The High Court has limited the additional financial disclosure required in a family law case where a respondent is seeking to vary ongoing maintenance arrangements for a child.
The proceedings concern D.D. and N.B.T. and their child, identified as T. A December 2021 settlement provided for periodic maintenance, expenses connected with T.’s care and a number of other financial arrangements, including provisions relating to a house, shares, a motor vehicle and life assurance.
In May 2024, the respondent sought variation of the settlement. He claimed in an affidavit that the maintenance was excessive relative to T.’s needs and referred to additional demands for money. The court recorded that these were his allegations and that the present application appeared focused on ongoing payments rather than previously agreed capital provision.
At a case management hearing, the issue was how extensively the respondent should have to vouch, or provide documents supporting, his Affidavit of Means.
Ms Justice Nuala Jackson held that the extent of financial disclosure must be tailored to what is necessary and appropriate for the actual application. The respondent was not claiming that he could no longer afford maintenance. His solicitors had stated that he could pay whatever the court directed and that his case concerned the child’s actual expenditure.
The judge therefore directed disclosure focused principally on income. This included proof that income shown in a tax return had actually been received and production of the respondent’s employment contract. Some bank and other records already agreed between the parties were also to be provided.
However, the court rejected broader requests for an extensive examination of the respondent’s assets, company affairs, investment proceeds and vehicle documentation. Certain large withdrawals required a brief explanation, but named recipients did not have to be disclosed.
The judge stressed that the disclosure requirements could be revisited if the scope of the substantive case changed. The legal question of whether maintenance can ultimately be varied on the grounds advanced remains for the substantive hearing. Costs of the case management hearing were reserved.