Cases under Schedule 1 of the Children Act often involve young children, unequal finances, and a parent seeking basic security. But MH v FD [2025] EWFC 390, decided by Mr Justin Warshaw KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, stands out. It is a striking illustration of what happens when a very wealthy parent refuses to provide meaningful financial support for a young child — and how the courts respond.
This interim judgment, concerning a child under four, contains important guidance on interim maintenance, legal fees funding, and the limits of the “millionaire’s defence.”
A High-Net-Worth Father Making Minimal Contribution
The father, a high-profile entrepreneur with multiple homes in the UK and abroad, accepted he was “very wealthy” and capable of meeting any order the court might make. Despite this, he had only paid one term of nursery fees and had made no other contribution to the child’s expenses since birth.
The mother, self-employed and living with her parents, had been reliant on her family for support. The father attempted to argue that this family support counted as a resource for her — an argument the judge described as an “unattractive submission.” The court made clear that a child’s financial support is the responsibility of the parents, not grandparents, however generous they may be.
The Millionaire’s Defence — Properly Explained
The father relied on the “millionaire’s defence.” The judgment provides a clear, accessible explanation of what this means:
- It is not a defence to financial disclosure. That must always be given.
- It is a defence against detailed forensic analysis of resources where the wealthy parent concedes they can meet any reasonable order.
This judgment is a helpful reminder that the millionaire’s defence is not a mechanism to avoid responsibility — merely a way to avoid unnecessary litigation costs where means are not in dispute.
Equality of Arms: Nearly £300,000 Awarded in Interim Legal Fees
One of the most striking aspects of this case is the scale of interim legal fees ordered:
- £90,000 for incurred and unpaid legal costs
- £40,000 for the mother’s s.8 Children Act proceedings
- £160,000 for the Schedule 1 proceedings
Total: £290,000
The judge applied the established principles from Currey v Currey (No. 2), Rubin v Rubin and BC v DE, emphasising fairness and equality of arms. In Schedule 1 cases, where the application is brought for the benefit of the child, ensuring proper representation for both sides is crucial. The father’s attempt to argue that the mother’s parents should continue to fund her litigation was firmly rejected.
The judge acknowledged concerns about the size of the fees but adopted a “broad brush” approach, ensuring the mother could continue to be represented without giving a blank cheque.
Interim Maintenance: Realistic Budgets, Not Lifestyle Inflation
The mother sought interim maintenance of between £16,000 and £24,000 per month. The father offered £5,000 per month.
The court took a balanced view:
- It rejected inflated or poorly evidenced items (such as holiday budgets and high nanny costs).
- It accepted that the mother should contribute to running costs of the home she shares with her parents.
The judge assessed a reasonable interim budget of £125,000 per year, offset against her estimated income of £50,000. The father was therefore ordered to pay £6,250 per month, backdated to September.
This is a helpful illustration of how courts approach budgets in Schedule 1 proceedings — not line-by-line scrutiny, but a realistic assessment of needs in the round.
A Clear Message on Parental Responsibility
Underlying the detailed analysis is a simple message:
A wealthy parent cannot offload financial responsibility onto the other parent’s family.
The court will intervene robustly to ensure that a child’s needs are met — and met fairly — even on an interim basis.
MH v FD is a reminder that Schedule 1 remains a vital tool, particularly where there is dramatic inequality of wealth and a primary carer who would otherwise be litigating at a disadvantage. It also provides a modern, practical explanation of how the millionaire’s defence operates in family law.
