The High Court varied an existing maintenance order on an interim basis while a substantive appeal remains pending, setting maintenance at the amount sought by the mother but allowing the monthly family home mortgage to be paid from credit union accounts held for the couple’s three children.
In a judgment delivered on 25 November 2020, Mr Justice Max Barrett said the appeal was due to be heard in summer 2021. The court ordered monthly maintenance of Sum HH. Pending that appeal, the obligation may be met by paying the full monthly mortgage obligation from the children’s credit union accounts, leaving Sum II to be paid directly by the father to the mother.
The judge stressed that this arrangement was not an order for maintenance at the lower amount represented by the direct payment. The maintenance order remained at Sum KK per month, with the temporary payment method allowed for the interim period. The court varied the Circuit Court order to permit that arrangement. It also said that, if court approval was considered necessary, orthodontic costs for one child could be paid from the accounts.
The father had sought a lower interim maintenance amount, relying on his income, rent, car costs, debts to family members and responsibility for mortgage payments. The mother accepted that a temporary reduction was warranted while he met an unexpected tax liability, but argued the father’s proposal would not provide enough for the children. She agreed that his share of the mortgage and the one-off orthodontic costs could be met from the accounts, while seeking to preserve as much of their funds as possible.
The judge accepted the mother’s position on the maintenance level, saying it was not possible to feed and provide for three growing children on the amount proposed by the father. The court proceeded on the express understanding that the father had no other income, money or savings beyond what he described in his affidavit, including no undisclosed savings in the sole account into which his salary had traditionally been paid.
The judgment directed the father’s counsel to prepare and circulate a draft order. Once its form was agreed, the court would arrange for it to issue. The judge proposed making no order as to costs, subject to any further argument from the parties.