Fighting for Fairness: How the Courts Handle Wealth in Parenting Disputes

In W v X [2025] EWHC 1696 (Fam), the High Court was asked to determine appropriate financial provision for a child under Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989.

Schedule 1 remains a powerful tool for non-married parents seeking provision as the primary carer to protect a child’s welfare. Courts are willing to uphold high levels of child maintenance where lifestyle and need justify it.

This case in particular involved a high-net-worth father and a mother acting as the child’s primary carer. The judgment provides important guidance on balancing a child’s right to continue enjoying a familiar standard of living with ensuring reasonable provision for the caregiving parent.

The parties cohabited from 2016 until late 2023, although the exact separation date was disputed. During their relationship, they and their eight-year-old child enjoyed a luxurious lifestyle: private education, designer clothing, and holidays funded entirely by the father.

The child, who has ADHD and behavioural needs, required additional therapeutic and educational support. After the separation, the mother issued proceedings under Schedule 1, seeking maintenance and lump sums to support the child and her role as primary carer.

The father, a man of substantial means, invoked the “millionaire’s defence”, offering only limited financial disclosure via way of a schedule of assets, income and liabilities as opposed to providing the usual Form E1 which acts a complete and detailed financial statement.

 However, even on this abbreviated disclosure, his wealth was clear:

• Assets: £67.6 million
• Annual Income: £3.275 million

The mother, meanwhile, disclosed:

• Assets: £1.55 million
• Liabilities: £559,000 (including legal costs and loans)

She argued she should not have to use her modest resources to cover debts or maintain the child at a standard inconsistent with their previous lifestyle.

Mr Justin Warshaw KC applied established principles from Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989, prioritising the child’s welfare while ensuring the mother was not financially destabilised as the caregiving parent.

The court made several key findings:

• The child’s needs came first, including the need for a home and continuity of lifestyle.
• The mother’s request for financial support was partially inflated by personal claims disguised as the child’s needs.
• The father’s capacity to pay was unquestionable; he was found to be a committed parent, so no maintenance security was required.

To preserve the child’s standard of living, while protecting the mother from undue financial stress, the court ordered:

• Annual maintenance payable at £225,000 per year (indexed by CPI) payable until the child finishes secondary or tertiary education;
• A housing provision for father to pay the rent for the current home without a cap and if the mother moved, the father was to pay rent up to £178,200 p.a., indexed by RPI;
• A lump sum payment of £559,000 to clear the mothers debts; and
• Father to pay all educational expenses and school fees directly.

The mother was however required to fund school uniforms using the maintenance the father was paying her.

Despite the mother’s higher litigation costs, the court declined to penalise her further due to the disparity in resources, finding her prior contribution of assets towards costs adequate and fair. The mother did sell a watch for £178,600 and applied £140,000 towards her own costs. Mr Justin Warshaw KC deemed this to be an appropriate contribution towards her costs and effectively, F’s costs as he was reasonable for both parties’ costs and stated that this adequately took into account legitimate criticism of the mother’s litigation conduct and importantly the criticisms made of the father’s own conduct.

This case clearly demonstrates the balancing exercise that the court must complete when considering any schedule 1 claim. Whilst the father’s resources were vast, the court refused to entertain any excessive or unjustified claims by the mother. However, at the same time it recognised her vulnerable financial position, ensuring she could maintain a suitable home and lifestyle for the child who had already been accustomed to a wealthy lifestyle.

Importantly, the court’s refusal to award costs against the mother—despite her higher litigation spend—reflects a broader principle: the court will not penalise a financially weaker party for reasonably seeking provision to meet a child’s welfare needs.

Our family team are leaders in all types of dispute resolution and can guide you towards the right process. Please contact us on 020 7940 4060 or email us at mail@anthonygold.co.uk.

In addition, if you wish to discuss further any of the issues raised in this article our experienced Family Law solicitors are always here to help. Book your 1-hour fixed-fee consultation now: