity is an issue, this will need to be dealt with in the first instance as a preliminary issue. DNA tests will most likely be ordered by the court.
