A High Court judge has ordered a wealthy entrepreneur to pay substantial interim child maintenance and legal costs after he relied on the so-called “millionaire’s defence” in proceedings brought on behalf of his young child.

The case concerned a child under four, whose mother issued proceedings under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989 seeking financial provision from the father. The father is described in the judgment as a high-profile and very wealthy businessman and philanthropist. Apart from paying one term’s nursery fees, he had made no financial contribution towards the child’s upbringing since birth.

In response to the mother’s application, the father advanced what is commonly known as the “millionaire’s defence”. He accepted that he was able to meet any reasonable order the court might make but sought to limit the scope of financial investigation and disclosure on the basis that full forensic enquiry into his wealth would be unnecessary and disproportionate.

The judge, Mr Justin Warshaw KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, accepted that the defence could be deployed to avoid detailed exploration of the father’s resources. However, he made clear that it did not reduce the court’s responsibility to ensure proper provision for the child, nor did it justify delaying or avoiding substantial interim orders.

The mother, who is self-employed and lives with her parents, was found to have modest capital and income when compared with the father’s wealth. The court rejected the suggestion that financial assistance provided by her parents should relieve the father of responsibility. The judge said the child was the responsibility of his parents, not his grandparents, and that third-party support could not be treated as a substitute for proper parental provision.

Applying established principles on interim funding and equality of arms, the court held that the mother could not reasonably be expected to fund the litigation from her own resources, borrow commercially, or rely on family loans. It was therefore appropriate for the father to meet the costs necessary to enable the case to be properly litigated on the child’s behalf.

On an interim basis, the court ordered the father to pay:

• £90,000 towards the mother’s unpaid legal costs;
• £40,000 towards her costs in related child arrangements proceedings;
• £160,000 towards her costs in the Schedule 1 proceedings up to a private financial dispute resolution hearing; and
• Interim maintenance of £6,250 per month for the child, backdated, together with payment of nursery fees.

In total, the immediate legal costs provision exceeded £290,000, reflecting the court’s view that the father’s admitted wealth and the importance of the issues justified substantial interim funding.

The judge emphasised that the “millionaire’s defence” is not a defence to making generous interim provision. While it may limit the need for intrusive disclosure, it does not displace the court’s duty to ensure that a child of a very wealthy parent is properly supported and that the financially weaker parent can participate in the proceedings on an equal footing.

The case will proceed to a full hearing, when the court will determine long-term financial provision for the child.

Please contact us if you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of family law.

Case: MH v FD
Citation: [2025] EWFC 390
Court: Family Court, Royal Courts of Justice
Judge: Mr Justin Warshaw KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
Date of judgment: 22 October 2025
Hearing date: 14 October 2024
Case number: 1742-9937-6961-6357