DMS
Chambers

Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989

A significant part of Duncan’s practice concerns applications for financial provision for children under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 as well as chancery disputes between unmarried former-cohabitant couples (‘cohabitation disputes’) including under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (‘TLATA’). Often the two strands under TLATA and Sch. 1 must be advised on together.

Schedule 1 applications can address a wide range of financial considerations for a child, including orders to provide housing for the child and their primary carer, lump sum payments for necessities like school equipment and furnishing a property, and maintenance payments. Duncan provides clear and robust advice as to the powers of the court and the sensible limits of any claim.

This is an area where early advice and a clear plan is crucial – whether making an application or responding to one.

Some examples from Duncan’s cases under Sch. 1 have involved:

• Case: a jurisdictional dispute arising from an application made by a mother in South Africa against an alleged father in Europe but resident outside of the jurisdiction of England & Wales. Advising on nationality, habitual residence, domicile, and the EU maintenance regulation post-Brexit. F was a professional sportsperson eminent in his field.

• Case: interlinked chancery and Sch. 1 matter, with the Sch. 1 dispute arising from a multi-million-pound property, allegations of >£1m in cash being held on trust and the limits of M’s claim if successful in the chancery dispute given the assets held.

• Case: interlinked chancery, TLATA and Sch. 1 dispute including where one party alleged the other had transferred shares in a family business out of their name into the name of an adult child. F’s wealth estimated at c.£10m – £20m. At a pFDR negotiated outright transfer of the family home (without reversion) to M.

• Case: acting for F running the millionaire’s defence in multiple hearings including in a jurisdictional dispute as to the court’s powers concerning the eldest child, a LSO funding hearing, and an appeal. M was represented by a KC.

• Case: Sch. 1 dispute arising from a child born out of marriage for a married household-name professional sportsperson.

• Case: Sch. 1 dispute acting for very wealthy business owner (c.£20m). Ultimately negotiated successfully to a conclusion but M then seeking to resile from the agreement necessitating advice and a hearing on the application of Rose v Rose to Sch. 1 proceedings.

Unless agreed in writing otherwise, all bookings are accepted pursuant to the:

‘Standard Contractual Terms For The Supply Of Legal Services By Barristers To Authorised Persons’, a copy of which is found here: https://www.barcouncilethics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Contractual-Terms-2020-1.pdf