An ‘unedifying and actually moderately unhappy dispute’

A baffled choose has rejected a 41-year-old solicitor’s try to sue his dad and mom for monetary help.

The person identified solely as FS, who has psychological well being issues and has been unemployed since 2011, had been supported by his rich dad and mom all through his life, however they’d not too long ago fallen out.

FS argued amongst different issues that he needs to be entitled to monetary help beneath divorce and youngsters’s rights laws, in addition to invoking the courtroom’s “inherent jurisdiction”.

However Sir James Munby found decisively for the parents in what he referred to as an “unedifying and actually moderately unhappy dispute”, leaving FS with a invoice for practically £60,000 in prices.

In addition to being a certified solicitor, FS has a historical past diploma, a tax grasp’s and is learning for different skilled exams. He lives in a central London flat owned by his “very rich” dad and mom, who till not too long ago had been masking the utility payments as properly.

After the connection along with his father deteriorated, FS turned to the courts in an try to maintain the cash flowing. He argued that part 27 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which permits “both social gathering to a wedding” to use for “affordable upkeep”, needs to be interpreted to permit a toddler of the wedding to use for upkeep as properly.

He additionally made claims beneath the Kids Act 1989 and the courtroom’s inherent jurisdiction.

Munby opened by describing the case as “unprecedented”, saying that “the preliminary response of most skilled household attorneys can be a strong disbelief that there’s even controversial substance to any of it”. It nonetheless took him 177 paragraphs to get rid of.

The latest comments from across Legal Cheek

On the upkeep argument, the choose discovered that “the statutory language is obvious and means what it says… The straightforward truth… is {that a} youngster might apply for aid beneath part 27 solely the place there has already been an order within the youngster’s favour utilized for by one of many events to the wedding”.

He dismissed the Kids Act argument by stating that the laws particularly says that the facility to order funds to an grownup can’t be used “when the dad and mom of the applicant live with one another in the identical family”. FS’s dad and mom do reside collectively.

Munby additionally rejected an argument based mostly on the courtroom’s inherent jurisdiction to guard youngsters and susceptible adults. Whereas it gives a normal authorized security web, “the legislation — that’s, the frequent legislation and fairness — by no means entertained a explanation for motion or declare between a financially dependent grownup youngster and his dad and mom”.

Whereas the case is weird in some ways, Munby’s dialogue of this idea — as a former head of the household courts — could also be of curiosity to household attorneys. Catherine Rowlands of Cornerstone Barristers stated that the case “gives clear steering as to the boundaries of the courtroom’s inherent jurisdiction”.