{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","provider_name":"Transistor","provider_url":"https://transistor.fm","author_name":"Talking Family Law - The Resolution Podcast","title":"Resolution Podcast S3 Episode #12 | Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 | w/ Nicholas Allen KC & Michael Allum","html":"","width":"100%","height":180,"duration":3152,"description":"This is the final episode in Season 3 and we wanted to finish with a bang! Nicholas Allen KC (29 Bedford Row) and Michael Allum (The International Family Law Group LLP) join us to talk about applications pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989. \n \nMichael and Nick start by considering the line between payments that are properly for the benefit of the child and those which a court is likely to consider to be solely for the benefit of the parent (for example life insurance premiums or pension premiums).  Nick mentions the comments of Baroness Hale in a recent interview with Sam Hillas KC for the Financial Remedies Journal, where the Baroness says that Schedule 1 reminds her of the position before White v White for wives: https://financialremediesjournal.com/content/interview-with-baroness-hale.0a4bcf411d6346ba8dbdbdc4a9adb368.htm.  \n \nThey go on to examine the difference between Schedule 1 cases and Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 cases. They talk about how the resources of the receiving party, or their new partner, are unlikely to weigh in the balance in the same way as they do under the MCA.  Michael highlights that there are no sharing or compensation claims under Schedule 1. \n \nMichael tell us that to obtain provision after the child reaches their majority the Court is really considering whether there is a dependency, rather than a vulnerability.  Michael mentions UD v DN (Schedule 1, Children Act 1989; Capital Provision) [2022] 2 FLR 308 where the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against Williams J’s long-term property order in the children’s favour.  He then talks about the exceptional case of TK v LK (Rev2) [2024] EWFC 71 (02 April 2024), https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2024/71.html where the Court made an order for the housing fund to remain with the child. But he says that is incredibly rare indeed, save for by consent. \n \nNick and Michael discuss the rare occasion when Schedule 1 claims can be brought after parties have been divorced and...","thumbnail_url":"https://img.transistorcdn.com/6KLL2IpaFH3iBShZ7ocYn8lY8fxSACTIJV16OjWXP6U/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:400/h:400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS9zaG93/LzE5Mjc0LzE2MTcy/NzQ4OTQtYXJ0d29y/ay5qcGc.webp","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":300}