Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2003] All ER (D) 29 (Feb)
Court: Family Division
Judge:

Charles J

Representation Barry Singleton QC for the father.
  Timothy Scott and QC Kerstin Boyd for the mother.
Judgment Dates: 28 November 2002

Catchwords

Children - Family proceedings - Orders relating to children - Financial provision - Application by father to vary order -  1 - ss 8(5), 8(3A)

The Case

On the father's application to vary the order made pursuant to Sch1 to the the court ruled, inter alia, that notwithstanding the fact that the mother had failed to comply properly with her obligation to provide the required evidence of payments to the nanny, the father's reasonable protection came from his ability to apply to vary the order, the ceiling of 25,000 and the duty of the mother to account. Accordingly, the order would not be varied.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.