Financial Remedies Journal: Case Summary: G v W [2022] EWHC 101 (Fam) written by, Stephanie Coker, published on 11 May 2022.

Sir Jonathan Cohen.

An appeal in Schedule 1 proceedings following Re A (Schedule 1, Overspend, Costs Clawback) ⁠[2022] EWFC 21. Permission was granted to M to appeal the decision to dismiss her claim for additional payments for a nanny, and additional lump sums for security provision for her new home (this was later agreed between the parties); [7]. M renewed her application for permission to appeal other parts of the judge’s order, including the costs clawback; [6].

The judge noted that it was not unreasonable for M to need a nanny as she was moving out of the family home to live alone with the child in a new home. F would not be assisting M with childcare. Provision was therefore made for a nanny; [31].

Past childcare costs incurred by M were backdated to when the professional nanny began caring for the child. However, these sums were reduced by 50% to reflect the fact that M incurred these costs knowing full well that the court expressly refused to make provision for them. No provision was made for M’s other debts, which the judge described as being ‘caused by reckless over-expenditure’; [29].

The judge disagreed that the existence of M’s debt would impact on the child’s welfare, or that there was a child-focused argument for those sums to be paid by F. The provision for costs clawback was within the discretion of the judge and did not amount to an unreasonable fetter of M’s access to justice; [32]. The appeal in respect of the nanny provision was allowed. M’s application for permission to appeal other parts of the order was rejected; [33–36].

Stephanie Coker is a barrister at 5SAH Chambers, she practices exclusively in Family Law and is a qualified mediator.