The Inner House Of The Court Of Session Has Turned Down A Dad’S Appeal Against A Judge’S Ruling That He Should Cover The Entire School Fees For Three Of His Kids To Go To Different Private Schools Until He Quit His Job, And Then One-Sixth Of Those Costs. The Dad, Mr Z, Argued That The Judge Was Wrong To Consider His Resources Up To His Resignation When Deciding If He Could Afford The Fees. The Appeal Was Heard By Lord Malcolm, Lord Tyre, And Lady Wise, With Smith KC Representing Mr Z And Brabender KC Representing Ms X.
The Couple Split In 2018 And Got Divorced In 2020. They Agreed That Mr Z Should Pay For The School Fees Of Their Three Youngest Kids, Known As “James”, “Diana”, And “Euan”, Who Attended Different Boarding Schools. The Fees Issue Came Up Again In October 2022 After Mr Z Resigned From A Senior Position In A Finance Firm Due To A Criminal Conviction For Assaulting Ms X And Breach Of The Peace.
The Judge Ruled That Mr Z Would Be Responsible For 100% Of The School Fees For The Kids Until 4 July 2022, The Date Of His Resignation, And Then One-Sixth Of Those Fees. He Was Also Ordered To Reimburse Ms X For School Fees She Had Paid For Two Of The Kids Up To That Point.
Mr Z’S Representative Argued That The Judge Failed To Consider The Fact That Mr Z Was Almost Broke By The Time Of The Hearing, And Instead Relied On His Resources Up To 4 July 2022. They Claimed That The Judge Made A Backdated Award For Educational Expenses That Was Not Justified.
Regarding The One-Sixth Contribution Going Forward, The Judge Took Into Account Potential Proceeds From The Sale Of A Reservoir That Mr Z Had Bought In March 2022. It Was Argued That The Evidence Provided By Mr Gourlay, A Director Of The Private Bank Used By Mr Z, Was Not Enough To Justify A Finding That Proceeds From The Sale Of The Reservoir Could Be Used To Pay School Fees.
Lady Wise, Speaking For The Court, Noted That A Party’S Ability To Pay School Fees Is Not Just Based On Income, But Also On Capital Resources. She Said That The Judge Was Right To Consider The Needs Of The Parties And Their Children, As Well As Their Income And Capital Resources, Before Deciding How The Liability For School Fees Could Be Met.
On The Reservoir Issue, She Stated That The Judge Was Justified In Identifying The Reservoir As A Realisable Resource, As It Had Been Purchased Recently And Was A Marketable Asset. She Also Pointed Out That Mr Z Had Chosen To Prioritize Acquiring Assets For Himself Over Meeting His Obligations To His Children, Which The Judge Was Entitled To Take Into Account.
She Concluded That The Decision For Mr Z To Pay Only One-Sixth Of Each Child’S Fees Took Into Account His Reduced Circumstances. She Also Noted That The Burden Would Be Heavier On Ms X, Whose Capital Settlement Had Already Been Reduced By Paying For James And Diana’S School Fees When Mr Z Refused To Pay.
Lady Wise Also Supported The Judge’S Approach To Foreseeable Resources, Stating That The Conclusion Reached Was Easily Justified By The Circumstances Of The Case. She Said That Even If The Focus On Past Resources Was Seen As A Mistake, The Overall Result Was Fair.
In The End, She Stated That The Decision For Mr Z To Pay All Of The Children’S School Fees Until His Resignation Must Be Seen As Part Of A Holistic Decision. She Emphasized That The Court Must Ensure That Any Order It Makes Can Be Met From Present And Foreseeable Resources, And That The Liability For All Fees Prior To July 2022 Is Just One Part Of A Decision That Requires Mr Z To Pay Only A Small Fraction Of The Total School Fees Bill Thereafter.
As A Result, The Appeal Was Rejected.
+ There are no comments
Add yours