Court orders
In a recent case in the family court, the 'millionaire's defence' was considered in the midst of proceedings relating to child maintenance between unmarried partners. The term describes circumstances in which a party is so exceptionally wealthy that they can argue the claim can be calculated without reference to their wealth on the basis that they could afford to pay whatever sum the court might order, and so a disclosure is unnecessary. 
The couple concerned consisted of an American citizen, who had been a professional equestrian up until giving birth to her two children, and a member of a Middle Eastern royal family. He had lived in the UK since the age of 17, and had never undertaken royal duties. They married in an Islamic ceremony in 2018, meaning that the marriage was not recognised as valid under English law. 
In 2018, Mother moved to England to live with Father at his home, which was worth approximately £2.5 million. This was the family home, and was described as 'relatively modest', considering Father's overall wealth. The parties enjoyed an extravagant lifestyles (private jets, first-class flights, staff, expensive cars, luxury holidays abroad at least once a month, etc), and separated in 2021, a few months after the birth of their second child. 
Mother's initial position was that she required $980,000 per year for child maintenance, and $5.5m for housing. In addition to this, she sought $600,000 for furnishing, security, and cars, and a further $600,000 for horses. In contrast, Father's offer was $480,000 per year for child maintenance, $4m for housing, and $700,000 for furnishing, with no specific provision for horses. 
The judge did not accept Father's 'millionaire's defence' in full, but was willing to order that he only needed to provide limited financial disclosure, specifically the detailed court financial disclosure form. He did not need to provide any supporting documentation. The judge went on to say that the only reported case where the 'millionaire's defence' had succeeded in full and no disclosure had been made at all was in such a unique case that it did not establish precedent. Once again, the case was between members of a Middle Eastern royal family, where hundreds of millions were in question. 
The judge awarded Mother a housing provision of $5m, a $600,000 lump sum for furnishing, security, debts, and horses, a further lump sum of $150,000 for cars, and $500,000 a year in child maintenance. The judge also commented that, in reference to Mother's position of needed over $900,000 per year in child maintenance, that "M has projected some of her aspirations within the children's stated needs.". He went on to say, "I am clear that in reality this was a lifestyle enjoyed principally by M and F. It was not enjoyed by the children to anything like the same degree. When the parties separated in 2021, the children were respectively just under two years old and just over four months old. They cannot have had any real appreciation of the lavish lifestyle around them, or, for that matter, any recollection of it." 
Share this post:

Leave a comment: 

Our site uses cookies. For more information, see our cookie policy. Accept cookies and close
Reject cookies Manage settings